Ya Know... For Every Person Accusing Some Of Us Of Being "Purists", I Would Love To Know...

[WillyT]

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:52 PM - Edit history (2)

Without Name... Real Or DUer...

How much money do you make?

How much property do you own?

How is your retirement plan looking?

How's your health plan?

Your kids doing alright?

Because if you are... and they are...

IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF A BUNCH OF HUDDLED TOGETHER CENTRISTS CONCERNED FOR YOU, MADE THAT HAPPEN!

A whole bunch of people got slaughtered in the streets for that to happen...

Y'all got there on the backs of the rest of the population, and you owe them a lot better than they've been given.

[WillyT]

1. Oh Yeah... I'll Kick It Again !!!

[WillyT]

2. And...

[WillyT]

6. And... Curiously...

My Post is still here (at DU)...

But the Union (CWA) graphic where I found it is no longer...



Original Post:

American Bloody Labor History - Never Forget
CWA Local 1103
Posted On: Nov 06, 2010 (11:35:19)

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002755708

[merrily]

154. +1

[leftofcool]

3. Let me get this straight

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Because both hubby and I have worked for almost 50 years, own our home, put 3 kids through college. still have a decent health plan, a home that is paid for and a 401k, give monies to our favorite charities, buy Christmas presents for less fortunate kids in our county, support the Amish orphanage, pay our taxes, pay our own insurance, property taxes, support the volunteer fire department and when we hire to get things done around here, we hire locally and pay cash so they don't have to claim it. And we did all this on the backs of others? Uh, no we did not. We worked, we scrimped, we saved as much as possible, we went without so our kids didn't have to. And, now, we can afford to do some of the things we like and buy art supplies and books when we want to, and music, and take a few little road trips in our old age. There are many like us, who can now live a bit more comfortable and say we are doing okay and not one of us did it on the backs of others.

[WillyT]

5. You And Yor Husband Built The Schools, The Roads To The Schools, The Busses That Use The Roads To...

Those Schools, Hired The Teachers/Administrators, approved and purchased the text-books, etc...

Look... I know that's unfair... but we ALL stand on the shoulders/ladders that were erected before us.

We either pay it forward for those climing behind us... or...

Well I'll let you figure that one out.

[leftofcool]

7. I was a teacher and yes, we do help build roads and schools

Where do you think that 2K per year in property taxes go? You think being a teacher/public servant for 30 years is standing on the shoulders of someone else? You really ought to quit while you are ahead.

[WillyT]

9. See... The 2K Per Year You And Your Husband Spent Each Year Mght Have Gotten You 100' Of Road...

At Best...

But by pooling it together with fellow citizens, in larger numbers, you can really get a lot of things done.

Hell... done right... you might be able to build a school... and if enough taxes are raised...

You might even be able to hire a teacher or two.

[WillyT]

30. Well... blueboy... Appears To Be 12...

[WillyT]

40. Nah Man... I'm New Here... Just Gettin A Feel For The Place...

Your advice will be both invaluable, and welcome.

[Rex]

44. .

[daleanime]

48. gently, gently......

we don't want to scare them off.

[marble falls]

57. WillyT - what do you suppose that idiot was really saying with, "Well said. Well spoken."?....

You have a lot more patience with him than I would have.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. "Fauxcahantas?"

Let's see. Where did I see that insulting nickname last? Oh yes, I remember now.

[L0oniX]

102. Do they come with jalapeno flavor?

[el_bryanto]

8. ANd by paying it forward you mean voting in the way you would prefer them to vote?

For the record, Ii'm unlikely to support HRC in the primary if another candidate presents itself - she's too beholden to Wall Street - but I don't think that people who do support her are necessarily stabbing the people who come before them in the back.

Bryant

[WillyT]

12. I Don't Think So Either... I Think It;s A Syndrome Used Agianst GW...

"He was born on third base, thinking he had scored a triple."

See post #6 for what I'm saying.

[sabrina 1]

33. If you were a mother in Iraq whose baby was blown to bits by our humanitarian bombs, you might see

it differently,

I know, I know, it's all about the bubble we Americans live in.

That mother in Iraq, who grieves as deeply as a mother here would if an invading country bombed HER baby to smithereens, doesn't matter to Americans who are so disconnected from the world, that they are totally unaware of the suffering our Government inflicts on innocent people every, single day with our WMDs.

I wish I could be one of those who can ignore that HRC together with Bush/Cheney sentenced tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children to death, and hat I could view those people as 'not as human as we Americans are'.

Because to me, when I watched Democrat support Cheney/Bush's murderous intentions that night, I knew that my conscience could NEVER, EVER forget that death sentence to mothers and children, grandmothers and fathers, who love their children as deeply as any American does.

I will never, ever support any person who participated in that slaughter.

And if that makes me unworthy of this forum, then that is a teeny, tiny price to pay for sticking to the principles THIS FORUM claimed back then. We'll see if they were sincere.

Sen Byrd spoke for me the night HRC betrayed the trust the people of NY placed in her.

He spoke of what would happen to the innocent people of Iraq. She never mentioned them.

I will never ever support any accomplice of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in their bloody war against innocents in Iraq.

And every one who, for political purposes, set their humanity aside and joined the War Criminals to make it possible for the slaugher in Iraq, are also guilty of a great crime against humanity.

Thank YOU Rep. Kucinich and Sen Byrd. You will go down in history as honorable men. Not so those who made that slaughter possible.

[WillyT]

46. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[daleanime]

49. Amen....

[NanceGreggs]

56. BTW ...

... who did you vote for in 2004?

[sabrina 1]

61. What a strange diversion from the topic at hand.

There is an old saying, 'never ask a question you don't know the answer to'.

I remember Dahr Jamail's photo journalism which documented the dead babies, so many of them.

One photo in particular stands out in my memory. A father, overwhelmed with grief, beside the body of his beloved, pregnant wife. And the body of his baby, blown from the body of his mother by one of Bush/Cheney and their partners in crimes' bombs. Two bodies, a baby ripped from his mother's womb and the mother. But there were so many others too. I swore I would never become 'conditioned' to the horror I felt then. Nor ever forget who made it possible. I am comfortable in saying that I have kept that promise to myself.

So who did you vote for in 2004?

[NanceGreggs]

62. Not a diversion whatsoever.

You said, "I will never, ever support any person who participated in that slaughter."

I voted for Kerry in 2004. He voted "yes" to authorize Dubya's war on Iraq.

Who did you vote for?

(BTW, I appreciate the irony - you accuse me of diverting from the topic at hand, and then answer my very straightforward question about who you voted for with a rant about photos of dead babies.)

[sabrina 1]

64. You said nothing related to the tragedies I posted about. You chose to turn those

horrific tragedies into a political attempt at 'gotcha'. AND you asked a question you did not know the answer to. Iow, you ASSUMED something you had no clue about.

In 2004 I supported ONLY those candidates who opposed that murderous invasion.

Clearly you voted for political reasons. I did not.

Another image embedded forever in my mind is of a little boy named Ali. CNN made the error, from the Warmongers pov, of covering the aftermath of the first bombs that fell on Baghdad before they got the message from the warmongers that the American people must not see the results of their murderous campaign.

He was a child, his arms and legs were blown off, he had stomach wounds and was in unbearable pain. His entire immediate family, pregnant Mom, Father and siblings had been murdered as they slept in their apartment. The hospital did not have enough medicine to treat all the wounded including Ali.

His only remaining relative, an Aunt, was trying to comfort him. No legs, no arms, no pain killers, he was calling for his mom.

It was 2 or 3 AM here, I can't remember the exact time.

And then we never saw any more of our victims.

I heard later that that brief coverage of the one child, got the attention of people who were able to get him out of Iraq where he would surely have died, where he was treated as much as it is possible to treat someone so badly wounded, both pysically and emotionally.

I have wondered since then what happened to him. And to all the other children the warmongers are responsible for.

Kerry was at the bottom of my list of candidates. I wondered how he jumped from approx 3% approval rating to winning. Now I think I know.

[NanceGreggs]

65. No, sabrina ...

I did not try to turn "horrific tragedies into a political attempt at 'gotcha'."

I merely asked a question as to who you voted for in 2004, in view of your previous statements.

"AND you asked a question you did not know the answer to. Iow, you ASSUMED something you had no clue about."

The idea of "not asking a question you don't know the answer to" is a legal concept - i.e. a lawyer never asks a question of his own witnesses when they are on the stand at trial, unless he knows what their answer will be. In other words, said lawyer will avoid inadvertently eliciting a theretofore unknown answer that could prove detrimental to his case, or his client.

The saying has few applications outside of that narrow context, and has absolutely nothing to do with "assuming" anything. It only has to do with not inviting witnesses to put something on the record that the examining lawyer will be surprised by, having not known what the response would be before asking the question.

I'm sure you would agree that a competent journalist would never limit their interview questions to "what they already knew the answer to be" - if they did, there would be no point in doing an interview, would there? What about posing questions to politicians? Are you suggesting that they should ONLY be queried on things the citizenry already "knows" their answers to? Or should they be queried as to what we don't know their answers to be, before being asked point-blank?

"Clearly you voted for political reasons. I did not."

Yes, sabrina, I did vote for "political reasons" - which, if I am not mistaken, is what political elections are all about. And my "political reason" for voting for Kerry was to put a (D) in the WH, as opposed to four more years of a brain-dead Dubya and the president-in-all-but-name, Dick Cheney.

If you voted against Kerry - either by voting (R), by way of write-in vote for someone else, or by sitting out the election entirely - you contributed to the re-election of the Bush Baby & His Cohorts. As I've said here before: If your "principles" lead you to contributing to the election of Republicans, your principles suck - big time.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. + a big-ass number

with lots of obnoxious zeros!

[sabrina 1]

128. You supported Cheney/Bush I presume? Did you say that when it counted btw?

I am proud to say that I did everything possible to condemn those criminals at that time and will and their accomplices until hopefully all of them are brought to justice, either before or after they leave this planet.

Thanks for the confirmation of what many people are now learning, it was all about politics after all, for many we believed actually opposed those crimes BECAUSE they were crimes.

[Bobbie Jo]

131. You did what??

Get a grip, seriously.

And take your convoluted GOTCHA schtick elsewhere.

[WillyT]

73. At Least She HAS Principles...

[NanceGreggs]

91. "If your "principles" lead you to ...

... contributing to the election of Republicans, your principles suck - big time."

[LondonReign2]

110. Are you seriously espousing team over principles?

[NanceGreggs]

115. Are you seriously espousing ...

... the notion that Democrats and Republicans are "teams"?

In case you haven't noticed, elections aren't sports events, where the winning team collects their trophy and goes home. Elections have consequences - far-reaching consequences.

Vote (D) over (R)? You're damned real, every time. The idea that electing Democrats and having "principles" are somehow mutually exclusive is absolute, unadulterated bullshit.

My principles compel me to do whatever possible to elect (D)s and send (R)s packing.

[WillyT]

116. Me Too... Voted Straight D Every Time Since 1974... Sometimes Holding My Nose, Sometimes Not...

Would prefer to have Dems to vote FOR... rather than have to vote for a Dem FireWall agaist the chronically insane.

[NanceGreggs]

118. And "the chronically insane" ...

... really IS the name of that tune.

In my younger days, I never would have believed that people like Michele Bachman, Ted Cruz, or Sarah Palin could be elected to anything above local dogcatcher - if even that. Now these wackadoodles are typical of what the GOP mainstream vote into office.

As I've often said, if stupidity was a bar to voting, there wouldn't be an (R) in office anywhere - other than perhaps the coveted dogcatcher slot.

[WillyT]

119. Agreed... The Rebublican Party Has Fallen A Loooong Way From Abe Lincoln And Teddy Roosevelt...

[NanceGreggs]

120. I think you meant to say ...

... a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way - only farther.

[WillyT]

121. True...

[NanceGreggs]

138. Yeah, I know ...

I'm a jerk for being a "spelling Nazi" on a message board. But sometimes less than two dozen O's just doesn't do it.

[sabrina 1]

133. So you would have supported the Iraq War Crime if Dems were the ones to start it? I'm trying to

understand this. Did you support the Iraq War? If not, why?

Was it because it was WRONG, or because it was Republicans?

You seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that if a Democrat supports an illegal Brutal War it is okay to support them.

Please unravel this for me. I am thoroughly confused.

[NanceGreggs]

137. "What you seem to be saying ..."

I said what I said, sabrina. In plain English.

"I am thoroughly confused."

At last, we can agree on something. You most definitely are.

[LondonReign2]

171. Party over Principles

"Vote (D) over (R)? You're damned real, every time."

After mocking a person for voting their principles, this is what you come back with. Party over principles. Got it. Wow.

[NanceGreggs]

196. Party AND principles.

I see nothing principled about contributing to putting an (R) in office - nothing.

[sabrina 1]

129. That is exactly what you are witnessing. I have to say that I was very naive in 2003. I really

believed we were the party of principles. Ten years later I know how naive I was and that is a good thing.

[sabrina 1]

130. My principles are based on right v wrong. What are yours based on?

Murderous wars against innocent people, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people based on lies for profit, is WRONG.

Opposing such massive crimes is RIGHT.

It's really not very hard.

[NanceGreggs]

136. No, sabrina ...

... it's not very hard at all.

But here's the thing: There are these things called elections. And it usually comes down to a Republican and a Democrat in those races. And when you stand on your "principles" and refuse to vote, write-in a vote, or vote for a third party candidate who has NO chance of winning, you could very well be contributing to putting a Republican in office.

Opposing wars, slaughter, massive crimes - yeah, I think most of us do, sabrina. But allowing a Republican - and we all KNOW what they stand for, don't we? - to hold an office that could have gone to a Democrat does sweet fuck all to stop wars, slaughter, etc. In fact, it actually puts someone in a position of political power who is actually FOR all of those things.

"Principles" are something that should lead to the attainment of what is just, what is right, what is fair. When they are used as an excuse to shield one's self from DOING what will advance that goal, they fail to have any worth.

[sabrina 1]

142. Well, THIS is where we disagree:

And it usually comes down to a Republican and a Democrat in those races

That is what is SHOULD come down to, that is what we THOUGHT it came down to, in 2004, but ten years later we have all learend a lot about how our system works, what has happened to our Party. How WE were complicit with what has happened to our Party.

Because when it comes to our FP where every day we are continuing to kill innocent people, and will continue to do so until the PEOPLE put a stop to it, it does NOT always 'come down to' a Democrat, as we understand what that means, and a Republican. It comes down to two candidates who will not change those polices.

That is what so many people have learned over the past number of years. That explains the confusion we felt when Democrats, like Kerry and Clinton voted to give all that power to Bush. We didn't understand it then, so we did what YOU are suggesting, just kept on supporting people, like Hillary because of that letter after her name.

And while we were doing that, which many of us did for way too long, the killing continues. Just slapping a letter after one's name is easy, and I have to admit, it WORKED. But it isn't working anymore, is it?

In fact, it actually puts someone in a position of political power who is actually FOR all of those things.

"Principles" are something that should lead to the attainment of what is just, what is right, what is fair. When they are used as an excuse to shield one's self from DOING what will advance that goal, they fail to have any worth.

Just how is voting for someone who has proven by her votes and her own words that she will continue Cheney/Bush FP, 'lead to the attainment of what is just, what is right, what is fair'? Fair for the victims of our WMDs?

We are still killing people. So your 'principled' voting hasn't led to what is just, at least not for the dead and the maimed, has it?

So, you go ahead and keep on doing what you have been doing, too bad you won't join the fast growing numbers of people who realize the victims can't wait for decades while we HOPE that this justice will come if we keep on doing what we have been doing, we might get there faster.

Because the war machine can't keep on working if a majority of the people just say 'no'. And that is what people ARE doing, hopefully more and more of them, Left, Right, and everyone else, and end it.

So I will be working to elect DEMOCRATS, not Third Wayers, who oppose these policies. Because the other thing we have learned is that, Congress is where the People have power. The People have no power over the WH.

Thanks for the lecture btw, I have heard it over and over again for many years now, same lecture. I listened, until I realized it just doesn't work that way.

[NanceGreggs]

144. How it "works" ...

... is apparently beyond your ability to comprehend.

[sabrina 1]

147. Resorting now to condescension rather than explanation. I believe that when people believe they have

something of value to say about issues as important as these are, they can explain them, and they don't worry about the 'mental abilities' of those asking them to do so.

If you can't explain this strategy you believe is going to work somehow, some day, I have to conclude that is only because it DOESN'T. Because it HASN'T. Which we already know.

I am not surprised you cannot explain it.

No one can.

Which is why people are moving forward now, engaging in new strategies.

[NanceGreggs]

148. sabrina ...

... you are now rambling incoherently.

"If you can't explain this strategy you believe is going to work somehow, some day, I have to conclude that is only because it DOESN'T. Because it HASN'T. Which we already know."

I rest my case.

[sabrina 1]

150. Having trouble reading? Well, it is late I suppose.

[sabrina 1]

127. The answer to your question was in almost every sentence of the comment you responded to. Your

'question' was therefore disingenuous. There are seven responses to my comment so far, five of them responded as any Democrat who went through the torture of trying to stop that massive crime in Iraq aided and abetted by some of those we trusted, would be expected to respond.

Two of the responses were odd. They did not address the content of the comment at all. Yet, airc, at the time of that fateful vote in Congress, there was not a Democrat to be found who was not appalled by what this Government was about to do. And after we saw some of those we had trusted join Bush/Cheney, give them permission to do their deadly deed, I cannot recall a single Democrat on any forum I participated in at the time, not reacting with shock and disgust at their betrayal.

The bloody bodies of babies killed after those enablers permitted what even we ordinary people KNEW would be the result of their 'political decision' will remain forever in my memory.

Did you support Cheney/Bush btw? I ask because only that would explain your 'question'.

Many Americans did, to their shame. If you are among them, which sadly, was a majority of this country, then I GET your question.

Otherwise you will have to explain what about my comment you did not understand that prompted your 'question'.

Because I thought my comment was more than clear.

When someone asks me a question I have already answered, I wonder about their motive and tend to try to find out, 'just what are they trying to accomplish'?

I supported every Democrat who opposed that massive crime with their votes. I will continue to support ethical, honorable Democrats who are running against the Cheney/Bush/Neocon policies that will go down as the murderous deceptive threat to world peace that they are.

How about you?

[NanceGreggs]

135. sabrina, you are an absolute master ...

... at accusing people of doing exactly what you do yourself.

Read the OP - it has nothing to do with babies being killed, does it? YOU originated that change in discussion, and now you are demanding that people confine themselves to what YOU want to talk about.

YOU posted these statements: "I will never, ever support any person who participated in that slaughter. I will never ever support any accomplice of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in their bloody war against innocents in Iraq."

My query was directly on-point. I asked who you voted for in 2004, given that our candidate, John Kerry, had voted 'yes' on giving Dubya authority to take action in Iraq. YOU brought up the above statements. If you don't want to engage in discussion about what YOU yourself post, maybe you shouldn't post things YOU don't want to talk about.

BTW, I voted for Kerry in 2004. I wanted a (D) in the WH, and the chance to save the country from four more years of Idiot Son and The Dick.

I only wish more of us had done so, giving Kerry the numbers that would have made another stolen election impossible.

[sabrina 1]

141. Dead babies, yes, it is something lots of people prefer not to talk about anymore, isn't it?

I have noticed that, on a forum where they were the topic of conversation on a daily basis throughout the Bush era. Yet we are still killing them aren't we? So why are we not still drawing attention to these tragic victims of our FP?

You jumped into a sub thread where I responded to a comment which seemed to me to be rather cavalier about our killing machine which never seems to stop killing. So my comment was exactly relevant to the discussion.

I don't respond to 'interrogations', or to attempts at bullying. I do try to figure out why such people feel the need to digress from a particular subject with such tactics.

I am familiar with them, having spent a number of years on right wing sites, where being a Liberal who opposed their hero's criminal invasions was likely to result in threats and INTERROGATIONS and intimidations. It never worked with me, but I learned a lot about such tactics, more than made them comfortable, as they were accustomed at that time, to Liberals who WERE intimidated, especially elected officials who always seemed to be on the defensive. I preferred the offensive since it was obvious to me that they were angry with anyone who stirred their consciences. I don't mind doing that, consciences need to be stirred when massive wrongdoing is under way, in MY NAME.

You, for some unfathomable reason, considering this is a Democratic Forum, who I voted for in 2004. What does that have to do with where we are now? What did it have to do with my comment about NOW and the FUTURE?

In 2004 Kerry was at the very bottom of my list, as were all those who had participated in Bush's ability to launch his forever war in Iraq and as the neocons told us, the entire ME eventually.

There were several candidates who had opposed the Iraq War any of whom I was fine with me. Kerry was at 3% airc and not even on many people's radar.

Then, suddenly, he was the nominee.

We were at a moment in time when getting rid of Bush was the ONLY goal. 'ANYONE BUT BUSH'.

So we had to choose, Bush/Cheney or this person who came out of nowhere. I knew we had no choice. So I went to find out about who was he, I learned he had been in Vietnam, was a War Protester, saw the footage before Congress, learned he was on Nixon's 'enemies list', voted against the First Gulf War. It made no sense, why did he vote for Bush/Cheney's war then?

It was explained, etc etc, we got on board, we went out and fought for him.

He lost, I remember that night. That was the night I discovered DU. I knew someone whose daughter had died on 9/11 who hated Bush. We were on the phone, a three way conversation, we thought we had won. I was watching CNN and saw the numbers changing. And I went back to the big Liberal Forum where I was a moderator for two years. And found links to DU.

This is the story of most Dems in 2004. And this response is to show those reading how disingenuous your question was. Because it was entirely irrelevant to where we are today.

I had hope then that a Dem who had voted against the 1st Gulf War, with a history like Kerry's would stop the War in Iraq.

That was ten years ago. I am older and wiser as are many people. Would Kerry have ended that war? Who knows.

My comment, which you chose to challenge with your 'gotcha' attempt, I guess to try to show some kind of hypocrisy, OR 'lack of loyalty' or whatever it was you were trying to do, was in the FUTURE tense. 'I will not support anyone who supported that war'.

Because, this is 2014 NOT 2004 and no, I will not support Hillary or any other candidate who supported that massive crime. Because I have no hope, unlike when Kerry ran, that Hillary will end this disastrous policy.

Next time you want to 'get' someone, for whatever reason, know who they are.

Most DUers know me, they know I have zero problem stating my opinions, no problem talking about who I have supported, the reasons why, the reasons why I would not do so again, or anything else regarding politics.

Which is why I told you you should never ask a question you do not know the answer to. People who read your question, like me, wondered what your point was. I have never made a secret of who I have supported and/or who I will not.

Your attempt at intimidation was more amusing than anything else, considering my support for Kerry AND the reasons why is no secret here.

You might try just talking to people for a change. Had your question been genuine, an effort to discuss things, I would have been more than willing to engage in that discussion. But your motive was not to discuss, was it? My question is 'why', why do you view democrats here who have never changed their views on our disastrous FP as the 'enemy' who need to be 'challenged'? I would love an answer to that question.

[NanceGreggs]

143. Sabrina ...

I'm sorry, but at this point, you are not making any sense whatsoever.

And the references to "gotcha", and "attempts at bullying", etc., are really over-the-top.

I asked who you voted for in 2004. If you consider such a query to be "bullying" - after you, yourself, raised the topic of "never supporting" people who voted in favour of the Iraq War, which is what prompted the question - I don't know what to tell you.

The question was "a genuine" question. The fact that your response is a convoluted mash-up of paranoia about being "bullied" and "an attempt at intimidation" speaks for itself.

If you find someone asking questions about your own statements as "an interrogation", perhaps you should refrain from posting such statements, lest someone have the audacity to reply to what YOU yourself have said.

"What did it have to do with my comment about NOW and the FUTURE?"

Again, you seem to insist on limiting the discussion - on a discussion-oriented website - to what YOU want to discuss. It doesn't work that way - and you should know that.

[sabrina 1]

145. WHY did you ask? Why are you always so angry when people don't agree with you?

I am not worried about making sense to you. My comments are for readers who are often puzzled by what they read on this site lately. You merely gave me a chance to speak to them, many of whom see comments like yours directed at people like me, so angry, so belligerent, and they do not want to post themselves. But they DO want to see responses to such comments.

If you don't want responses to your comments, then don't comment to people who will not allow you to 'challenge' their integrity either directly or by implication.

[NanceGreggs]

146. Why are you assuming ...

... I am angry, or belligerent?

I am neither. In fact, what I am is amused.

"If you don't want responses to your comments ..."

YOU were the one who commented that "I will never, ever support any person who participated in that slaughter."

So I asked you if voting for Kerry was encompassed in that edict.

Again - if you don't want people "responding to your comments", the best way to avoid that situation is to NOT post comments you don't want people to respond to.

Is that simple enough for you?

[sabrina 1]

149. Why are you amused? This is not an amusing topic.

YOU were the one who commented that "I will never, ever support any person who participated in that slaughter."

Yes, that is exactly what I said and exactly what I meant. WILL not. I WILL not. See the tense? From now on, never again, I will not. And YOU went back ten years, hoping I suppose, to prove one of two things, that I am either a disloyal Dem, or a hypocrite.

The problem with your question is that for that election to be relevant to my statement, I would have to have said 'I have NEVER, supported any person ....' But I didn't say that, because none of us could, considering the times we were in, how little we knew about what was really going on, could we?

When people start something, then can't handle it, as happened here, some end up resorting to implying the person the failed to 'shame' or whatever, is 'simple', or 'unable to comprehend' etc etc

Really, such tactics are, or should be, beneath you.

I am far from simple and/or unable to comprehend once things become clear that were not before. So your implications have no effect on me.

I have no problem with people responding to my comments. But I WILL point out when they are not being entirely honest. If they don't like that, they should try to avoid getting personal because that leaves me no choice but to correct any wrong implications they are making, which I will.

[NanceGreggs]

152. You are apparently of the belief ...

... that people who respond to your own comments are "not being entirely honest" if and when they do so.

But I thank you wholeheartedly for my winning a bet. I bet someone that your ultimate response would be that "I WILL not. See the tense? From now on, never again, I will not."

Easiest bet I've ever won. You are nothing else, if not predictable.

[grasswire]

202. you know, your continual attempted "gaslighting" of sabrina...

.....is unworthy of someone claiming to be a Democrat and a member of a Democratic community.

Are you able to communicate without the negativity and the insults?

[davidpdx]

151. Nance, you are SUCH a belligerent person

Oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jamastiene]

156. That bullying you are experiencing is not helping Democrats get elected either.

And you don't owe anyone an answer to a question about who you voted for. It is none of anyone else's business. That is the beauty of having that right. I'm glad to see you stand your ground on this.

Enough is enough. I held my nose to vote for disgusting Blue Dog Democrats again this time, as I have done every stinking time, and I hate it. Again, that Democrat lost, but STILL voted for the Keystone. She didn't have to do that, but she did. See what good it did? None.

[sabrina 1]

176. Yes, it is a perfect example of the sense of entitlement to votes regardless of what people are

trying to tell them. And it is driving people away.

As for the question, you are correct. Of course we all supported Kerry at THAT time, which everyone knows, so the question completely is completely irrelevant to today, ten years later.

The question itself shows that nothing has been learned, that the voters' deep concerns about the direction of the country, are being ignored.

Sorry about your Rep, but it makes the point voters have tried to make, voting against their own interests just out of fear or loyalty, simply doesn't work.

[ReRe]

59. + 2,000,000,000

[el_bryanto]

69. So if HRC ends up with the nomination what will you do?

Vote 3rd party? or not vote at all? You aren't likely to vote Republican.

Bryant

[sabrina 1]

132. I think my comment was pretty clear. I will never support her. And I hope more Democrats make that

clear NOW when it counts. Assuming they actually did oppose Bush/Cheney's massive crime in Iraq and weren't so unprincipled they cared nothing for the lives that were lost, including those of our own troops, and were just opposing it because of politics.

How can someone vote for anyone who had the chance to take a stand against the suffering of so many people? But did not do the right thing when it counted, for personal political reasons.

I remember when I was a little girl, reading about the Holocaust. I was horrified as most people were and will be as long as there are decent people on this planet.

But one thing I struggled to understand, 'how could anyone commit such crimes without the people at least TRYING to stop them'?

I never got an answer to that question. In my child's mind I, wrongly I know now, assumed most decent people would have joined together to stop it.

But now I know how it happened. I have read the writings of people who were there who explained how insidious evil can be. How 'banal' it is, mostly how when 'good people do nothing' evil flourishes and gains momentum and power until it is impossible to stop.

I will not participate in the use of great power for wrong doing. If everyone did that, Iraq could not have happened. But I learned that the murder of one million people is not that important, even with people I once respected and now I understand 'the banality' that allows such evil, and the killing and torture and maiming of untold numbers of people for PROFIT IS EVIL, at least in my mind.

One day the story of what we have done in the ME will be written, from the perspective of the victims. I want them to know that there were people in America who did try to stop it. That would be difficult to do if they continue to give power to those who participated in that awful crime.

I hope that answers your question. Which I interpret to mean you are okay with what we did in Iraq. I could be wrong, but I see no other way to interpret it.

[NanceGreggs]

140. What I "interpret" your response to mean ...

... is that standing by your so-called "principles" is more important than the consequences of putting a war-hungry (R) in office over a (D) who doesn't meet your particular standards.

If you think "both parties are the same", sabrina, at least have the courage to come out and say so. Because if you believe that withholding your vote from a (D), which could contribute to a win for an (R), is an acceptable outcome, THAT is exactly what you're saying.

[sabrina 1]

178. Excuse me? 'Courage'? To tell the truth? Is that how you view politics? That one has to be some

kind of hero to speak the truth? Do you even REALIZE what you are saying? You are confirming what I suspected was the purpose of your irrelevant question. 'Intimidate voters into voting for you'.

What I think I have zero problem saying. If there is something I have not said, it is because I do not 'think' it. And if you seriously believe that Democrats need 'courage' to tell their party what they ARE thinking, if that is really a fact, no wonder they are losing elections. I will never hesitate however, to say what I think.

So now, let ME tell YOU what I think. Which requires nothing more than living in a democracy as far as I know, contrary to what you appear to believe.

Both parties are NOT the same.

But some candidates from both parties ARE the same, on all but a few issues, those candidates are called the Third Way. They support and will continue to support the Neocon policies of forever war for profit. They will support privatization of all public funds, they have already succeeded re Education, Medicaid, the Military, outsourced our National Security to Private 'Security' Contractors and way, way more. I don't support Republican policies, do you?

Those in our party who do not support those policies are marginalized. I will repeat this one more t ime for you, as you seem bound and determined to tell other people what they THINK.

I will not support any neocon/neoliberal for public office. For the exact same reasons I will not support any Republican.

I hope that is simple enough and I hope you understand it takes no 'courage' to say so as a Democrat.

I know this is very upsetting to the Third Way.

For a long time they were able to bully people into voting for their heavily Wall St funded candidates, and in doing so, managed to get some of their Right Wing policies passed into law.

Now, people have become informed of what was once so puzzling to them as Democrats and they are, in large numbers, not going to 'hold their noses' anymore.

They are going to work hard to put Liberal Democrats into Congress.

If you don't want to do that, and would prefer to vote for candidates who will continue these disastrous neocon policies, go right ahead, that is your right.

But do not try to tell other voters who they should vote for, or try to bully, or intimidate them. Because they do not care what you think, they care about this country and their own lives and the sooner those running this party figure this out, the sooner they may start listening to the voters, because if they don't, the voters won't be listening to them. This is OUR party, it's the only one we have, and we are not going to watch it change into Republican lite without trying to do something about it.

[NanceGreggs]

195. Sorry, sabrina ...

... but your constant paranoid references to being bullied, intimidated, told what to think, et cetera, are as off-putting as they are nonsensical.

I really DO try to comprehend what you're on about - but there are times when I literally cannot make any sense of what it is you are trying to say.

This is one of those times.

[sabrina 1]

200. I have never been bullied, intimidated or told what to think. That seems to

be hard for you to understand and accept. Which is what I, and others I have noticed, have been telling you when you engage in such behavior. People have tried of course, but it is has never succeeded.

We are just trying to help you understand that attempting to bully, intimidate and tell others what THEY think, is a waste of your time.

So once again, you are free to keep trying that method of conversation, but as you must see by now, it is a total waste of your time when you are talking to people who think for themselves and act accordingly.

[bvar22]

87. Amen!

Rec for post #31 by sabrina 1

[Carolina]

124. K&R, sabrina 1

Senator Byrd's speech was powerful, yet all those Democratic cowards who had their eyes on the White House back in 2002 (Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Liberrmann) paid no attention.
I held my nose and voted for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, but I will never again vote for anyone who aided and abetted the Bush cabal

[zeemike]

50. What we have lost is our sense of community.

And have been indoctrinated with a sense of individualism along the Ayn Rand way of thinking...that the ones who own the most are the ones that created it...and that the ones who have the least are slugs and useless eaters robbing the ones who have the most.

The notion that I did it all by myself is narcissistic, and that seems to define this time in our history.

[WillyT]

53. Yep... And That Some Here Have Bought Into It... Is Sad... And Yet Explains A Lot...

[BeanMusical]

172. That way of thinking is making me sick.

[L0oniX]

16. You should delete that before the hide.

[merrily]

155. You did do it on the backs of others. We all did. You just don't get that you did.

[philosslayer]

175. Here's the main thing I got from your post

"You pay cash so they don't have to claim it". In other words, so they can avoid paying taxes. I'm not sure why thats something to be happy about.

[hughee99]

177. It sounds like a return of the "You didn't build that" threads.

Those went so well for Dems last time around.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. ,

,

[BKH70041]

11. Comparison

There's no difference between this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5825106

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025826970

It's just two sides poking at the other.

It's up to the participants to decide when to call it off.

In the meanwhile,

Edit: meant to reply to OP.

[leftofcool]

13. Actually,

It is some little poseur who has decided that those of us who might support HRC in the primaries are in league with the big banks, we make too much money, we love those corporations and we don't give back enough of our hard earned social security money. It's all horseshit!

[FSogol]

18. You are wasting your time arguing with internet malcontents

who spend their days criticizing everyone, but have a special hatred of Democrats. You should just laugh and ignore them.

[leftofcool]

21. Which makes absolutely no sense.

If you are a Democrat why hate a Democrat who is finally able to live a life without bills, without a mortgage, without kids, on social security maybe, but at least not starving. I suppose some on DU believe that anyone who supports HRC must be a millionaire. I could only wish.

[WillyT]

23. Yeah... Those Of Us That Grew Up Under The FDR Era... And Have Had It Corrupted Are The Malcontents

Please tell me why you are so content?

All ears.

[FSogol]

24. Failing to whine non-stop on a web forum does not equal contentment.

[BKH70041]

25. Why would you care if someone calls you a malcontent or a purist?

I don't get it.

If you aren't, then good.

If someone still views you that way, what can you do to make them not? You can't.

Dude, you're stuck in neutral here.

[baldguy]

95. Because they're obsessed with labels.

They care more about how things look, and whether it fits into their artificial ideological framework.

[Union Scribe]

103. Labels like repeatedly calling posters

phoneys
purists
authoritarians
"progressives"

in every post for days on end like you've been doing? Those kind of labels? And then you have the audacity to say other people are "sewing (sic) division"

[baldguy]

122. Fits when they advocate purges & litmus tests.

People like that ARE authoritarians by definition. Deal with it.

[sabrina 1]

134. Please explain 'malcontents', I have seen that epithet, mainly aimed at Democrats during the

Bush/Cheney disastrous era when they opposed their criminal wars. How come it is now being used here on a Democratic Forum for what appears to be the same reason?? Are you referring to Democrats here who oppose Bush's war and anyone who helped him start it? You need to be clear when you use right wing epithets on a Dem Forum otherwise you might be misinterpreted.

[FSogol]

164. "I have seen that epithet, mainly aimed at Democrats during the Bush/Cheney disastrous era"

Last edited Wed Nov 19, 2014, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Example? Otherwise you are just assembling straw men.

From Dictionary.com:

malcontent
[mal-kuh n-tent]

adjective
1. not satisfied or content with currently prevailing conditions or circumstances.

2. dissatisfied with the existing government, administration, system, etc.

noun
3. a malcontent person, especially one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied.


PS. Since I used it as a noun, #3 is the definition. Glad I could help.

[sabrina 1]

194. Rush Limbaugh probably started it. He dedicate a whole show to letting 'Liberal Malcontents'

call in and 'whine': Rush Limbaugh Show Malcontent Walter Explains His Support For Obama

RUSH: Okay, we have some "malcontents" on the phone, Snerdley tells me. You described them as "malcontents." All right, well, we're gonna start with one. Walter in Edgewater, New Jersey. Great to have you, sir. You're malcontent number one on the EIB Network.

A longtime favorite word of the Right for Liberals, 'Malcontents'.

To right wingers, Dems who want SS, who want an end to the Cheney/Bush/Neocon Foreign policies, who want their Government to stop spying on their own people and all those other 'ponies' they keep insisting on, are Malcontents, among other things.

[FSogol]

197. Ohh, Rush used an English word to insult liberals, that means the word is a liberal insult?

Do you ever read what you write? What is the word for "making up stuff"?

[merrily]

159. Great idea. LOL

[Rex]

15. Nice try.

[BKH70041]

19. Oh

Am I not to believe there are those here who refer to themselves as "progressives" who, in turn, refer to those they view as being too cozy with the viewpoints of certain Democratic politicians as being "third-way" and sell-outs to what they view the role of the Democratic Party should be? And are they not at odds with each other?

[Rex]

20. No I mean nice try at pretending you are unbiased.

Really, I'm sure somebody is fooled by it.

[merrily]

157. Yes, if posting is the be all and end all.

However, there are real life differences between and among centrists, traditional democrats, liberals, socialists, etc., as well as between those who will vote Democratic, no matter what, and those who won't.

You're talking posting; the OP is talking real life.

[nashville_brook]

10. k and r

[L0oniX]

14. Super Kick and Rec.

[Rex]

17. They say liberals are purists then get mad if you don't agree with them.

I say the irony is totally lost on them and their cause. Their love for libertarian economics being exposed seems to have them in a real panic.

[Rex]

27. Silly rabbit.

Who here is talking about you? We are talking about people that have billions and billions of dollars. Try and keep up.

[Rex]

32. Don't be sore just because you made a few bucks and I corrected you.

Wow that really rubbed you the wrong way! So, just lying about making money on the Stock Market? You can tell us, this is funny stuff.

[Rex]

35. No doubt you grabbed your dad's newspaper and gave it a quick look.

Seriously, it is okay if you are using your parents computer without them knowing. I did that too as a kid.

[Rex]

43. LOL!

None, you are just another nothing along with the millions. I know your parents tell you otherwise, but that is their duty. Keep rambling on about some other website, it is keeping me amused as to what next you will make up in your head. Kids are so creative these days.

[marble falls]

54. "Kids are so creative these days." But for some of them, not for very long!

[Rex]

58. MIRTs mighty hammer!

I think it says trollbusters on the side of the hammer.

[rhett o rick]

28. This really isn't very complicated. You either side with the 1% or the 99%.

The "so-called" centrists think they are fooling someone when they pretend to be independent of the Oligarchs.

In a war there is no room for centrists. Pick a side.

[leftofcool]

29. I'm not at war.

[WillyT]

36. Not Yet...

Link: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=which+side+are+you+on+boys

[WillyT]

38. Addendum:

"Which Side Are You On?" is a song written by Florence Reece in 1931. Reece was the wife of Sam Reece, a union organizer for the United Mine Workers in Harlan County, Kentucky. In 1931, the miners of that region were locked in a bitter and violent struggle with the mine owners called the Harlan County War. In an attempt to intimidate the Reece family, Sheriff J. H. Blair and his men (hired by the mining company) illegally entered their family home in search of Sam Reece. Sam had been warned in advance and escaped, but Florence and their children were terrorized in his place. That night, after the men had gone, Florence wrote the lyrics to "Which Side Are You On?" on a calendar that hung in the kitchen of her home. She took the melody from a traditional Baptist hymn, "Lay the Lily Low", or the traditional ballad "Jack Munro".[1] Florence recorded the song, which can be heard on the CD Coal Mining Women.

Reece supported a second wave of miner strikes circa 1973, as recounted in the documentary Harlan County USA. She and others performed "Which Side Are You On?" a number of times throughout.

The song is referred to by Bob Dylan in the song "Desolation Row". It was also the inspiration for the title of Alessandro Portelli's 2011 book on Harlan County's coal mining community.[2]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which_Side_Are_You_On%3F

[rhett o rick]

45. So you are ok with the status quo? nm

[Bobbie Jo]

70. You're either with us

or against us.

Get your lockstep on, already.

[Zorra]

74. That's how it works when good people are forced to stop a monstrous, destructive evil,

like our current corporate fascism, from growing and spreading.

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

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

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

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. ~ Martin Niemoller

[leftofcool]

78. Naw, walking lockstep is for Republicans

[hrmjustin]

39. I would never accuse anyone of being a purist.

You support who you feel you need to in the primary.

[Old Nick]

51. I don't fit any of your characterizations, Willy

And no, I won't be posting this multiple times in your thread.

[WillyT]

60. And... It Was A Simple Question... Where I Did NOT Ask You... Where YOU Fit...

And you never had to post at all.

Would love you opinion though.

[Old Nick]

63. I apologize for making assumptions about who you were referencing

As for my opinion, it's right here.

[sabrina 1]

52. 'Purist' is a Third Way Think Tank Talking point invented around 2003 aimed at 'the Left' which the

Third Way hates even more than the Right does.

Many of us were there when the Third Way launched their talking point attacks on the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

Whenever you see the word 'purist' just remember, it is one of many talking points not aimed at the RIGHT but aimed at the LEFT from within our own party.

Iow, those who use those talking points thoroughly expose themselves.

'Reality Based Community', 'Purity Troll', 'Concern Troll' among many others, all given to us by the Third Way with the intention of marginalizing the Left.

Who needs Republicans when we have the enemy within?

Some day I will write about the battle that waged on Dem Forums between what we know now were operatives of the Third Way Think Tank who believed that the ONLY threat to their Right leaning agenda within the Dem Party, were honest, working class Liberals.

PURISTS! I thought that the origin of that anti-Liberal talking point was long ago exposed.

But apparently there are still stragglers who are not aware that those old talking points only expose who THEY are.

Real Dems don't need talkiing points. They speak for themselves.

However, on the good side, I do appreciate those who make it easy for us to identify who they are by their use of those old, jaded and failed talking points.

The Left is not going away, they should know that by now.

[woo me with science]

67. +1

[baldguy]

93. Authoritarians do purges. Purists do litmus tests. Neither are in the Democratic Party tradition.

The people explicitly calling for purges & litmus tests are the phoney "progressives" targeting Democrats who "aren't sufficiently liberal".

They don't believe in "good faith". They want to bypass the democratic process, weaken the party, alienate the great majority of the electorate, and ensure a Republican victory on 2016.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5788509

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5815637

We need to work to get people to JOIN liberals, not make up excuses exclude them.

[sabrina 1]

99. Both of those OPs are about keeping Republicans out of the Democratic Party, including moderate

Republicans, Reagan Republicans, their policies have no place in the Dem party. They HAVE a party that badly NEEDS a 'third way' as they call it. Our party was not the one that needed 'reform'.

If wanting to keep Right Wing Corporate anti working class policies and thecandidates bought by corporate money out of the Dem Party, to keep them from dragging it further and further to the Right is what they meant when they came up with that 'purist' garbage, that is all the more PROOF that purging the LEFT, and the policies they support, the working class representation, attempting to marginalize them in their own party, the Working Class, was the goal which is glaringly obvious now to a large and growing number of Democrats.

We foolishly feel for their 'we have to vote for Republican lite or the more evil guys will win' nonsense for way, way too long.

It didn't work, for the working class. I'm sorry if seeing the people wake up finally, way too late, to see Liberals, young people, the working class, Unions etc finally say 'no more' to failed policies, is disturbing to anyone. I'm sure it is. A whole lot of people got very rich when Liberals allowed themselves to be attacked and pushed aside by Wall St in their own party.

The word 'purist' means NOTHING because it is nothing BUT an attack on Democrats with zero meaning, it wasn't meant to have meaning, it was meant to keep them from having any influence in their own party.

[L0oniX]

100. ^^^THIS^^^

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

108. Third Way does not hate us more than the Right.

Third Way IS the Right. Pretending to be Democrats to obliterate the economic differences between the parties, and to obliterate support for Democrats as a result of the two parties becoming ever closer on economic policies that support the wealthy and screw the poor and soon to be poor. You can't really tarnish a party from outside it, so they had to get 'inside' to start making people see both parties funnelling wealth to the top and serving up supply side policies.

[sabrina 1]

109. Thank you for the correction. You are absolutely right.

[heaven05]

111. I agree with

that one.

[treestar]

66. what history books are you reading?

It was not that dramatic. In fact, it all took place via the same system we are using.

There was no revolution. Laws were passed by elected Congresses. Yes it was a bunch of "centrists" as they reflected the voting public at that time by the laws they passed.

It was not a small group of purists. They were sitting in their rooms condemning all and everything as not getting to them fast enough. Meanwhile, the general voting public did not care about that but proceeded at the pace most people were able to deal with.

[WillyT]

71. What history books are YOU reading?

American Bloody Labor History - Never Forget
CWA Local 1103
Posted On: Nov 06, 2010 (11:35:19)

<snip>

American Labor History is penned with bloody ink. Even considering Labor’s crowning political/legislative achievement: the 1935 the National Labor Relations Act (wagner act) we still battle to this very Labor Day to hold on to our decent wages and benefits. Today employers do not point guns at us or beat us in the streets, today Corporate America uses its billions of dollars of profits from the work of our backs to influence the political process to undermine our livelihood.

This Labor Day take a moment to look back on our bloody history, and know we must be ever diligent everyday to fight for our rights – on the Picket Line, on the Shop Floor and at the Ballot Box. Vote for CWA endorsed candidates, protect our jobs for the future and never go back to our bloody past.

1800 – Strikers found guilty of conspiracy by acting collectively to raise wages. (Commonweath v Pullis)

1850 – Militia turn on railroad strikers in Portge NY. 2 strikers killed many injured

1870 - Tompkins Square Riot NYC, Mounted police charge unemployed men, women and children demonstrating in park beating them with Billy clubs

Battle of Viaduct - The Great Railroad Strike was a general strike to protest cut in wages in which federal troops were called in 30 workers were killed during the protest.

1885 – Ten Coal mining activists are hung in Pennsylvania (Molly Maguires)

1886 – Great Southwest Railroad Strike pinkerton detectives called in to beat strikers. Missouri and Texas bring in State Militia.

*** Bay View Tragedy – 2000 workers in Milwaukee Wisconsin strike to denounce the ten-hour workday they are fired on by troops. ***

1887 – Louisiana Militia shot down 35 unarmed black sugar workers striking for a dollar a day wage.

1892 – Homestead strike pinkerton guards open fire on Carnegie Mill Steel strikers in Pennsylvania

1894 Pullman General Strike 14,000 federal troops called out. 34 American Railway Union members were shot and killed.

1896 – Leadville Colorado state militia sent out to put down the mine strike

1897 – Lattimer Massacre, Luzem county sheriff’s posse kills 9 strikers for refusing to disperse in coalmine strike.

1900 – Anthracite coalmine strike 14 killed by scabherders

1903 – Mary Harris “Mother Jones” leads child workers to demand 55 hour work week.

1904 - Colorado militia kills 6 strikers at Dunnville mine

1911 – Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, 147 workers mostly women die working in sweatshop conditions with bolted doors.

1913 – New Orleans, 3 maritime workers shot when striking against United Fruit Company

1914 Ludlow Massacre, state militia attacks Union tent camp with machine guns and sets afire killing 19 including children.

1915 – Joe Hill union organizer is hung on trumped up charges in Salt Lake City

1916 – Everett Washington, Everett mills hires strike breakers to beat picketers on docks while local police refuse to intervene.

1917 – Bisbee Deportation, 1185 workers are deported by Arizona Sheriff in manure laden train cars to the New Mexico desert for union activity.

1919- Fannie Sellins United Mine Worker organizer is gunned down in Brackenridge Pennsylvania

Wesley Everest IWW organizer lynched in Centralia Washington.

1920 – Battle of Matewan, Detectives hired by mining company enter into gun battle with striking miners.

1922- Herrin Massacre, 36 killed during coalmine strike.

1923 – Maritime Strike, San Pedro California IWW Union Hall raided and demolished

1927- IWW coal miners massacred while marching for work conditions in company town of Serene Colorado

1929 – Loray Mill Strike, National Guard called out in North Carolina to end strike

1930 – Imperial Valley California, 100 farm workers arrested for unionizing activities they were convicted of “Criminal Syndicalism”

1931 – Harlan County Kentucky, Striking miners are attacked by armed men.

1932 – Dearborn Michigan, local police kill striking workers at the Ford plant.

1933 – Pixley California, Strikebreakers kill 4 workers in the cotton pickers strike

1934- Toledo Ohio, National Guardsmen open fire killing 2 and wounding 200 strikers.

1937- River Rouge Michigan, GM guards beat UAW leaders at plant location.

Chicago Republic Steel Plant, local police kill 10 wounds 30 in Memorial Day Massacre

1946- US Navy seized oil refineries to break nationwide strike

1948 – UAW Labor Leader Walter Reuther is shot.

1952 – Truman orders US Army to seize nation’s steel mills to avert a strike.

1970 – Nixon declares state of national emergency over first post office national strike in 195 years

1980 – Ronal Regan fires thousands of Air Traffic Controllers for going on strike of the PATCO union.

1989- Valhalla NY, 21 years ago Gerry Horgan is runned down and killed by a scab while fighting for Medical Benefits on CWA Local 1103's picket line. CWA to this day wears red every Thursday for Gerry. We will never forget.

<snip>

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Those Reagan policies are part of the past that gives me cold chills.

Ronald Reagan was a malicious, selfish and ignorant man. He was a Union Buster who had headed a Union, he was an anti gay hate monger who had greatly profited from the talents of people he knew to be gay over an entire career. He did nothing at all while tens of thousands of Americans died of AIDS. Nothing. And Republicans, heartless and full of hate, voted to reelect him in the midst of that.

[Marr]

77. +1. That post about 'centrists' getting it all done and

'purists' sitting around doing nothing is just stunningly ignorant.

[Zorra]

83. Bravo, WillyT!

[Generic Other]

98. Remembering our history

and which side we should be on!

Thank you WillyT.

[Rex]

106. I've noticed that the Third Way apologists don't know an ounce of history.

They pretend to, but are clueless. That is why it is hard to believe a word they say.

[neverforget]

126. Great post!

Thanks WillyT!

[Marr]

76. You really need to do some reading. /nt

[Rex]

107. It should be embarrassing imo.

To get on here and be that totally ignorant of even contemporary history.

[brooklynite]

75. Explain exactly what the two have to do with each other?

Let's accept that you're struggling and want a real progressive to fix things. What you're ignoring is that nominating the progressive is useless if the progressive can't actually get elected. President Obama implemented a health insurance program that doesn't work as well as single payer, but you wouldn't have gotten single payer implemented in this environment, so your choice is incremental change under a mainstream candidate vs. nothing under a Republican. You want Bernie Sanders? Great. Just explain exactly how he wins a national election.

As for me and my wife? I've worked for the Government for 25 years; my wife is a successful lawyer who works for responsible clients. We chose to under-pay for housing in our early years so we could afford a nice house later; we chose not to have children; and we invest our available funds responsibly to build a nest-egg. That answer your question?

[Phentex]

79. Not to mention you are still working for change for others

even if you don't need them for yourself.

[brooklynite]

80. ...but I'm still a 1%er, so that's all that counts...

Now, excuse me while I go pick up my top hat and cape from the Cleaners.

[Phentex]

82. shouldn't you send your assistant?

I keed, I keed.

[Zorra]

84. That's what the 1%/Third Way and their tools keep telling us.

Meanwhile, we just got slaughtered in another election.

[randome]

85. You can have your faith all you want but the truth is still the truth.

Everyone agrees that pants go on the bottom and shirts on top.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[brooklynite]

86. So prove me wrong...explain HOW Bernie Sanders (or equivalent) wins a national election...

Last time I checked, they still let moderates and conservatives vote.

[baldguy]

96. "Last time I checked, they still let moderates and conservatives vote."

The purges will take care of that.

[Zorra]

170. The same way anyone generally wins an election. By getting enough votes for them counted

in order for them to be declared the winner.

However, it would help sincere candidates if conservatives of all stripe did not use various forms of media to continually depress the vote by spreading propaganda about how sincere candidates cannot win elections.

[brooklynite]

179. Doesn't answer the question...

Which combination of States, which might otherwise support a "mainstream" Democratic Candidate, are going to support a 75-year old, Jewish, self-avowed Socialist for President, given that his election experience is limited to racking up about 250,000 votes in the most liberal State in the nation?

[Zorra]

181. We don't know. It's never been tried. We actually even elected a black man who ran for President

on a populist Democratic platform before his first term.

That's almost as difficult as electing a woman POTUS in the US.

[brooklynite]

183. Understood, but if you want people to support him...

...you need to make a more convincing argument than "I like his positions".

Obama, by way of comparison, had far more public exposure (2004 Keynote) and the financial and political resources to be competitive with Hillary Clinton, the presumptive favorite. By comparison, Dennis Kucinich did not.

[Zorra]

184. I believe that I can safely say that a large majority of Americans had no clue who Barack Obama

was before he ran for President.

Naturally, conservatives/Third Way/Wall St. and their MSM will do everything in their very substantial power to crush Senator's Sanders' bid for the nomination, early and often, should he choose to run, just like they did Rep. Kucinich's bid for the nomination.

The people will simply have to find the resources in themselves to be more effective than the oligarchs, corporations, and other wealthy financial entities at promoting and electing their best and most concerned and effective choice for President.

Until Senator Sanders, or another sincere, qualified candidate formally announces their intention to run for President, all we can do is develop ideas on how we can help a sincere, non-compromised presidential candidate defeat Wall Street's compromised chosen Democratic party candidate in the primary process.

Senator Warren seems to enjoy a great deal of popularity, and this is clearly due to her anti Wall St., anti-oligarchy, financial reformist, populist stances. Many Democratic candidates throughout the country enlisted her support in their campaign. If Bernie runs as a Democrat, Senator Warren would be an effective and excellent campaign asset, and spokesperson, for Bernie's anti-Wall St populist campaign.

Whatever; the election is two years away, and we'll have to cross the bridges when we get to them. In the meantime, all we can do is discuss Bernie, and spread the word about his anti-oligarchy populist platform, and hope for change.

[brooklynite]

185. If it makes you feel better to pretend to be David and Goliath, knock yourself out...

Naturally, conservatives/Third Way/Wall St. and their MSM will do everything in their very substantial power to crush Senator's Sanders' bid for the nomination, early and often, should he choose to run, just like they did Rep. Kucinich's bid for the nomination.

You seriously believe that the only thing that stopped Dennis Kucinich --who couldn't even win renomination in a safe Democratic district when the electorate became marginally less urban and liberal -- was the evil minions of Third Way and Wall Street?

17 million Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008 when the alternative was Barack Obama. Well, I've met Barack Obama. And I've met Bernie Sanders (private dinner with him and his wife). And as much as you may dream otherwise, Bernie Sanders as a candidate is not Barack Obama.

[Zorra]

186. Yeppers. The RW even went so far as to gerrymander Rep. Kucinich out of office, so

they could silence even the threat of his voice in Congress. Judging from your posts, I suspect that you were more than pleased to see his progressive voice gone from Congress as well.

So you had dinner with Bernie Sanders, and met Barack Obama. That doesn't make your opinions any more valid or important than any other 1%er working to maintain the status quo for their own benefit, against the best interests of the majority of the people in the world.

As a matter of fact, since we're dropping names here, I actually had the privilege of having coffee with my friend Joe, who has severe autism, this morning.

[brooklynite]

187. "silence even the threat of his voice in Congress"?

Where exactly was his voice? Alan Grayson (who BTW I supported in his first Congressional campaign) at least spoke up now and then. What great accomplishments did Kucinich achieve that had Wall Street quivering it its boots?

[Zorra]

188. Are you too young to remember that Kucinich led Iraq War opposition in Congress?

Or maybe you thought going to War in Iraq was a really good idea at the time, and that's why you have such obvious disdain for Dennis?

Did you not understand the very important things that he said when he spoke out, or is it really that you did not like what he had to say, because they were contrary to your agenda?

Kucinich On House Iraq War Debate

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who has led opposition within the Congress to the Iraq war from the beginning, gave the following floor speech on Thursday.

"The President will not bring an end to this war. He says it will be a decision for the next president. But he is building permanent bases in Iraq; and he is determined to keep a force of at least 50,000 in Iraq into the distant future

"This Congress may not bring an end to this war. Because the real power to end the war is in a cut off of funds. Congress keeps appropriating funds in the name of the troops and the troops will stay in Iraq instead of coming home.
snip---
"There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But, there are WMDs in DC. Lies are Weapons of Mass Destruction: 2,500 American soldiers have died. Over 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died. It is a time for an end to our national sleep walk through the graveyard of the Iraq war.

http://warisacrime.org/node/11975

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Cheney

Because I believe the vice president's conduct of office has been destructive to the founding purposes of our nation. Today, I have introduced House Resolution 333, Articles of Impeachment Relating to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. I do so in defense of the rights of the American people to have a government that is honest and peaceful.

It became obvious to me that this vice president, who was a driving force for taking the United States into a war against Iraq under false pretenses, is once again rattling the sabers of war against Iran with the same intent to drive America into another war, again based on false pretenses.

Let me cite from the articles of impeachment that were introduced this afternoon, Article I, that Richard Cheney had purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

That despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401542.html

Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate from Ohio, introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush into the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

Kucinich announced his intention to seek Bush's impeachment Monday night, when he read the lengthy document into the record.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.

Most of the congressman's resolution deals with the Iraq war, contending that the president manufactured a false case for the war, violated U.S. and international law to invade Iraq, failed to provide troops with proper equipment and falsified casualty reports for political purposes.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.impeach/

Kucinich voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that started the Iraq War.[1]

During the debate in 2002 over the resolution giving the president the right to use military force against Iraq, Kucinich proposed an amendment to recommit the Iraq resolution to committee with instructions requiring the president to submit to Congress an estimate of the impact of the war on the U.S. economy, Iraqi citizens, and international stability. Supporters felt as though the motion was necessary, for the costs of the war were likely to be high and military action should remain a last resort in dealing with Iraq. The amendment failed 101-325.

Main article: Congressional actions on the Iraq War prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion

As the FY2004 Intelligence Authorization was debated in 2003, no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. In response, Kucinich offered an amendment (H.AMDT.194) which would have audited all telephone and electronic communications between the CIA and the office of Vice President Cheney on the subject of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kucinich argued that this would help determine what evidence there was for the initial invasion of Iraq.

Main article: Congressional actions on the Iraq War following the 2003 U.S. invasion

On January 10, 2007, Kucinich introduced a resolution (H.Con.Res.23) expressing, “That it is the sense of Congress that the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.”

Main article: Congressional actions regarding President Bush’s 2007 proposed troop “surge” in Iraq

During the March 2007 debate of the Iraq supplemental spending bill, Rep. Kucinich supported an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) requiring withdrawal of American forces by the end of 2007. Kucinich stated that “the Lee Amendment makes sure the money is there to bring troops home...People are looking for leadership [to get the troops out of Iraq]. Here it is.”

Main article: U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007 (H.R.1591)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dennis_Kucinich#Iraq_War

Kucinich voted against the USA PATRIOT Act and has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq.

Kucinich has spoken out against the conference system of lawmaking. "It's a defect in the system," explains Kucinich. "When a bill goes into a conference committee, it gets yanked out of the sunlight and into the shadows. The conference process is a closed one, so you can go into a conference committee and basically add anything or take out anything you want and no one really knows. It transforms the legislature into a secret cabal."[4]

He has criticized Diebold Election Systems, and posted internal company memos on his websites. [5]

Kucinich is interested in media reform and has vowed to make it a national issue. Kucinich stated, "... there is great concern about the proper role of the media in a democratic society. The American people clearly do not want the media to be in a position where they're determining which candidates ought to be considered for the presidency and which ought not to be considered for the presidency. Such practice by the media represents a tampering with the political process itself. The role of the media in this process has now become a national issue central to the question of who's running our country."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dennis_Kucinich#Iraq_War

[brooklynite]

189. It's not leadership if nobody's following...

Did he speak out? Yes. Did he "lead"? I see no sign of it, and the endorsement of "warisacrime.org" doesn't really stand out.

Obama also opposed the war; apparently TPTB didn't feel the need to crush him as well?

[Zorra]

190. Wait...you just emphatically asked where his voice was.

"Where exactly was his voice? Alan Grayson (who BTW I supported in his first Congressional campaign) at least spoke up now and then."

Now you are recognizing the fact that he spoke out.

It is a well known fact that Rep. Kucinich led the opposition to the Iraq War in Congress, and all the strawmen in the world won't change this fact.

And you'll have to ask the banksters why they bankrolled Obama; I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with why Holder didn't prosecute them for their crimes? Who knows?

Leaders who do the right thing, and fail at it, are always preferable to leaders who do the wrong thing, and succeed at it.

At any rate, we will continue to disagree; and our differences lie in the fact that your way has been proven to be, for the most part, ineffective, and highly destructive, and our way has not yet been tried in this country yet, but has been successful elsewhere. In the meantime, our planet becomes more and more polluted, and our country continues on its constant downward spiral for everyone except the 1%.

Congratulations, the system you so avidly support, and apparently seek to maintain, is a huge success.

[brooklynite]

191. I never disputed his "voice"...I disputed his Leadership

We're talking a campaign for President, and you're suggesting that THEY were afraid of him. If people weren't paying attention to his leadership (and people who were already anti-war don't count) what did they have to fear?

[Zorra]

192. They use the MSM, the media they own, to support their own candidates.

It's an obvious, and simple thing; one of the privileges of great wealth, ownership, monopoly, and control.

If there is a person, idea, or organization that they see as a threat, they use their media to squelch the threat.

They will try to squelch Bernie, just like they did Dennis Kucinich, and you are right here on DU, clearly doing your best to help them in this task. I have to go now; obviously, no one is paying me to do this.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/bernie-sanders-us-may-be-at-tipping-point-where-only-the-billionaire-class-picks-presidents/

“I’m giving some thought to it,” he said. “Taking on the billionaire class, and Wall Street, and the Koch brothers is not an easy task.”

“How are you going to get elected president if you take on the billionaire class?” CNN host Chris Cuomo snarked. “Don’t you watch the elections?”

“I’m going to be very honest with you,” Sanders replied. “We may have reached the tipping point where candidates who are fighting for the working class and the middle class of this country may not be able do it anymore because of the power of the billionaire class.”

“That’s the simple reality,” he continued. “And I have got to ascertain — if I do it, I want to do it well. If I do it, I know that I will need millions of people engaged in a real grassroots campaign to take on big money, and to fight for an agenda, a jobs program, raising the minimum wage, pay equity for women, dealing with climate change, all of these things.”

[brooklynite]

193. Ciao. Still didn't answer the question...

Either you don't care if Sanders wins as long as he espouses your positions, or you think he can appeal to a national electorate made up of 23% liberal, 34% moderate and 38% conservative (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx). If so, should be easy to explain it to the rest of us.

[FBaggins]

81. Let's see if I've got this straight

You want to dispute the claim that your position is effetively that any Democrat who does not walk effectively in lock-step with you is not truly a Democrat...

... and you do that with an OP that clearly suggests that you think that those here who disagree with you are de-facto 1%ers (or otherwise stomping on the common man for anything they have)?

Why not just save the readers some time and say "Yeah... I'm a purist. I don't give a @#$ what you think" ?

[brooklynite]

198. Yes, all wealthy people are conservative, just like all working class people are liberal.....

[FBaggins]

199. Even with the missing sarcasm tag... that wouldn't go far enough.

It's actually the other way around. The author appears to imply that all conservatives are wealthy and all liberals are working-class.

[WillyT]

88. Last Kick From Me...

[baldguy]

89. How can you rationally argue the purges & litmus tests aren't a campaign for purity?

Those are not Democratic Party values & never have been.

We need to work to get people to JOIN liberals, not make up excuses exclude them.

[WillyT]

90. I Argue On Behalf Of Those That Got Us This Far...

[baldguy]

92. And none of of those downtrodden masses would be able to pass all of your purity tests.

United we stand, divided we fall. All you're doing is sewing division.

[LiberalElite]

94. K&R to the nth degree nt

[n2doc]

97. I guess my question is- Is there any principle they would not abandon to win?

Would the pragmatists and centrists stand up for anything, if opposing it reduced their candidate's chances of winning? Clearly issues like TPP and Keystone are not a problem for them.

[L0oniX]

101. An extremely interesting question.......

Would the pragmatists and centrists stand up for anything, if opposing it reduced their candidate's chances of winning?

[sabrina 1]

104. This from your OP is so correct:

IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF A BUNCH OF HUDDLED TOGETHER CENTRISTS CONCERNED FOR YOU, MADE THAT HAPPEN!

A whole bunch of people got slaughtered in the streets for that to happen...

And a whole lot of Great Democrats, like FDR, fought very hard to implement policies that would at least keep people from starving to death, policies that many now in our Party are working on privatizing for the benefit of their real bosses.

[librechik]

105. FDR "We must become radicals for a generation" that is what is needed n/t

[99Forever]

112. Excellent questions. n.t

[maxrandb]

113. I'm doing fine

Retired Military Mustang Officer (Prior enlisted). Made close to 6 figures while on active duty. Have a great retirement pension, and also get some disability from the VA. Pay for my Health Care through Tricare, but it's great coverage, and I can use the VA if needed.

Kids doing great. Jim Webb pushed through the Post Montgomery GI Bill that allowed me to transfer my education benefits to my kids. One has a full time job, one in Grad School.

BUT...no one died in the street for me. That's a bit much. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I married a great women. Kids had great Public Schools, parents did a good job raising me...AND ALMOST ALL OF THE BENEFITS I HAVE ARE FROM DEMOCRATS THAT YOU AND FEW OTHERS ON DU WOULD DESCRIBE AS "CENTRIST"

Let me say that again....A great deal of the benefits I get, and a great deal of the things I have benefited from came from Democrats that you and a few other "purists" on DU would demean as centrist

FDR wouldn't pass some DUer's test AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE
Harry Truman wouldn't pass some DUer's test AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE
Jim Webb wouldn't pass some DUer's test AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE

and do you know who DIDN'T help ensure those benefits are there for me and every other American willing to take advantage of them??????

EVERY GOD DAMN REPUBLICAN TEA-BAGGING ASSHAT WE JUST ALLOWED TO TAKE OVER OUR GOVERNMENT because some Dems are not pure enough, and somehow, some folks got the brilliant idea that we should just sit on our hands since the most Progressive President in my lifetime didn't fulfill every God Damned "pie-in-the-sky" liberal policy on somebody's wish list.

I'm sorry, but for the "purist" out there, I have a fucking question for you....Would you rather take a couple of small steps forward, or leap off a fucking trampoline that puts you back 70 years? Because you know what...by not supporting the Party that is taking those "small steps" forward, you empower the folks that are running backwards with Wilie Coyote Acme Rocket Powered Sneakers on their feet.

That's what I fucking think of the "purist", and those ignorant enough to think both parties are "just the same".

Fuck that shit. Enjoy the next two years, or decades, or centuries of trying to dig out of the hole these fucking Tea-baggers are going to put us in.

At least you can say "I sent a message to the Democratic Party" as the country burns around you. Huzzah! Great Job!

[WillyT]

114. You Don't Seem Fine... And The Benefits YOU Have... Started With THESE People...

American Bloody Labor History - Never Forget
CWA Local 1103
Posted On: Nov 06, 2010 (11:35:19)

<snip>

American Labor History is penned with bloody ink. Even considering Labor’s crowning political/legislative achievement: the 1935 the National Labor Relations Act (wagner act) we still battle to this very Labor Day to hold on to our decent wages and benefits. Today employers do not point guns at us or beat us in the streets, today Corporate America uses its billions of dollars of profits from the work of our backs to influence the political process to undermine our livelihood.

This Labor Day take a moment to look back on our bloody history, and know we must be ever diligent everyday to fight for our rights – on the Picket Line, on the Shop Floor and at the Ballot Box. Vote for CWA endorsed candidates, protect our jobs for the future and never go back to our bloody past.

1800 – Strikers found guilty of conspiracy by acting collectively to raise wages. (Commonweath v Pullis)

1850 – Militia turn on railroad strikers in Portge NY. 2 strikers killed many injured

1870 - Tompkins Square Riot NYC, Mounted police charge unemployed men, women and children demonstrating in park beating them with Billy clubs

Battle of Viaduct - The Great Railroad Strike was a general strike to protest cut in wages in which federal troops were called in 30 workers were killed during the protest.

1885 – Ten Coal mining activists are hung in Pennsylvania (Molly Maguires)

1886 – Great Southwest Railroad Strike pinkerton detectives called in to beat strikers. Missouri and Texas bring in State Militia.

*** Bay View Tragedy – 2000 workers in Milwaukee Wisconsin strike to denounce the ten-hour workday they are fired on by troops. ***

1887 – Louisiana Militia shot down 35 unarmed black sugar workers striking for a dollar a day wage.

1892 – Homestead strike pinkerton guards open fire on Carnegie Mill Steel strikers in Pennsylvania

1894 Pullman General Strike 14,000 federal troops called out. 34 American Railway Union members were shot and killed.

1896 – Leadville Colorado state militia sent out to put down the mine strike

1897 – Lattimer Massacre, Luzem county sheriff’s posse kills 9 strikers for refusing to disperse in coalmine strike.

1900 – Anthracite coalmine strike 14 killed by scabherders

1903 – Mary Harris “Mother Jones” leads child workers to demand 55 hour work week.

1904 - Colorado militia kills 6 strikers at Dunnville mine

1911 – Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, 147 workers mostly women die working in sweatshop conditions with bolted doors.

1913 – New Orleans, 3 maritime workers shot when striking against United Fruit Company

1914 Ludlow Massacre, state militia attacks Union tent camp with machine guns and sets afire killing 19 including children.

1915 – Joe Hill union organizer is hung on trumped up charges in Salt Lake City

1916 – Everett Washington, Everett mills hires strike breakers to beat picketers on docks while local police refuse to intervene.

1917 – Bisbee Deportation, 1185 workers are deported by Arizona Sheriff in manure laden train cars to the New Mexico desert for union activity.

1919- Fannie Sellins United Mine Worker organizer is gunned down in Brackenridge Pennsylvania

Wesley Everest IWW organizer lynched in Centralia Washington.

1920 – Battle of Matewan, Detectives hired by mining company enter into gun battle with striking miners.

1922- Herrin Massacre, 36 killed during coalmine strike.

1923 – Maritime Strike, San Pedro California IWW Union Hall raided and demolished

1927- IWW coal miners massacred while marching for work conditions in company town of Serene Colorado

1929 – Loray Mill Strike, National Guard called out in North Carolina to end strike

1930 – Imperial Valley California, 100 farm workers arrested for unionizing activities they were convicted of “Criminal Syndicalism”

1931 – Harlan County Kentucky, Striking miners are attacked by armed men.

1932 – Dearborn Michigan, local police kill striking workers at the Ford plant.

1933 – Pixley California, Strikebreakers kill 4 workers in the cotton pickers strike

1934- Toledo Ohio, National Guardsmen open fire killing 2 and wounding 200 strikers.

1937- River Rouge Michigan, GM guards beat UAW leaders at plant location.

Chicago Republic Steel Plant, local police kill 10 wounds 30 in Memorial Day Massacre

1946- US Navy seized oil refineries to break nationwide strike

1948 – UAW Labor Leader Walter Reuther is shot.

1952 – Truman orders US Army to seize nation’s steel mills to avert a strike.

1970 – Nixon declares state of national emergency over first post office national strike in 195 years

1980 – Ronal Regan fires thousands of Air Traffic Controllers for going on strike of the PATCO union.

1989- Valhalla NY, 21 years ago Gerry Horgan is runned down and killed by a scab while fighting for Medical Benefits on CWA Local 1103's picket line. CWA to this day wears red every Thursday for Gerry. We will never forget.

<snip>

[maxrandb]

117. Please don't lecture me about the great that unions have done

My Grandfather helped organize coal miners in Corning, OH.

But here is the attitude and the spin you would hear from the DU purist for just one of your examples

RANDOM DU PURIST: "Yeah, Labor worked hard for rights back in 1800, but ya' know, women still weren't given the right to vote, so screw 'em...if they don't stand up for women, why should I support Democrats...they're just like the Whigs!"

That's the kind of thinking the Democratic Party has to deal with.

And BTW - All of that sacrifice you posted. All of the gains that have been made, are at risk from the Tea-baggers we allowed to gain power by demanding purity.

How are the DU purist different from the T-bagger that complains that Ronald RAY-Gun was NOT conservative enough?

[RiverLover]

123. Well that scenerio would sure wake people up to the realities of the T crazies! I like it.

We'll come back stronger then ever & be able to weed out Third Wayers.

[baldguy]

125. The purist isn't any different from the Teabagger.

And I get the strong feeling that the poster has no clue what it's like to be in a union, much less get his hands dirty.

People like that believe blue collar workers are best kept at arms length (preferably down wind), best served by telling them what they should want & need, and there's no real point in giving them a voice at the decision-making table & listening to what they have to say.

[merrily]

158. You're a purist. We all are purists about different things.

But no, liberals are not the same as teabaggers, not at all.

[baldguy]

161. Not liberals; but "liberals". Note the difference.

Liberals want actual progress, recognize that there are processes & procedures required to get there, understand that wishing dictatorial powers on one person is fantasy, but that it takes hard work by many dedicated individuals to achieve these ends, and while sometimes may be disappointed, are not disheartened in the quest to improve their lives & the lives of others.

OTOH, "liberals" only say they want progress, refuse to accept that simply wishing for something won't make it so, pout like spoiled children when they don't get their way, and - just like Teabaggers, are likely to stab good Democrats in the back, and - just like Teabaggers, have an authoritarian streak that demands purity, calling for purges and litmus tests, and - just like Teabaggers, are happy to see the Democratic Party defeated.

[merrily]

162. Whatever, dude.

If I were you I'd worry about Republicans of all stripes a lot more than I would about any Democrat, including liberals or "liberals."

I think your hatred is woefully misdirected.

[baldguy]

163. “An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; ..."

“... a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind.” ~ Buddha

We have many wounded minds on DU.

[merrily]

165. Well, I guess you would know.

[RiverLover]

166. LOL +1~

[baldguy]

167. I know that on today's DU the Democrats get TS'd and the Democrat haters get kudos.

And the Republicans cheer.

[Rex]

180. Perfect response.

I wonder if anyone will ever buy his divide and conquer routine? It use to work, but seems to just get laughed out of the room now. I guess some people think their one trick pony works every time.

[merrily]

182. Thanks. I was admiring your responses on this thread, including to name removed.

As for my responses, I liked my Reply 159 more. Maybe it was too subtle, though.

[FSogol]

168. +1 Well said. Should be an orignal post. n/t

[merrily]

160. I call bs.

RANDOM DU PURIST: "Yeah, Labor worked hard for rights back in 1800, but ya' know, women still weren't given the right to vote, so screw 'em...if they don't stand up for women, why should I support Democrats...they're just like the Whigs!"

I call bs on that. However, I have never seen a post remotely like that on DU, not from centrists (who are also purists, just a different kind) or from liberals. Anyone can make up shit and attribute it to you or anyone else. And no one can debate it because it's ridiculous to debate.

How are the DU purist different from the T-bagger that complains that Ronald RAY-Gun was NOT conservative enough?

If you don't see a difference between a T-bagger and any Democrat, your prism needs a lot of work.

[Aerows]

139. Proud to kick and rec this thread

[merrily]

153. None of your beeswax, but let me put it this way instead:

I've had a combination of things that enable me to work, which is very lucky; and I have usually been able to find work, which is also very lucky. So, while I wish I had enough to do more for others, overall, I am okay, as is my immediate family

I am a traditional Democrat not because I need something or expect to need something, but because someone else might.

No one willing and able to work should have to endure or fear unemployment, especially not as when the nation needs so many things and spends so damn much on "defense" and "security" and wastes so damn much. No one in a rich nation with a heart and soul who is not able to work should starve or freeze to death or be homeless or fear those things.

[WillyT]

173. LOL !!! - Ya Know merrily... I Really Wasn't Looking For Numbers And Personal Information...

I was just asking everybody to stop for a moment and consider those that shed their blood, sweat, and tears... and even their lives...

So that we have the opportunites to make our way through this life in greater comfort and fairness.

As you said above... we all stand on their shoulders.

[merrily]

174. I know you weren't.

And, now, it's time we let others stand on our shoulders.

That is what life in a civilized society is about, not only "me and mine, us four, no more."

[woo me with science]

169. Amen.

Well done.

[jeepers]

201. The poor don't matter

For what it is worth, we have three socio-economic groups in this country, The rich, the comfortable and the poor and two political parties.

I gotta guess the poor aren't having a party.