= new reply since forum marked as read
If you don't let people know what you are in your profile, you've got no call to make spurious and ugly accusations like "sexism." It doesn't bother me what people call me. Sorry you got so bent out of shape, there.
Look how your entire post is about ME. You might want to rethink your approach to people.
Threats don't move me. And I'm not trying to "get" you to do anything. I don't CARE what you do, capisce?
Have a nice day. When Hillary is sworn in, I'll be cheering her on! You go on and do what you want--stew, pout, whatever. Makes no difference to me. I'm going to do what I can to see the first woman POTUS elected, and she will be be superb. Not in a "sexist" way either....!
Then you can rub my nose in all these MANY polls you fail to cite!
Funny how you insist that the woman with the MOST votes--more than Sanders, more than Trump--is in anything but the catbird seat!
This is like that "math" thing that some have trouble with, plainly. You'll figure it out, when events overtake "YOUR DREAMS."
That is sexist, but you knew that. But hey I am sure they pay the bots just as much for sexist posts as non-sexist.
Good for you, many people loved Marget Thatcher too, but I think she had a higher favorbility rating, was more liberal, and less corrupt. But on a bonus if she is elected, she may also be the first female president impeached...so breaking all sorts of ceilings. It would be nice to see the first Jewish president elected too, but I am not basing my vote on that since I vote on policy and substance not brand name.
...perhaps you have heard of sarcasm to get a point across? 
Also Hillary has the lowest favorbility ratings of a democrat in the primary that may be the democratic nominee...perhaps you see what I am getting at...of and NY did not allow people to vote if they had not registered as democrats 6 months prior...again a bit poll taxish for me...but more like the american one used for voter suppression not the one that caused riots over in the UK....oh and they are both a bit hawkish.
The other possibility is that the poster knows a LOT about Mags--and likes her.
Who knows?
Birds of a feather, as it were?
Cough: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/321348436840558592
This is satire, but it is kinda funny: http://newsthump.com/2015/12/16/boost-for-donald-trump-after-he-appears-in-margaret-thatchers-dress/
Gently modified to conceal a handgun and up to three hand grenades, Trump explained that the gussets were only one reason he’d bid on the outfit.
“It’s true that there are some things that money can’t buy,” said Trump.
“Fortunately, I’m so rich that I’m yet to find out what they are, or for anyone to tell me why I shouldn’t have bought them.”
Trump explained that Maggie Thatcher had inspired him as a child, because she had shown that people would elect bat-shit crazy capitalists even if they suffered from completely unrealistic hair.
You really don't know and cannot appreciate the gut-busting laughs you are giving me.
How interesting that you are a Thatcher fan--I think you've told us all we need to know about you!
Here, frame this and hang it on your wall:
Makes sense I gues that you go from Thatcher worship to Reagan. After all Hillary has long supported the efforts of the Reagans to help the Aids community...
http://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clinton-nancy-reagan-aids-gaffe-bigger-hurt-her-gay-voters/
You do know they are not the same person right? Also you are totally fine with the Aids thing with Hillary then I guess, good to know, you seems to care more about Thatcher than the willing acts of hate, homophobia, and bigotry from the Reagans that resulted in the suffering and death of many people that Hillary praised them for. I personally love Only Fools and Horses and The Comic Strip, and I am not a fan of Thatcher at all, which is why I don't support Hillary, they are too much alike for me, like when the Clintons wanted to privatize social security, sounds very Thatcheresc to me.
Oh Whoops Apocalypse was a good series from the time.
The videos I linked are from one of the longest running comedy series from the UK, and one from a series that was a foundation of so many British Comedians (if you took a second to watch it you would see). But hey just jump to conclusions and insult some of the best comedies from the UK because you don't want to have an actual debate or learn. Lie all you want about some fiction love between me and Hillary Thatcher Clinton, but you really should not pre-judge an entire series and the counter-culture movement it sprang out of...it is not becoming of a "liberal" to be so prejudice. Plus for some one with what looks like a West Highland White Terrier as their icon...it seems wrong to dismiss stuff from the UK so quickly...if you are only in to Scottish things then you could watch...
The Book Group
It is one of the best series I have seen in a long time, but it has nothing to do with Thatcher so it may not be your "cup of tea".
That term always makes me laugh. If something was pure evil I always wonder why it does things? Is it for Evil's sake? DO they love being evil? Does loving evil mean you are being nice to evil? It is like the shows where the villain wants to destroy the word...I always ask, and then what? Just rule over a dead lifeless planet? Also what is "evil", because I have seen selfish acts, and acts of insanity...but evil? It always reminds me of Dr Evil.
Is that Lil Bub in your sig line? 
<sorry for the off topic post>
It is my favorite gif of all times. I feel like I am regressing in my maturity level when I stare at it because I start to giggle every time she turns and looks again...even though it is a gif on loop so I know it is going to happen, but some how some childish part of my mind that has forgotten about object permanence (or never learned it) gets surprised over and over. 
http://lilbub.com/
I've got her set to be the first thing I see on Facebook every day! She can always put a goofy grin on my face. Thanks for the video, I hadn't seen that one.
Everyone I've seen here have been willing to compromise, just not sell out their core values.
Let's not talk anymore, how's that?
I'm laughing too hard. This is just too much. Your hypotheticals are poorly constructed, reliant on too many variables, and just, well, awful. Not good. You'd flunk if you tried to make that case in a freshman college class.
Sorry...!
Why don't you run and sign the MoveOn petition, maybe work off some of that "My Candidate Lost" aggression that way? They need names for their database!! GRRRRR!!!! You will be given opportunities to donate to fight the power in the years ahead, I promise!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511954360
smh!
Who--save you--thinks that
COMPROMISE
and
MAKE DEMANDS
are in any way related?
Pro tip: They aren't.
Losers looking for COMPROMISE don't MAKE DEMANDS. They ASK--politely. People who MAKE DEMANDS are BULLIES who are in the catbird seat--not people in the loser's corner hoping to get a small piece of the pie. I'm astounded you even made that post!!!
But, given that you initiated your comment with "WTF" it's understandable that you likely don't quite have that nailed down! The one who suffers from incoherence (that's YOUR term, mind) is in your own mirror, you see. To the VICTOR (not the loser) go the spoils--that IS how it works. Nice victors WILL listen to the losers and consider their requests (REQUESTS--not DEMANDS). But losers who make demands? They'll likely be told to talk to the damn hand!
Big finish with nasty accusation calling her a Republican, likening her to Bush, and misspelling "pantsuit."
Oh, you DO cover yourself with glory!!!
Why do I have a feeling you won't be hanging around post primary?
LOL!
This one's a keeper!
150. Yet she stands for nothing and will only declare lots of wars and enact Neo-Liberal econ policy.
View profile
I.E. Basically GWB but with a pants suite.
and so true. 
wow, that is perfect.. in every way
The wars are my main reason for opposing HRC as well. In fact, her 2002 vote for IWR, a profile in moral and political cowardice, was when I knew I would never be 'with her.'
We've had enough death, debt, destruction and destabilization.
And they willing left power when defeated in 1990(even though they were only beaten because of the relentless U.S. economic and military pressure on the Nicaraguan people).
Nicaragua did not become a better country as a result of the Sandinistas being removed and right-wing economic policies being imposed from outside. OK, the constitution now respects "property rights"
which is great if you're a millionaire, but useless to anyone in Nicaragua who isn't).
There was never any excuse for the U.S. creation of the "Contras" OR the economic embargo.
And if you wanted the Sandinistas out in Nicaragua, you never cared about the poor or the workers there. There was never any way that U.S. hostility towards the Ortega administration was ever going to lead to Nicaragua becoming a European-style social democracy. Our country's leaders were never going to allow anything decent for the people anywhere in Latin America-they care only about "market economics" and giving U.S. corporations control of Latin American economies.
You really should revise your remarks because you have made many errors of fact in your comments.
FDR wasn't a segregationist but he had a laissez faire attitude towards the Jim Crow south. And it's not like he didn't see it--he spent plenty of time down south in Warm Springs, GA. He could have integrated the military during WW2 but he didn't. He wasn't helpful as he could have been to black people at all in their quest for equality under the law, though he did create a small non-discrimination law in federal hiring (that was largely ignored). The reason there were so many bathrooms in the Pentagon wasn't just because more women were entering the workplace during wartime--those bathrooms were for "COLORED PEOPLE" (note to my detractors, when I put a phrase in quotes, I am SNARKING) owing to segregation of facilities, but FDR's federal law did mean that when the Pentagon was opened, "lucky" black folk "got to" go pee with the white people. The extra bathrooms did come in handy as more women joined both the military and the civil service in the postwar era.
Also, black people got LESS social security than white people, because they were so often employed in domestic service in private homes and agriculture, and there was no mechanism to recoup benefits from employers. In fact, FDR's program DELIBERATELY excluded these two sectors which were heavily--overwhelmingly, in fact--populated by black workers. Surely you must be aware of this; you're not being accurate if you gloss it over. Also, since blacks were excluded as a consequence of their race from many unions, they were unable to work in jobs in manufacturing that qualified for SS benefits.
Harry Truman used the N-word with abandon, was raised a racist in Klan country, was never comfortable around black people, but he did integrate the military and that was to his credit.
JFK, a Navy man who understood chain of command in a wartime environment, did not do due diligence on Bay of Pigs. He admitted it on national tv (textbook lesson in "Admit your fuckup and move on"
. You don't "blame" the last guy for your screw-up. He could have said NO. He was bamboozled by a bunch of smooth talking uniforms who, in essence, bullshitted him. He never trusted them after that.
LBJ was not a racist--he was a teacher of "little brown children" (children of Mexican heritage who lived in brutal, bone crushing poverty) in his early years and that was the catalyst to his attitude about equality of opportunity. He called people who weren't like him names, but that's because he was an asshole and that sort of behavior wasn't regarded in the same way back then as it is today. He was an equal-opportunity denigrator, and he'd name-call based on race, religion, orientation, gender, you name it. But he wanted people (men-people, anyway) to have equality of access/opportunity, even as he used rude language towards them. That is why he signed the civil rights act even as he recognized he was fucking over his own party for a generation or more (his words, pretty much). He was a terrible sexist--his exploits would make JFK's look like amateur hour, but he never got the "credit" (Again--note to my detractors, when I put a word in quotes, I am SNARKING) for all of his skirt chasing. LBJ didn't have the energy for a primary fight, and he was looking at one and knew it (but he probably would have won with an all-out push...America doesn't like to change horses in midstream).
LBJ was suffering from congestive heart failure, he'd already suffered at least one heart attack; he was sicker than many--perhaps even he--realized, and he went home and ate/drank/smoked himself to death. Read Caro's books, they're eye-openers. If that's too long a slog, read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/16/opinion/behind-lbj-s-decision-not-to-run-in-68.html
So why are you whining about others doing the same? Seems like you have a lot in common with the guy you were yelling at upthread.
A few points:
Your first paragraph EXCUSES Jim Crow. 
Because it had been in situ a long time. And you gloss over the fact that FDR--despite urging by many--didn't move ahead with bettering the lot of black American citizens.
He was an incrementalist, but he gets a pass from you.
And you don't address--because you cannot--the truths about SS exclusion that I pointed out, that were de facto discrimination against black people receiving the benefit. You completely ignored the Japanese internment upthread, but really--how can anyone justify that? Best to ignore it.
Who was the POTUS when BOP went down? Who had ultimate authority and responsibility, regardless of who "planed" it? You are SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that's an excuse? Bad ideas are bad ideas. JFK took responsibility. He shouldn't be excused, he didn't expect to be, either. He gets credit for not making a bad situation worse. He doesn't get credit for not finding a better solution to Vietnam. In fact, he put a few hundred advisors in there, and gradually, that grew to 15K or more.
You could say his approach there was "incremental."
Why do you think you were the ONLY one who was "alive at the time?" I've got some news for you--you aren't the only one who walked the earth during those days. How curious that you think that being alive makes you "right" when you've misstated so much already. FWIW, I was living in Europe when BOP and Dallas went down--I don't expect a medal for it. smh! In Spain, the nation went into mourning at the death of JFK--but what does that have to do with the simple fact that you got your details WRONG?
You were stationed in TX, LBJ's home state, in a military that was over-populated by Republicans, during the unpopular draft-em Vietnam conflict, which was getting worse, not better, after a time when the number of advisors went from a few hundred to 12-15 THOUSAND (and climbing) and LBJ, after Kennedy's death in Nov 63, started shoveling "cannon fodder" into the theater, hoping to fix an unfixable problem (gee, he inherited that mess, too like JFK did BOP--why no love for him?) , amongst service members who were nervous about escalating conflict and Deployment Without End, Amen, and some folks who had survived Korea, and you're SURPRISED that your associates had a poor opinion of their Democratic POTUS? Damn, you sure are easily accepting of the opinions of a small universe of people stationed in TX (those are ORDERS, not INVITATIONS), not wanting to be there (it's hot as hell in TX in summer) if they marry with your preconceived notions.
Again, I suggest you read Robert Caro's books. They're scholarly, they are THE standard for biographies of LBJ, and they will teach you much that you quite obviously do not know.
You (and I am assuming you are liberal) were very busy taking a dump on the guy you yelled BULLSHIT at, because you didn't like his facts (and they were facts) .... and now you're straining to do the same to me. You're not having an easy time of it, though, because quite simply YOUR FACTS ARE NOT IN ORDER.
And that, my friend, is not "BULLSHIT" (your charming and oft-repeated--don't wear it out-- term). For someone who claims to be so "liberal" you might try opening your mind and listening to other voices. Everything I've said to this point is easily verified. It's not fiction.
It's our American history--in all its pain and glory and political calculation. We all need to be honest, and deal with it.
you enjoy taking something and going from zero to 60 in no facts flat.
that doesn't mean anything in the least regarding "collective ownership".
we who make a decision about who is elected chief of police via voting; does that mean the police dept is rule via collective ownership?
It means that the people have a say in the production, not the final say nor are they all empowering. it means we vote on social programs that work for all and not only the people. Get it now? that democratic socialism.
look I get it, you don't for some odd reason, do not like socialism, which still baffles me because most if not all of our public works are run via democratic socialism, but hey, everyone needs a hobby.
But, honestly, you really need to cut down on the hyperbole.
it's really not attractive at all.
And I also know, that arguing with you that actually benefits people over corporations is a no win situation with you, so knock yourself out with your self defeating argument.
I have better things to do, such as watch paint dry.
Cheers!
We do have collective 'ownership' of the police, it's not in private hands, issuing shares.
Back to your link, it says the people most concerned should have a say in how things are made. Let's be conservative and say 'people most concerned' are not all the stakeholders (or we would have to even include consumers of products in the decision making), and say the 'people most concerned' are the employees having a say (control) over how things are made (production means).
You're actually quite near to the good old Socialist Republics which worked so well (which might be one reason why 'for some odd reason, I do not like socialism, which still baffles you'
But all my best wishes to you enjoying watching that paint dry
You would open the tent to everyone or no one if I were to actually consider your specious "argument".
One that appears to believe it is a zero sum proposition, making yours a "no tent needed" full inclusion purity stance.
You do realize such is hard to take seriously.
….more and more comments like this on DU.
And I understand and agree—compromise in this instance is a form of abetting.
But then—I hear from friends in Europe and they tell how me how terrified 
the rest of the world is of him and of America. More than ever before—because this joker/incompetent/sick Right Winger might come in.
It's a nauseating decision. I can't stand the thought of voting for her. But can we really inflict him on the rest of the world?
Here's the hope—people like Warren and Sanders have been greatly empowered by the primaries. We may also get a Democratic House and Senate. Even with an empty shell-corporate-shill like HRC at the helm—these folks may be able to get something done. And Elizabeth/Bernie will call her out a lot. So our vote isn't all about HRC. It's about giving the good Dems someone they can, in fact, pressure. A Trump President will be a stone wall.
Because you can never go wrong with weak tea.
for this Civil War for the most part is I have problems wording things right. (maybe it's the meds I'm on, sue me I have Clinical Depression and if that offends you sorry whatever) either way. Glad someone said it right. ho hum dems repukes whats the difference. but Liberals vs Conservatives. Whats in a name. Been this way for decades. And I woke up about a decade ago to the fact that D & R meaning like nothing to me. Liberals vs Conservatives do. (And Moderates) I get along fine with Moderates. Usually. (er Moderate Conservatives. the word Moderate on the left is Progressive. I don't always get along with Progressives because they find Liberal as a name offensive. 
