Now I am confused about DU (a different answer to cali's OP)

[sadoldgirl]

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2014, 08:46 PM - Edit history (3)

The question cali posed was about the validity of criticizing PBO. For me this goes farther than just that.
I read for about 2 years the DU OPs, and then joined in spite of my dislike of name calling and personalizing comments. Perhaps I do not belong here; and I questioned this in my first comments on this forum. I am not just a Democrat, I am a socialist democrat (notice the small d). Yes, I have always voted for the candidates of the Democratic Party, but for the clear reason that doing otherwise would nullify my vote and give the Republicans one vote less to worry about.
The answers to cali's OP stunned me. Perhaps to me the important part of the DU name was UNDERGROUND, where ideas and policies could be discussed without necessarily agreeing with the party line. The answer like "don't criticize Obama, because he gets enough of that from the conservative side" is nonsensical for me. a) the conservatives don't use criticism against him, they condemn or obstruct his policies. b)There is something like constructive criticism, which should come from his own party. "No man can do it alone" is not even an answer to the question.
"Don't confuse campaign speeches with policies" is very disturbing. In other words one should vote for a candidate realizing he is lying his way into office? And, please, don't tell me "to face reality", because that means you have given up on change; yet that was exactly Obama's slogan. I hoped and wished for it. Okay, the Congress blocks him on many items, but he still has the "Bully pulpit". When I heard him say at an international press conference in India:"Outsourcing is great! Outsourcing is the future", I was in total shock. After all I voted for him as the POTUS, not for the whole world. That, for instance should not be criticized by a Democratic Party, which used to stand for workers, middle class people, and yes, the poor???
The next trade agreement which he wants to put on Fast Track in Congress, without deliberation , which was written mostly by international corporations is not up for criticism? Remember FDR's "Make me do it". That I think is needed. Am I just supposed to vote for a party without checking whether its representatives adhere to the platform and its rethoric?
Indeed, Obama has "evolved" as far as social issues are concerned, but for me the ACA is only a sell out to the large insurance companies at least without the public option. Well, if we in this forum cannot even voice those kinds of criticism among ourselves without being called indirectly traitors or just stupidly naive, then I might as well leave it. I don't want to insult anyone here, but one should check perhaps the platform of the Republican Party under Eisenhower to see whether the Democrats really still stand for their old values.
Sorry, for the long rant.

[cantbeserious]

1. With Citizens United - It Is Clear - Both Parties Are Owned By The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

eom

[ananda]

3. But don't fall into the false equivalency trap.

The Republican party is far worse than the Democratic.

Corporatism is a serious evil, though.

[cui bono]

5. Not different enough so that we should not criticize the Dems and pull them back to the left.

But here on DU we are called names if we do that. There is a loud and present group that simply cannot stand to hear any criticism of Obama no matter how valid it is.

They're basically saying what Bush said when he said "you're either for us or against us". No one here thought he was right when he said that yet there is a faction on here that thinks it's okay now.

[creeksneakers2]

55. Who said that?

[cui bono]

69. Said what?

[creeksneakers2]

71. Post # 5

"But here on DU we are called names if we do that. There is a loud and present group that simply cannot stand to hear any criticism of Obama no matter how valid it is.

They're basically saying what Bush said when he said "you're either for us or against us". No one here thought he was right when he said that yet there is a faction on here that thinks it's okay now. "

[cui bono]

72. Again, said what? Called criticizers names? I'm sure you've seen plenty of that.

Pretty much every BOGGER has done that.

If you are talking about the quote from Bush, I didn't say someone literally said that. As you can see from what you yourself quoted, I said "They're basically saying" which means they didn't literally say it but that is the meaning of what they are saying. And it is. They are playing a team sport and will not accept any criticism of Obama without getting emotional and they won't criticize anything he does even when it's worse that what Bush did.

[JDPriestly]

74. I am a progressive and as you see from my signature banner, a strong supporter of Elizabeth

Warren, not of the third way Democrats.

Yes. Sometimes conservative, corporate Democrats pick fights with me. I don't take it personally. I view it as an opportunity to present good arguments to them for my point of view and hope that, as time goes by, they will become more progressive.

I see DU as a place where we all learn new things, among them new ways to talk about politics that bring people to understand our point of view and not just to call us out, label us as troublemakers and kick us off the website.

People do change their minds.

I am very encouraged by the fact that when Snowden first came forth with his revelations, a number of DUers attempted to denigrate his sacrifice and the importance of what he had done with all kinds of irrelevant criticisms. They also threw personal slurs at Greenwald.

Then came Greenwald's book (No Place to Hide). I hope everyone will read it. On page 179, Greenwald writes about some "Online Covert Action" techniques that the British GCHQ recommended. These were among files that Snowden found in the American NSA database. The document referred to the 4 D's: "Deny/Disrupt/Degrade/Deceive."

That is precisely what the critics of Snowden were doing to our discussions about the NSA spying on Americans.

Strangely, now that Greenwald's fascinating but frightening book has been published, most of the NSA apologists have disappeared from DU.

So, if you feel personally attacked by other DUers for expressing your views, don't let that stop you. And above all, do not become angry and do not respond with a personal attack. Certain DUers try to excite others to respond unwisely.

Just relax. Present your point of view calmly with faith that if it is right, it will be adopted or encouraged by others. And be open to learning from other DUers. Nobody is right all the time. In fact, being right is not the point on DU. Exchanging ideas is the point. We all need to remember that. It isn't even always about persuading others. It is more about being sure that your ideas are expressed so that others can understand them.

[LuvNewcastle]

77. Great advice, JD. I hope people will take it to heart.

[L0oniX]

96. The Third Way is it's own party, stealing the label of Democratic.

[JEB]

102. What a refreshingly sensible post,

full of wisdom and also revealing of some of the forces at work here at DU. Thank you.

[Enthusiast]

80. +1!

[cantbeserious]

6. With Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Owning And Controlling The Parties

What effective difference really exists?

One side sells - blueberry colored jam - all wrapped in faux patriotism and the flag

The other side sells strawberry colored jam - all wrapped in faux patriotism and the flag.

In either case, the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks are calling the shots.

[Savannahmann]

36. The question seems to be feathers or lead?

Would you rather be crushed by a ton of feathers, or a ton of lead? It doesn't matter which you choose, you will die either way. The Democratic Party may be the feathers in this scenario, but a ton of feathers will crush you just as dead as lead.

My argument has always been that to gain power we must return to the roots. We must embrace principle. JFK, Carter, and many other greats used to speak of principles in grand terms. Robert Kennedy, spoke of them as well. Our great leaders, they told us what they believed, they told us why they believed it. They inspired a nation.

Yes, I include Carter. Because Carter's bad luck was Iran. A mess we had before him, and one which has continued to plague us since.

I have always had great respect for President Carter, he showed great leadership in the Three Mile Island disaster. I could go on, but you see what I mean. He did not just tell us it was now safe, and the danger was going to pass, he went personally to the site, and placed his own life on the line to show us what he knew to be true.

Reagan, while I hate his policies, was the last of those who could stand up and tell us what he believed, and why. Reagan got a tax cut through a hostile congress. He got it through because he went to the people and he made his case to them. Everyone since, and I include President Clinton and Obama in this grouping. Everyone else has been the French Radical. Those are my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.

Remember the great speeches, where the leaders would inspire us to reach for the stars. MLK and his dream speech is studied to this day, because he told us what he saw, what he knew we were capable of, and the dream of the future. JFK inspired a nation to go to the Moon. Reagan touched us all with his words at the Challenger Disaster. Even my Father, who would rather have a rabid weasel dropped down his trousers said it was a great speech.

Carter didn't just tell us to conserve energy, he wore a sweater to show he was doing it too. Carter didn't just say the rest of the Government had to cut costs, he did it by ditching many of the frills on Air Force One.

We have had such great statesmen in the past. Wilson and his theories were a generation, or two ahead of everyone else. So what do we have now? We have people who give decent speeches, but they don't inspire. Those who do, are dismissed as fringe, flakes, or tools of some hidden shadow figures with an agenda.

We quit trying to get the best into the Oval Office, and now we just want the safe bet so the other side doesn't win. They are doing the same thing, and in the end, we are left with the lesser of who gives a shit?

We bemoan the lack of participation in the elections, but we fight mightily to make sure they have nothing to vote for. Our national candidates won't take a stand on an issue, because someone might object to that stand. So they make promises to groups, but the promise was already dead because to another group they would give a different promise.

So we object to the corporate ownership of the Rethugs, while telling ourselves that the Corporate Masters of the Democrats are somehow more noble, better. So we choose to be crushed to death by a ton of feathers, because the lead is just hard and heavy or something.

If you want to see people waiting in line to vote. Give them a dream to vote for. Give them a candidate who desires a grand conversation on the issues. Give them someone who can stand up there and tell the people what they honestly believe. Because from where I sit, here is what both parties believe. We want to win, and we want the other side to lose. When the discussion turns to bipartisanship. Each side promises to work with the people they spent the day before likening to pond scum.

Now, we are turning into the Eastern Front during World War II. Each side has to get revenge for some atrocity or wrong that the other side did. Principles have gone by the wayside. Nobody believes in anything anymore, because we have to get even with them, and they have to get even with us, and neither side will work together.

We've seen it here. People taking the side of an issue that if we had a core principle, we would eschew in a second. But we have to be for it because the other side is against it and we won't work with them.

Our next President has been selected, and we need only walk in step to make it happen. Sure, she's a corporatist sell out. But hey, she's not a Rethug corporate sell out. She only sells out to Democratic leaning corporations. If GM donated to the Republicans, we would all demand that the Government stop buying GM cars because they are rethug bastards. If Boeing donated to Rethugs, we would jump up and down demanding that Boeing jets be banned because of it. But Boeing is a great company, because they have a union and they donate to Democrats. We've turned a political party into a group of rabid sports fans who wear the team colors and scream at the top of our lungs that our team is better than your team because we wear blue and they wear red.

So how is it better that a Democratic President opens up the Eastern Seaboard to drilling than it would be if a Rethug did it? I guess it's a good thing, because this way, the feathers are softer than the lead, I just wish they were lighter.

[sadoldgirl]

49. Would it not be better for everyone in the Democratic Party

to go back to the FDR times, check out how he was harassed and slowly (I think due to his own experience of helplessness) change to ask for social justice for everyone. Strange, is it not, that I have not heard any Democrat saying to corporate and finacial American power houses:" And welcome their hate!" Perhaps we did not teach our children how much applause he got for this from the people. Instead we hear how Reagen was succeeding with his anti-government slogan. Who of those two built a stable and healthy middle class?

[Enthusiast]

81. +1! "Who of those two built a stable and healthy middle class?"

Do we really favor a race to the bottom? If we remain on this current trajectory that is where we end up.

TPP? Are you kidding me? Every Democratic Party member should be giving this a full throated condemnation.

[cantbeserious]

51. + 1 - Matters Not Feathers Or Lead - Dead Is Dead - Bravo

eom

[DeadLetterOffice]

53. This bit right here...

We've turned a political party into a group of rabid sports fans who wear the team colors and scream at the top of our lungs that our team is better than your team because we wear blue and they wear red.

THIS. YES. This, this this this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. A ton of feathers would not hold together; it would not crush you

Yes, there is a difference between the parties. Republicans want to repeal the ACA. They want to slash public spending on everything except defence. They want to restrict contraception, and abolish abortion. They want to have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Their foreign policy 'experts' want to bomb every country they have a disagreement with. They think climate change is a 'hoax'.

Democratic leaders are far from perfect, but they are sane human beings. Republican politicians are, collectively, insane, and inhuman. Consider the Texas Republican party platform:

Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.

Furthermore:

We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.

Gays are here to stay, even in Texas, but there are plenty of things that Texas Republicans plan to do away with entirely—or, to use their preferred word, things they would subject to “abolishment.” (For Calhoun conservatives, I suppose, “abolition” has regrettable overtones.) A partial list:

• Personal-income taxes

• Property taxes

•Estate taxes

• Capital-gains taxes

• Franchise and business-income taxes

• The gift tax

• Minimum-wage laws

• Social Security (“We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions”)

• The Environmental Protection Agency

•The Department of Education and all its functions

• “Unelected bureaucrats”

• “Any and all federal agencies not based on an enumerated power granted by the United States Federal Constitution”

• Congressional pensions

• Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights

• The Federal Reserve

• “Foreign aid, except in cases of national defense or catastrophic disasters, with Congressional approval”

• Obamacare (but you knew that already)

Things that the Texas Republicans support:

• Withdrawal from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank

• “Traditional methods of discipline, including corporal punishment”

• “Reducing taxpayer funding to all levels of education institutions.”

• Returning to “the time-tested precious metal standard for the United States dollar.”

The Texas Republican take on Israel:

Our policy is inspired by God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.

On climate change:

While we all strive to be good stewards of the earth, “climate change” is a political agenda which attempts to control every aspect of our lives. We urge government at all levels to ignore any plea for money to fund global climate change or “climate justice” initiatives.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/07/texas-republican-new-party-platform.html

If you want better people in government, then don't pretend there's no significant difference between the two parties. Shout out that the Republicans are fucking insane, and a danger to the entire world. And support the politicians who shout that too.

[Savannahmann]

85. But there is the rub.

Our politicians shout it, but when elected don't do much about it except start shouting whenever they are raising money, or campaigning to get elected/reelected.

Let's look at our Party's activity. In a doomed effort to goad some Rethugs into voting for the ACA, they completely stripped out the possibility of a Public Option which would have demonstrated the affordability and desirability of that choice. Instead, they passed a law that serves to enrich the Insurance Companies, which I presume are our Corporate Masters, at the expense of the people.

When the people you are trying to reform come out and endorse your actions, that is a big worry to me. That would be like announcing that I am going to reform Pimps, and the international association of Pimps completely supports my efforts. When the Insurance Companies came out and enmasse endorsed the ACA, that should have told us that there was something wrong. The program is going to enrich them Insurance Companies, and in the end isn't going to make insurance any more affordable for the poor.

There is another lawsuit concerning the ACA working its way up the chain. An excellent chance that it will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall, or next year at the latest. In short, the law says that subsidies can be paid to people in states with the State exchanges. But subsidies are paid to people in states with the Federally managed exchange. The suit says this is a violation of the law and these subsidies are illegal. It is a poorly written law according to the linked article, which describes the lawsuit as frivolous. But the law was written this way, and it was signed by the President written this way. So it will be a debate on the intent of the law, and the letter of the law. How will the Supremes decide? Your guess is as good as mine. But even without that, the ACA is getting more expensive every year.

Rates are expected to nearly double over the next couple years. Unlike normal consumers, we are locked in to deal with a finite number of companies, all of whom are funneling our money to the 1% stockholders who grin wildly. But that's fine, because it's our corporate masters who are getting rich. Sure, they say we should tax them more, but they don't want to pay more taxes, they use every trick they denounce to avoid paying as much in taxes as possible. So our corporations are just as greedy as their corporations.

In another thread, I asked the question when a company was blasted here for relocating their headquarters to Europe to save on taxes.

So let me get this straight, the company can save money by shifting their headquarters to Great Britain, and taking advantage of the lower taxes? So Britain can take less money from their people, and business's, and still manage to provide universal health care to the masses? So what the hell are we spending our money on? Britain has roads, and manages to maintain those roads, and bridges. I haven't seen stories about bridge collapses in Britain. But here, oh we've had a few bridges collapse, but that's fine, because we have to spend the money on something else instead.

So our politicians shout that we need to improve our infrastructure. But we don't shift money from Lockheed Martin, or any of the other techno anti terrorism companies to pay for those improvements. Oh no, we have the have the latest, and greatest technological device to bomb weddings and all that.

We spend billions of dollars every year on the NSA and their various collection centers. Our Politicians either shout that we have to stop this, or we have to let it continue depending on which of the Democratic Party politicians we go with. So to support the Democratic position on this issue, because the Rethug position is pretty much just as confused. Some are for it, and some are against it.

My point is exactly this. Our politicians have to start doing instead of just shouting to get our money, and votes. They have to govern with principles, and those principles do not include raping the Eastern Seaboard to get a few buckets of oil when our usage of oil is not rising.

But the Oil Companies are now on our side, so I imagine that soon Democrats will be talking about the great safety features of the Chevrolet Suburban Subdivision. Oh we might even get the Hybrid version, which gets an astonishing five miles to the gallon instead of four.

What is the difference between George W. Bush III Jr. calling on massive increases in offshore drilling and President Obama calling for the same thing? Not one damn thing. Feathers or Lead. Both will crush you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. If you're willing to use the ACA figures from Avik Roy, Romney's healthcare advisor

as your link does, then you can pretend "rates are expected to nearly double over the next couple years". Or you can ask the Democrats, who will give you "initial information on how proposed premium increases for 2015 compare to these dire predictions", and show "there appears to be no basis for the dire predictions that health insurance premiums will skyrocket in 2015" (specifically pointed to Roy as one of the dire predictions that have no basis). Or you can read up about how Avik Roy is a lying weasel.

The rest of what you say seems to be "if you ignore all the differences between Democrats and Republicans, they look the same". You haven't addressed LGBT rights. Or abortion. Or contraception. Or bombing other countries.

[Savannahmann]

100. Here's a report from CNBC

I'm sure you'll denounce it as RW too, since everything that does not go with your meme is [link:http://www.cnbc.com/id/101664437#.|automatically denounced as propaganda.

Some customers will get small rate increases, others will get 16.6% increases.

But let's move on. Time will tell which scenario is the right one. I notice you don't deny that the insurance companies are apparently our corporations, and thus good in the scenario.

Abortion. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the Roe V. Wade isn't in any danger of being overturned. Every single election I've been a part of since 1988 has used Abortion as a cudgel to scare voters into the booths. I was told in 1988 that if George HW Bush was elected, it would be the end of a womans right to choose. I was told that if we lost the House in 1994, that the right of Abortion would be lost. I was told that Abortion would be lost if we did in 2000, 2002, 2004, and so on. Every election Abortion is in danger of being lost if we don't act now. Every election, no matter who is elected, nothing changes. I now believe that Abortion is one of those things that our side uses like school prayer for the RW to get the base to the voting booths.

Texas has lost some ground, because our side was dumber than a box of rocks. They approached it with common sense sounding arguments that should have been met with more reasonable debate that would have shown how ill advised the law was to the public. Instead, we reverted to type. We started screaming and shouting and cheering on Wendy Davis as she stood there and filibustered the law. We did not put forth even basic arguments. We just started screaming at the top of our lungs that Rethugs wanted to destroy a woman's right to choose.

The answer was obvious, fairly short of a no brainer. Yet, we ignored it and now all we can do is gnash our teeth and bemoan our loss. First, stop pretending that the Rethugs are idiots. Second, stop pretending that the majority of people agree with us. You have to know the information well enough, and be smart enough, to discuss it with people. That means talking to those people you consider to be hate filled etc. ad nauseum. Because when you talk to people, you hear what they have to say, and then you can convince them of the logic, wisdom, and rightness of your own position. But we don't debate anymore. We shout, we scream, and we denounce anyone who does talk to the RW types. God forbid we should end some ignorance, no we need the RW, because then we have something to scare our supporters to the polls with.

Bombing other countries? Really? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html

Damn those RW propaganda sites like Huffington Post who point out that we are bombing people. 2400 in five years. Of which seven were probably real terrorists. But President Obama, not any RW type, decided on extrajudicial targeted killing of an american citizen. so thank God we don't have a RW type in the Oval office bombing people and targeting americans for assassinations. That would be intolerable. It's way better that the person bombing the crap out of wedding parties is a Democrat. http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral

I know, more RW propaganda from those sites. Damn them.

Think about this with your argument. All the groups we used to quote all the time in our objections to George W. Bush III Jr. are still objecting to us, but we ignore them because now President Obama is pulling the trigger. ACLU, HRW, Amnesty International. Ah, they don't know how good the world has it.

Contraception. Show me a mainstream, by that I mean national Rethug who is calling on Contraception to be banned. Any Senators I haven't heard about? Even Rand Paul who is as crazy as a loon isn't calling for that. What they object to is who pays for it. I think we can keep that with negotiation and reasonable arguments. Of course, Reasoned arguments isn't really our forte anymore.

Finally, LGBT rights. Fine. Let's go there. Let's talk about Prop 8. Let's talk about how a majority of Californians voted to pass it. Let's talk about how a majority in one of the most progressive states in the union voted to pass it. Let's talk about how we won the lawsuit by default. Because the State Attorney General refused to file anything about the challenge, and the plaintiff would have won by default. Those who did step in to defend it lost not because of the merits of the argument, but because they didn't have standing.

Now, I support LGBT rights. But I don't pretend that a majority of the people agree with me. I know our success has been in the courts. Now, that's what's interesting. Unless the RW passes a Constitutional Amendment, which I don't think they could get through if they tried, the courts ruling is going to stand. Even RW Judges have ruled that prohibitions on LGBT marriage is a violation of equal protection.

But what have Democrats done for LGBT rights? Well, they ignored it for nearly four years. They didn't care. The hated Don't ask Don't tell policy was a Clinton achievement. Truth is that there wasn't much difference, in fact, Bush still gets credit for funneling more money to Africa for treatment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/bush-aids-policies-shadow-obama-in-africa/2013/06/30/0c8e023c-e1ac-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

Is that fair? I don't know. http://kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-the-presidents-fy-2015-budget-request/

The money has been increasing, but if you look at that chart. There wasn't a drop under Bush, or a huge leap under Democrats.



Well, I guess it matters what the politicians say, instead of what they do right? I mean, that's all that matters.

Besides, we're the party of tolerance, and compassion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html

Damn that RW propaganda.

Do you want to see the support for the Democratic Party explode and reach unbelievable levels? Then stop talking about all the things we supposedly care about. And start doing something about them. Don't just pretend that unemployment is getting better, do something about it. Stop ignoring homelessness, start to pay attention to those citizens we love to point at when a Rethug is in office, but just forget all about when one of ours is elected.

Don't just say the words to get elected. Believe it. Then you won't have to worry about Rethugs, because people will see our actions, and know what we stand for. Trying to slice a hair thin enough to show the difference between the Rethugs and the Democrats is getting asinine, and all too often it exposes our apathy, and our disingenuousness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. The difference between "some small, some 16.6% increases" and "will double" is huge

whatever CNBC says (no link).

"the insurance companies are apparently our corporations" - I don't know what you mean by that, and hadn't noticed you'd said it before, so it's no surprise I didn't deny it. The ACA does put a limit on the profits insurance companies can make. No, it's far from a perfect set-up (hell, 'public option' or 'single payer' aren't ideal, either - go for 'national health service' to remove the profit takers), but the point remains that Republicans are far, far worse people who want to screw the poor and enrich the wealthy, whether on the subject of healthcare, or welfare, or social security.

That's a remarkable bit of "we should be talking with the RW about abortion" talk from you. There's you, claiming there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and then you turn around and say there should be less, on the subject of abortion. WTF?

Bombing other countries? Yes, Obama is doing some. Yes, the Republicans want a lot more. McCain and Graham spend all their time demanding tougher action against Syria, Iran, and now Russia.

Is there a Republican war on contraception? Hell, yes.

Yes, Democrats have done a lot for LGBT rights under Obama. I can't believe you deny that. Bush's funding for African HIV/AIDS work, while laudable (probably the most laudable thing he did) was not about LGBT rights. It was about African lives - where it's mostly a heterosexual disease.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats remains huge.

[olegramps]

91. Thank you. It seems the vogue here at DU to jump on the bandwagon condemning Obama.

There sure is one hell of a mountain of difference between the two parties. It appears to me that many Democrats have bought the MSM false equivalency bull shit that is used to shield their Republicans from valid criticism. My paper, the Denver Post, is nothing more than a Republican propaganda machine. Just this morning if opened it up to see Palins plastered on the front page with an accompanying article how she was greeted with wild ovations for her lies about the president. Not one word of criticism of her atrocious accusations was questioned. The Fourth Establishment is morally bankrupt and nothing more than pawns of the Republican Party.

[cui bono]

114. I htink it's more that many here know that the Dem party is center and that there is a real left

that doesn't make it into the MSM.

We know that there is a whole lot of possibility that never even gets discussed (single-payer) because both parties have moved so far right that on some issues we are not being represented or protected at all. So in that regard it seems to make no difference.

I wonder what would happen if the Dem Party, instead of constantly acquiescing and compromising would take a strong stance farther left. Would the GOP be able to move to the extreme right end of the spectrum? I mean the current Dem Party holds a lot of the same positions now that the GOP used to hold. The ACA was based on Romney's model and single-payer was not allowed to be discussed and the public option was dropped like a hot potato.

The Dem Party abandoned its base while the GOP embraced theirs. I think it's because moving to the right is exactly what the corporatists want and they have taken over both parties for the most part. Both parties' leaders are beholden to corporate power and Wall Street. So in that regard there seems to be no difference.

What's to say equal rights won't be abandoned when it is feasible or necessary to do so? They've stopped fighting for a lot of economic things. Perhaps the social issues will be tossed aside next.

Better to try to get them to see the real left is still here even if the media and party leaders ignore us so that we can bring them back where they belong. If not, then we really do need a third party to represent the left and let the chips fall where they may. But no sense supporting Republican Lite if things keep slipping right when Dems are in power. They're supposed to move left when Dems are in power, or at least that used to be the case.

[arikara]

110. Dems get the agenda through

just as effectively, or more so than the republicans. Both sides are owned.

[George II]

43. What does "Citizens United" have to do with Democrats owned by "Oligarchs", Corps and Banks?????

[cantbeserious]

50. One Source For Unlimited Campaign Financing - Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

Both parties drink from the same trough.

[Amonester]

63. Gotta admit a big difference: FDR & JFK didn't need a Billion+ dollars to campaign for President.

That's what it costs to be successful at being elected for four years today, and that, by a very small margin gap overall.

And no true Public-Funding Campaign Act (financed by taxes and banning Citizen-United's special interests funding) is even just discussed in political debates.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. It seems like Dem blogs

always have a split, with factions that believe in two different paths to lasting electoral victory. Group A, who believe that you simply need to elect as many people who call themselves Democrats as possible, and that once you hold majorities, these people will become more progressive in the legislation they produce, and Group B, who believe that if you elect more progressive people, more voters will be drawn to believe that their votes matter, and as a result more Dems will be elected. So either more Dems will lead to better Dems, or better Dems will lead to more Dems.

Obviously, if you want to start with 'better Dems', you get them to BE better Dems by criticizing their mistakes, and applauding their correct actions, and only voting in 'better Dems'. If you want 'more Dems', then criticism from the left only hurts the chances of getting 'more'.

So there's the fight. And it's going to go on as long as you're on any Dem site that doesn't censor one viewpoint or the other. DU seems to try to walk the tightrope a bit, in that in the timeframe after candidates are selected in the primaries but before the election, criticism is prohibited, but you're still going to see the 'more Dems' folks complaining about criticism at any time in the election cycle.

[sadoldgirl]

34. There is a circle here.

I know that most of the people here are not aware of how much FDR had to fight, after having been forced by the populists to do so. But the point is then: he fought, which I am now missing among the Democrats.

[billhicks76]

112. Lot To Learn From 1930s Primaries

And anyone who suggests we shouldn't criticize our leaders when need be has their head up their intestines. Ignore them. They are shortsighted and myopic not realizing what a turn off it is to be a conformist that always falls in line...Bushites and Dittoheads did the exact same thing alienating independents.

[L0oniX]

97. +1 rec ^^^this^^^

[Vincardog]

4. PBO has a long history of being elected by the left and then kissing the RW's A$$. When you

point out the inconsistencies between the rhetoric campaign promises and his policies
The DLC/Third Way/Middle/Conservative Democrats
DON'T LIKE IT.
They immediately hit you with the
Obama hater/Party Over Policy/I guess you would prefer McCain
BS.

[sadoldgirl]

7. Could there be a way

to become the progressive "teaparty" to hold the conservative Dem's feet to the fire?

[Vincardog]

10. The "teaparty" is a manufactured group. What we can do is Work for and elect REAL Progressives

Don't contribute to any middle way groups. They hurt our brand and retard our progress.

[sadoldgirl]

13. Yes, I agree, but unfortunately

our Dem Senator, who is up for election is an honorary member of the Third Way.

[Vincardog]

14. Primary him

[sadoldgirl]

17. A Udall in the West? no chance

[Vincardog]

18. How else can you pressure him to move to the LEFT?

[sadoldgirl]

21. He is already only one point away from a teaparty opponent in the polls.

[Vincardog]

22. That is probably because he is not far enough to the left. The voters can't tell he is any different

than the TP.

[sadoldgirl]

27. I suppose with our gun- and religious fanatics he may be the best to hope for. Sad.

[kaiden]

78. So will you not vote for him then?

Because really, if Corey Gardner gets into the Senate, I am pretty sure women's rights will be all that much closer to extinction.

[sadoldgirl]

99. Oh yes, I will though grudgingly.

[George II]

45. Do you have a realistic alternative???

[stevenleser]

66. There are a lot of things they could do, but they require work and time. Such as...

1. Joining and working for PDA http://www.pdamerica.org/ is one of those things. If the ranks of PDA swell to millions and millions of people, and their efforts in getting things done and money raised are wildly successful that would say a lot about the power and numbers of folks wanting progressive policies.

2. Folks could join their local Democratic Executive Committees and Democratic clubs and take the over and elect Progressives to chair the local and state parties and then the DNC.

3. Folks could work for and support the folks in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/ I am sure if you called to volunteer, they would put you to work doing all kinds of things.

----------------
Now of course, those things require a lot more effort than complaining on a message forum.

[George II]

84. I've been an officer of my local Democratic committee for more than ten years

[stevenleser]

108. And? What have you done with that position? nt

[George II]

109. What an officer of a Democratic committee does.

[cui bono]

113. Are you on trial here?

[George II]

118. Sometimes I think so...

....this guy (I cleaned it up a little!) suggests:

"Folks could join their local Democratic Executive Committees and Democratic clubs and take the over and elect Progressives to chair the local and state parties and then the DNC."

If he didn't know what members of local Democratic Executive Committees (of which I'm ALSO a member) or Democratic clubs (committee in our state), why did he suggest one join in the first place?

[former9thward]

8. Paragraph or sentence breaks are your friend.

Especially with rants.

[MohRokTah]

9. Yep, because of the wall of text it was a tldr for me. eom

[sadoldgirl]

11. Thank you very much, but English is not my first language.n/t

I will try, however.

[former9thward]

12. Totally understand.

But if you look at the posts in reply to your OP they are are much easier on the eyes than the OP. The breaks have nothing to do with proper grammar -- just making reading easier on the eyes.

[sadoldgirl]

15. Thanks again, but it is hard now to change. And, yes, you are right!

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Your English is fine.

Nevertheless, the shortened attention span of the average reader these days seems to demand that you break your text into smaller chunks. You just have to get in the habit of hitting the Return key a couple of times after every third or 4th sentence (or, more properly, whenever your topic or angle changes slightly).

[hfojvt]

87. some of it is DU software

Simply hit return again

to break apart groups of text.

Although you should have paragraphs longer than the one liners that I am seemingly fond of.

[L0oniX]

93. They defer to structure when they got nothing else.

Ignore em.

[marmar]

94. When someone is criticizing your text blocks .....

...... they have no other legitimate criticism of your post. ..... Your OP was fine and well worth the read.

[mindwalker_i]

38. It's a little bit tough

but well worth it. Of all the things we could complain about, this is very minor.

[Roy Serohz]

16. Yes

Democrats have to be democrats.

[TBF]

19. Come visit us -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024

We are a protected group (there are a bunch of small groups on this site away from the large Breaking News and General Discussion Forums). In Socialist Progressives we run the gamut from Social Democrats to Communists/Anarchists. It is a quieter forum but you won't be reading centrist rhetoric.

[sadoldgirl]

20. Thank you, that is a beautiful invitation,

but don't you think that the Democratic Party on the whole should return to the FDR and Hue roots? Or am I just dreaming?

[TBF]

23. I am in favor of anything that will help

working class folks in this country (and around the world). Like you I only vote for democrats because the alternative is worse. It would be nice if they would actually do a little more for the average folks rather than the bankers, pharma companies etc. But I fear those days are long gone so I must admit I spend much more time advocating for systemic change (ie I'm more interested in getting rid of capitalism than trying to change political parties that in the end only prop up that capitalism).

[Scuba]

24. Excellent post, thanks sadoldgirl.

[sadoldgirl]

25. Thank you very much Scuba,

I was afraid that I was already going too far for many.

[zeemike]

28. K&R.

You are not alone here

[Curmudgeoness]

29. I regret that I can only rec this once.

You have voiced what many of us think. Don't leave...there will always be someone here to put you down or try to yell over you or bully you. Don't let them win.

[sadoldgirl]

30. Thank you, but while I don't want to cause a problem

I thought that it would be wise for people here to revisit the FDR party. It seems that we we have lost the courage to talk in simple and straight forward terms to the people.

[F4lconF16]

60. Causing problems is exactly what we need to do.

Fight for true progressives and the people. Thank you for your excellent OP.

[PowerToThePeople]

31. If you leave

that is one less left leaning voice on the board. There are many who would like to see this place become FR-lite. Don't let them get their wish.

[Tommymac]

32. No apology needed sadoldgirl. Rant away...

I agree with you in almost all respects. The party needs to hear all views. Don't walk away. You will insult some, you will please some - that is the nature of a blog. Try not to have too thin a skin (it is hard) - just consider the source of a response, and stay true to your beliefs and it all works out fine in the end.

Cheers!

[sabrina 1]

33. Good post, thank you. Many are wondering what has happened to DU so you're not alone.

[840high]

35. K/R x 100

[mindwalker_i]

37. I always felt like this place should stand for democratic ideals

Not necessarily for Democrats. So when an elected Democrat votes for things that seem, at least to me, to be against those democratic principles, we should give them hell. If we don't, then all our complaining about Bush et. all doing non-democratic things is hypocritical. Specifically, if we condemn Bush or Republicans in congress for voting for bills that harm workers in this country, saying that we condemn them because of those policies, then we go and support a Democrat that votes for the same policies, it indicates that we originally didn't oppose Republicans for what they supported. Instead, it shows that our objection was due to their party.

I don't like religion and, specifically, faith and belief because it shuts people off from absorbing new information. If, for example, one believes that everything revolves around the Earth, then they are unable or at least less able to understand that planets don't do that. People have models in their heads about how things work, and most of these are at least somewhat open to new data. Faith puts a whole new level on it, in that faith codifies some belief as "this is the way it is, cuz God said so and thou shalt not question it!

The problem with "believing" in the Democratic party is that it makes one unable to see when that "D" is obscuring behaviour and policies that are contrary to what we think are good policies. Also, believing in the party is an easy way to go that kind of shields people from having to examine our leaders' actions and to think through what they are doing. People who have "faith" are easily lead away from their own best interests, and isn't that what we complain Republicans do?

[Enthusiast]

82. PLUS ONE!

[L0oniX]

92. +100,000,000

Democrat ...it's more than just a name or it might as well be DINO.

[locks]

39. Your thread is much appreciated

by those of us who have the same doubts about where we "belong" and how to work in (or outside) the party. I swing from being very grateful to have been born in a country and live in a community which has so much going for it and where I usually feel ok speaking out on issues I care about, to being depressed that this wonderful nation is moving more and more to the right, seeming to care about its financial and military might more than its people's rights and needs, and feeling my work and vote will make little difference.

This pull is especially strong in re the Democratic party and the people we have voted and worked hard for to represent us. I know how much worse off our country and local communities are when people like Bush and Tom Tancredo are in office, but I also know that many "progressives" owe their election to the big corps, wall street, and big money and will not vote the way I hope, as you have expressed so well re Obama.

One small example: my good Dem rep was one of 21 Dems in the House who just voted to kill the Massie amendment, a very reasonable gun control bill the citizens of the District of Columbia wanted for their safety. I wrote to him asking how he could in good conscience vote against the DC citizens who are so unfairly represented. But of course I know that Jared Polis, as well as Mark Udall, our Gov. and many others like Mary Landrieu will not be reelected if they don't go along with the big guns and big oil guys, and some tea party crazies probably will take over.

Just hope DU is a place where we are considered good progressive Dems even when we can't toe the party line.

[Demeter]

40. Welcome to the FDR branch of DU

We hang out in the economy forum, mostly. The rest of the site, not so much. We don't like getting called ugly names, alerted on and shut out by people who have lost their minds and ability to reason and swallowed the propaganda whole.

You are welcome there! See the daily Stock Market Watch, or the Weekend Economist threads. We cover everything, from a small d point of view.

[DhhD]

41. The promises made during the 2008 Platform of PBO are not what we see today.

It is like a dream that did not coming through.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
June 14, 2014

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/politifact-tallies-obamas-campaign-promises/1249187
(By Sept 2012)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/28/us-usa-campaign-obama-promises-idUSTRE79R3M920111028
Factbox: Has Obama delivered on his 2008 campaign promises? (By Oct 2011)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. The "Democratic Underground" often seems to be at odds with the party that bears the name.

[humbled_opinion]

44. There is also another side to this equation

It is the "Office of President".... We all know that Obama is a good man and is trying his hardest to get things accomplished in the best way that he can. Sometimes the majority will support him in his efforts and sometimes they won't. What the right is attempting to do now is to convince a majority of Americans that Obama has damaged the Office of President. If the right succeeds in doing this it sets up a serious future dillema, imagine a rightwing President like Sarah Palin telling the populace that she believes the constitution tells eveyone that they need to arm themselves and protect what is theirs and she uses her pen and phone to make or change law that mandates everyone must own a firearm or face retribution by the IRS...... This may seem far fetched but I think this is the kind of madness that the right will try if they return to power. Personally I don't think any of this ends well, the current trajectory of the U.S. debt the potential for massive interest rate increases, the fact that the wealthiest have no intention of allowing their wealth to be reduced makes worries me. The future coming austerity is going to cause massive chaos here in the USA.

[Enthusiast]

83. One of the things President Obama has tried his hardest to get accomplished is the TPP

and similar trade deals.

This effort is contrary to the interests of the American people. See, I do not believe President Obama is a good man. He has betrayed our interests. A good man would not do this.

If our only goal is to stay to the left of the Tea Party extremists then we are doomed to end up mired in a race to the bottom. And that is exactly what is happening now.

[NealK]

116. +1

[Dustlawyer]

46. I agree with your frustration. I think he had to do deals with the Devil, so to speak, to become

POTUS! I think he has done all of the good he is allowed to do by the PTB. They decide who we choose from, that's why we always vote for the lesser of two evils, or in Obama's case, most of us believed in him, myself included!

I am tired of this corrupt election system which can be fixed if enough of us are fed up enough to spend this election marching/protesting every time possible from 9/13 -11/4 and beyond. The only issue is getting the money out of the system by demanding Publicly Funded Federal, State, and Local Elections! Take the PTB's power and control over our politicians away! We can make the MSM air the campaign commercials for free as a public service for using our airwaves under license.

We can use the fundraising of the candidates against them. The more money they raise, the more we ask them, "What do they have to do for those big Donors?"

Spread the word in your city/town to all organizations and people you know. Do what you can, thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

47. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, sadoldgirl.

[pnwmom]

48. Every Democrat felt like part of the underground during the Bush administration.

So newer members often have a different take on the name, Democratic Underground, than older members who joined during either of the Bush terms.

When I started reading DU, Bush was the President, the President who SCOTUS had illegally put into office. (By stopping the vote count in Florida, and issuing a decree that they said would not be a precedent for further actions.) After stealing the first election in Florida, they stole the second one in Ohio.

So to me, "Democratic Underground" referred to the fact that Democrats were in rebellion against the inauthentic Bush government. It didn't mean that DU was the underground of the Democratic party.

[Bobbie Jo]

52. True....

I joined around the same time as you, this has been my perspective as well.

[sadoldgirl]

54. Pardon me, but it was awfully easy for Democrats to criticize Bush,

It was obvious. Now, however, we should also investigate our own party as well as its principles. What exactly does this party stand for? I don't want to be offensive. When I went to an Obama campaign speech, he assured us as President he would restore the Constitution. Well, I am still waiting to see the 4th amendment restored. If you know when and how he did that, please, let me know.

[pnwmom]

56. I was responding to when you said this:

"Perhaps to me the important part of the DU name was UNDERGROUND, where ideas and policies could be discussed without necessarily agreeing with the party line. "

Some of members think the most important part of the name is "Democratic" and some members think it is "underground" -- and that the purpose of the site is to criticize everything the Democrats do.

That isn't the purpose of everyone here. Some of us think it is to inform and advance progressive causes, without undermining Democrats who -- while flawed -- have to work in an imperfect system and represent the only real alternative to the Rethugs.

[riqster]

64. This:

"That isn't the purpose of everyone here. Some of us think it is to inform and advance progressive causes, without undermining Democrats who -- while flawed -- have to work in an imperfect system and represent the only real alternative to the Rethugs."

Nicely put, and very much in alignment with the TOS.

[creeksneakers2]

57. Who says you can't criticize Obama?

Look at this thread. Almost everybody here agrees with you. Nobody called you a name or said you can't give your socialist opinion.

Obama defenders are by far outnumbered on DU. They are the ones who get hassled, but they too are allowed to give their opinions.

By the way, people can come to positions that aren't socialist on their own. Not agreeing with socialism doesn't prove somebody has been seduced by corporate money.

[Divernan]

58. Thank you for a (to me) heartening post.

I'm a local judge of elections and sometimes I get so discouraged by the low turnouts I wonder why I even bother. Let us all keep each other's spirits up and fight the good fight to take our country back from all greedy and war-mongering corporatists, whichever political party in which they claim membership.

[Rex]

59. Just ignore the small group of snarkers, that is their only purpose on DU.

They hate this place etc.. yet seem to not be able to put it down...I know strange, but SOP for DU3.

[sadoldgirl]

61. I thank each and everyone for your input.

Unfortunately, since I am an old girl I have to retire now. Yet it seems that I can do so gladly, because I felt from the answers that I am not alone with this issue. So, now I want to send my thanks as well to cali, who started me to put the stronger question out. Thanks, lady!
and good night and good luck to you all!

[LuvNewcastle]

62. This place can get rather obsessed with itself at times.

It's bizarre that instead of discussing issues and events in the world, we get bogged down in DU's inner politics. It's going to kill the site if things don't change. Things changed here after Obama was elected, and it's gotten especially bad in the last year or two. There are people here who want to have a purge. The problems have even spilled over into Discussionist.

I think the problems are directly related to the jury system. There are certain groups who are gaming the system and silencing voices that they don't like to be heard around here. I honestly liked the jury system when it first began, but now I think it's time to do away with it. This place is apparently not adult enough to police itself.

Like I said, if some changes aren't implemented by the administrators, I believe it's going to kill the site and the other site as well, and I would really hate to see that happen. I spend a good deal of time in both places, and I enjoy it a lot. In the mean time, I might take the suggestion of a few people in this thread and start reading and posting in DU's other forums instead of GD. I prefer to discuss issues and events rather than inside baseball, which sucks, in my opinion. Maybe more of us should do that as well, at least until some changes are made.

[stillwaiting]

76. The jury system has made DU a MUCH less desirable to hang out.

I truly hope that one day the jury system is removed.

It has created two strong factions here that are MUCH more venomous towards each other than they were before in my opinion. It really has changed this place quite a bit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Why would you 'hope to get canned'?

You can stop posting on DU any time you want to. You don't need someone else to force you. If you're uncomfortable here, then don't contribute. It's ironic that you complain about 'bullies', when you've spent the last couple of days attacking DUers for what they write.

[L0oniX]

98. If you think it's bad here ...try Discussionist. You can't even speak the truth there.

People here regularly throw liberals and progressives under the bus, not to mention socialists. I've seen everyone thrown under the bus, including Bill Moyers, Cindy Sheehan, whistle blowers, anti-war activists, universal health care advocates, Alan Grayson, Helen Thomas, Code Pink, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Valerie Plame etc... and now every form of alternative media as well. They are all marginalized and attacked for the reasons you stated, especially for not agreeing with the party line.

I love your list ...K & R

[airplaneman]

67. Yes open and honest criticism is the right way to get us where we need to go.

[snot]

68. Thank you for questioning.

[blkmusclmachine]

70. We know we were hoodwinked. It has a slick speech, a pleasant smile,

and a bi-partisan dagger right in the back.

DINOs suck!

[Enthusiast]

79. Kicked and recommended!

I like this long rant.

"When I heard him say at an international press conference in India:"Outsourcing is great! Outsourcing is the future", I was in total shock."

Me too. This is a flat out betrayal of the interests of the working class American people. It is worse than Reagan-like.

The President should have to explain these words to his supporters or receive scathing, universal criticism from his party. I don't care how cute his kids are or how nice his wife is, betrayal is betrayal.

[WCLinolVir]

86. I am also dismayed by the name calling and how easy it seems for people to post garbled non-logic.

When you call them on it, or ask for clarification, you get either the buddy system of retaliation, the"emotion card", or just attacked personally. There are some really good posters here and that is the only reason I read anything here.
As far as POB, I understand that we reach a historical milestone and yet to criticize the man and his policies seem to be one and the same. If we look back, we are "old" and out of touch. It is a divisive strategy and closes down debate, and becomes a series of personal attacks. No new policy is offered to answer how to effect change and make POB accountable for what he promised, and what policies he is pushing. The race card gets played as well. I understand that the past isn't what we want for present or future, but successful policy, does have a history, and every day we are hearing that it needs to be torn apart to make way for the future.
I think POB utilizes social issues .Otherwise you have to explain to me how he can propose that people have no control over a corporation polluting their water, air, etc...When this is allowed, we have lost our civil rights. Our basic rights to what we need to live. And the TPP guts exactly that.

[valerief]

88. A Democrat (big D) is the old guy sitting on a park bench and feeding pigeons.

A Republican is the old guy in his back yard shooting pigeons.

Those are our choices. We may want more than crumbs, but that's the best we can get.

[LuvNewcastle]

101. Good analogy. It totally fits.

[Kermitt Gribble]

89. Excellent post, sadoldgirl!

Voices like yours are much needed at DU! Thank you!

[L0oniX]

95. Your rant is very welcomed.

Get ready to be labeled and called a purist. This party is changing for the worse. Don't expect the hypocrites to see that. The political system is entertainment for the corporations and their 1%.

[polichick]

103. k&r

[DesertDiamond]

105. I really think there's no question that you can voice whatever viewpoint you have, we all can...and

I've realized that people have the right to tell me that "can't say" whatever I said, and I have the right to say, "Yes, I do." And they have the right to say, "No, you don't." And that's fine, as long as they don't actually try to shut me up. Otherwise, it's all just dialogue, and that's legit.

[whereisjustice]

106. underground, another word co-opted by entitled, courageless, gen-x hipsters

Around the world, underground is a word used to describe a resistance movement against oppressive government or culture. In the modern US, there is no resistance to oppressive government or culture. Therefore, its use is considered ironically hip.

[lunatica]

107. thanks for the good rant

But just one suggestion. It's very hard to read because it's on the computer and most readers wouldn't bother for that reason. As a very amateur website creator I remember very well that online text should have plenty of white space around it so it's easier to read. You could start with double spacing between paragraphs and seeing if you can break each paragraph into more paragraphs.

You don't want to offput readers just by the initial appearance of text that is crowded.

Oh! And I agree with you mostly. But I disagree that what happens in the rest of the world is only peripherally important to us. Everything we do and everything 'they' do affects the entire planet. Human beings, regardless of nationality have to learn to live as if a very important part of their citizenship is being citizens of the world, and not just one country anymore.

Anyway, I reiterate my thanks for the good rant.

[grahamhgreen]

111. Many of the critics come from third way, corporate think tanks. Ignore them, they will fail.

[woo me with science]

115. Note the current most active thread praising the administration.

It's an empty appeal to authority: Krugman approves.

I find it very sad how few of the posts in defense of this administration even *try* to do so based on actual policies, rather than these logical fallacies.

[NealK]

117. K&R