All Democrats Are Perfect. Never Criticize Them.

[JFN1]

Okay, I am convinced.

All Democrats are perfect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1402981&mesg_id=1402981">Criticizing a Democrat = attacking them Karl Rove style.

We must all agree with everything our wonderful, smart, imaginative, courageous, and utterly honest Democratic leaders say and do, even the stupid stuff that makes no sense whatsoever and only feeds short-sighted political goals while wholly abandoning the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it, while they continue acting almost exclusively to preserve their own personal political careers.

Only our Democratic leaders know what is best, and act in all ways and in all things with the best interests of America and the Constitution in mind.

You have convinced me that I must never offer an opinion that runs contrary to anything our perfect Senators like Russ Feingold say.

These men and women are GREAT people, and we should be honored that they deign to even look in our direction.

Long may the Democrats rule us!!!!!!!!!

[saltpoint]

1. You bet your ass I'm a Democrat. And yes, I think most of the

other side sucks.

I think it's untoward to come on these boards with as few posts as you have to spend all afternoon slamming Democrats.

Might prompt some to question your motives.

[JFN1]

11. Question me?

Have at it. I am a disabled veteran, injured in combat during the Gulf War. I served most of my adult life in the military. I live in pain every day for the service I've given to my country. In short, I offered my life - many times - to protect the Constitution.

And you question me. Why?

Because I am doing my duty as a citizen and QUESTIONING my leaders?

I have few posts on DU, because of my physical condition. I cannot sit at my desk for very long, so I rarely post, as the effort of writing is quite a bit for me. I am feeling pretty good today, so i posted some.

I wish i could tell you i am sorry if I've offended you - but I am not.

You so called 'activists' have grown complacent. You act as if Democracy is free, when 'eternal vigilance' is the watchword our Founders followed, and suggested for us. Do you suggest my vigilance, my 'lone cry in the wilderness' is somehow wrong?

It is my duty to question our leaders. So why are you questioning me, and my motives?

Seems our leaders have far more motive to lie to us than I have to "attack" them.

[saltpoint]

12. Your disability does not grant you heightened citizenship. Nor does it

exempt you from criticism when you stick your fanny out the bus window.

You've slammed Russ Feingold non-stop on DU today on at least 3 threads.

I have no respect for that kind of judgmental, shallow, debasing crap.

His service, sir, is no less than yours regarding citizenship and the Constitution that sanctions those freedoms and responsibilities.

You're damn right I'm questioning you.

[JFN1]

13. I ask no exemption

But you do.

For all the Democrats.

When did critical thinking become an affront?

[saltpoint]

14. LOL! You BET I favor Democrats. All of 'em.

Warts 'n' all.

We ain't perfect but we're a hell of a lot better than the Repukes.

You go ahead and slam all the Democrats you want, pal.

It's all ya got in ya, evidently.

[JFN1]

25. Maybe you should read from my Journal

before painting me with such a broad brush.

[saltpoint]

26. Perhaps you should apologize to the parent or guardian who

likely taught you to respect others in plain and clear ways that you have not today shown to an elected, 2-term U.S. Senator.

There are issues of protocol and manners inherent in the way adults might disagree.

You have violated just about all of them.

After your smearing and slamming of a worthy man on these boards today I wouldn't read your Journal if you paid me.

[JFN1]

28. Let me put it this way for you

Any congressperson who will not NOW act for impeachment is a collaborator. It's that simple.

IMPEACHMENT IS THE LAW, FOLKS - not some mystical process. IT IS THE REMEDY OUR FOUNDERS GAVE US FOR DEALING WITH A PRESIDENT WHO COMMITS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

It is not magic. it is intended to be disruptive. Claiming "we cannot put the country through that" is nothing but a cop-out, and a means to deflect the responsibility the LAW says - not me - THE LAW - says must be taken to stop Bush's abuse of power.

But hey - like I said, you MUST be right. Just don't cry too hard when Bush attacks Iran in October, declares a national emergency, and cancels the November election.

And before you angrily tell me how that can't happen, remember all of the other stuff we all said Bush couldn't do.

[saltpoint]

29. Perhaps you'd feel a lot better if you penned your concerns to Senator

Feingold personally.

You'll have to count to ten and hope he hasn't read your posts today on DU.

All of them. The ones in which you slam his character, question his judgment, debase him, and so forth.

Non-stop.

If he doesn't make the connection between the jerk who's slamming him here today and the guy who signs the letter, you're ok.

And he may respond.

If he does, who know -- you might even learn something about the big picture.

He's the choice of his constituents and his placement on Senate Committees the choice of the leadership.

I don't believe you hold any of those positions. Correct me if I'm mistaken. So just sit down and slap out a letter to Russ and use the same tone you've used here today. See how far it gits ya.

[JFN1]

31. I'm not talking to Feingold

I am talking to his blind supporters. And besides - I already told him all of this, many times. My voice matters as much to him as individual consumers matter to big business...

It is our collective voice I am trying to raise here. Why don't you spare me your outrage and focus it on the ones leading us over this cliff?

[saltpoint]

33. Because my impulse is to stand up for a good man. And Russ Feingold

is a good man.

A better man by far than the one knocking and trashing him today on DU.

[undeterred]

19. You're just bashing, not thinking.

Hide thread.

[JFN1]

38. I am reacting

to being bashed for having a divergent point of view. So yes, by all means, hide the thread if it will make me go away.

[JNelson6563]

53. Good points on both sides

Old Crusoe was merely pointing out that you have a low post count and have kicked off some negative threads toward Dems. Sometimes that usually indicates negative things but not always. Believe me OC's one of the good guys.

Your claim that you are "questioning" leaders is a bit thin due to the style you employ. It's heavily laced with criticism and negativity and, in some regard, toward one of the few in the Senate who's actually taking steps against Bush/Cheney.

The one thing I primarily take issue with is this from you:

You so called 'activists' have grown complacent. You act as if Democracy is free, when 'eternal vigilance' is the watchword our Founders followed, and suggested for us.

Perhaps you should use a narrower statement such as "some of you so called activists..." if you don't want to offend those who are anything but "complacent".

Here's an example: I just spent the weekend at the cottage of some political allies/friends. We are real life activists working together for a few years now and have worked very hard to achieve much. One of these friends is running for State House in the 08 race and our whole "vacation weekend" was spent planning her campaign. (Sure there were wine glasses and beer bottles on the table put also cell phones, lap-tops, memory sticks and legal pads.) We are all involved at our Congressional District level, two of us serving as officers on that executive board, and we are all very active at the county level. We do lots of organizing, party building, fundraising, Voter ID work and give support to local candidates.

We not only write and call our representatives at the national and state levels (as well as LTTEs on issues ranging from local to global), we organize hundreds of others in our respective regions to do the same.

So take heart honored veteran, there are lots of us out here who are anything but complacent and you might be surprised at how many stop in at DU. Remember that we put in lots of time and effort and receive no compensation at all. We are staying vigiilant and doing our best to serve our country in our own way.

Lastly, all of us share your frustration that things aren't moving fast enough and all that we'd like to see happen, won't happen. I'd like to urge you to take good care of yourself and your medical conditions and live to fight the good fight another and another and another day for a long time to come.

:toast:

Julie

[JFN1]

58. I thank you

and offer my sincere apologies for being so rough around the edges. As you can imagine, I don't get out much, and socializing was never my strong point. I'm not a diplomat, I'm a soldier (old enough to remember the 'sucking eggs' comment left by another poster).

Therefore, I accept your rebuke and alter my statement that implies all activists have grown complacent. It was sloppy of me, and was not my intent. I apologize.

As to my style - I spent five years as a drill instructor, and one effective means for training a group of people is to shock them with strong language that preys on their accepted truths. This can be especially effective when attempting to motivate a group of people who believe they are sufficiently motivated to meet the challenges before them.

The reaction to my initial thread indicated to me there is a group of people out there who are not spending much time in reality, and the reality of our situation is verging on desperate. I believe we have very little time to divert Bush's plans, and to save our country from it's very first dictatorship.

And here is the crux of my issue with Democrats, and those among us who support them blindly: Where is the plan?

Democrats complain Bush has no plan to win in Iraq.

So where is the Dems' plans to protect the Constitution, to met out justice for us all, and to right the crimes committed by the Bush cabal?

Because if the Democrats have a plan, I've not seen hide nor hair of it.

[JNelson6563]

61. And thank you back!

Diplomacy is challenging and not usually my strong suit either so I can relate to your dilemma on that count.

The important thing here is your passion for what's right, everything else can be learned.

As to the Dems' plan to do the things you list, I don't have any detailed answers for you, I wish I did. The one thing I can feel pretty sertain about is that when it comes to proper justice for Team Bush, I don't think that will ever happen. IMO the best we can hope for is to possibly undo some of the harm that has been done under their regime.

As a soldier from a different kind of trench than you are familiar with, I can only tell you with certainty that I will never surrender. I suspect you won't either. ;-)

Julie

[Richard Steele]

2. And everone's opinion is incorrect except yours. We get it already.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yael]

4. Well theres criticizing

and then there is eating your own.

Didn't read the other thread. Just sayin'

:)

[liberal N proud]

5. The only reason republicans have ever been able to win an election is...

Because Democrats will criticize other Democrats when they need to be criticized, whereas the republicans will not criticize anyone from their own party no matter how deserving.
No matter how bad they are they will refuse to criticize.

[dkofos]

9. Wrong. The reason they win elections is because they steal them.

[liberal N proud]

17. I think they have won fair elections in the past

I don't think they have always stole elections, but they have always used unethical tactics to get votes.
If they always stole elections, we would not have been able to gain control of Congress in 06 for all the good it has done.

[dkofos]

32. unless that was the plan

[H2O Man]

6. "Long may the

democrats rule us!!!!!!!!!"

Those of us who are democrats don't find that disturbing.

[JFN1]

15. Read the Constitution and history

We are not made to be "ruled" by anyone.

AND I AM A DEMOCRAT, DAMMIT!!! WHAT, CAN ONE NOT CRITICIZE THE DEMOCRATS WITHOUT BEING NAMED AN ENEMY?

ARE WE NO BETTER THAN THE FREEPERS?

[H2O Man]

21. I'm a democrat.

I suspect we are meant to rule ourselves. It requires a degree of maturity and self-discipline, though. Thus, even on a place like DU, some view things differently than others.

Regarding your final question -- "ARE WE NO BETTER THAN THE FREEPERS?" -- I suppose my view of that would be different than yours.

[Richard Steele]

30. LOL- As if you can teach H2Oman anything about those subjects!

Don't tell your grandma how to suck eggs, child.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. Please go back and whine on your other thread. Starting an OP trashing Democrats is

a rather silly thing to do, under the circumstances. MKJ

[dkofos]

8. Did you forget the sarcasm emoticon or are you just as pissed off

as I am over politicians??

[JFN1]

24. A litte from column 'A'

a little from column 'B'...

[dkofos]

35. That's what I thought. I don't expect many here to understand that.

[leftofthedial]

10. why do you hate the "Democrats" for their freedoms?

[JFN1]

18. LOL Okay, that's funny!

And for the record - I don't hate anyone. Hate, like violence, is a refuge for incompetence.

I wish we could have an actual conversation about mistakes our Democratic leaders are making, without everyone getting all defensive about it. if we don't argue the merits of proposed actions, we are little more than automatons.

[Madspirit]

22. I agree with that

...but as a newbie wouldn't you maybe think there might be a better way to approach us than with an attack?

Just wondering.
Lee

[JFN1]

44. I don't think of myself as a newbie

I have been on DU for more than two years - I just don't post often due to my physical condition - sitting up to type is painful, and i don't feel my right hand, so it is frustrating (I make lots of typos, and must type very slowly). But I come here every single day and read my eyes raw.

[Madspirit]

47. That Would Be Frustrating

It seemed like a bait even though I agree with you. Glad you didn't mean it that way.

Lee

[leftofthedial]

27. tell me about it

I'm a lifelong Democrat and I'm appalled at how far my party has degenerated in the last 30 years.

[JFN1]

16. Abandon critical thinking

all ye who enter here...

[BeHereNow]

39. Seems that way from time to time, doesn't it?

I visited your page.
Good stuff. Such a sad story about the young
man hiding in the basement, stealing food.
Yeah, America is doin' a heck of a job.

Now, step away from the keyboard
and make way for the True Believers.
They are on both the "left" and "right."
No discussion, no debate.
Or did you not get the memo?

BHN

[JFN1]

46. Thanks!

I forget that sometimes... :)

[Madspirit]

20. Sincere Question...Why ARE you here?

I am not an automaton and I often criticize Democrats. Many here do. So I can only guess you are being disingenuous in your need to start a flame-war.

Your stay will be short.

Lee

[JFN1]

48. Is there no necessity

in your world, for a "shouting match?" Can good people not angrily disagree, when feelings get hurt, when people try to marginalize them, when they feel they have an important point to make but lack the articulation necessary to be understood?

So for being where I am, for being who I am, you wish me to go away?

Sorry, I won't do that. My role here is a necessary part of any democracy (the dissenter), and by arguing with you as passionately as I have, I help to make DU stronger, along with everyone else who is doing more than simply throwing stones at those they disagree with.

Contrary to popular belief, our Founders had more than their share of shouting matches when they were debating our Constitution - even a dual or two.

So what's wrong with my being angry, frustrated, frightened, and hurt?

[Garbo 2004]

56. I think what is wrong is you're false suggestion that dissent is not tolerated here.

It appears you're the one who can't handle dissent or opposition to your comments in the other thread. You apparently support the idea of a lively provocative discussion and you got one. So what's the problem? You wanted a thread full of unalloyed agreement to your OP?

[JFN1]

64. Not at all.

I wanted exactly what I got here - to shed light on a dangerous condition akin to that which encapsulates the Republican party - the trap of hubris, of perfection, of our leaders as superheroes.

I also hope to check on our combined sense of urgency. I read lots of threads that speak of our being embroiled in a 'Constitutional crisis' - but for all the sound and fury, what is being done about it? Where is the sense of urgency?

No one has yet walked me through the Democratic leadership's plan for dealing with the very real crimes - war crimes among them - committed by Bush and his cabal. Everyone jumps when a Democrat says they are going to do something, because we are all so hungry for something - for anything - to be done.

That's when the fear kicks in. We say, "Don't criticize them - can't you see they're working? And if we criticize them, they may stop working, and then where will we be?"

But what is the point of actions which ultimately produce no tangible results?

I do not believe we have time for busy work.

I believe we are in the very heart of a Constitutional crisis, and failing to act now, will cost us our very way of life.

If you disagree with me, please, without yelling at me and calling me names, explain in detail the Democratic strategy for protecting the Constitution.

And make no mistake about it - if we fail to impeach him, Bush's last victim will be our Constitution.

[Garbo 2004]

67. Perhaps your a reasonable person, although I thought you've sounded more like at least a former

Repub than a vintage Dem. When someone suggests that Dems don't question but blindly follow party leadership, I think this person doesn't know the Dems and likely isn't one or hasn't been one for long. Guess you missed for example the many threads excoriating Pelosi on the matter of impeachment? Those taking Conyers to task on the subject? This is the wrong place to make an assertion that Dems are in danger of following in lockstep and turning into a mirror of current Republican party loyalists (aka the real "dead enders"), given the countless threads providing ample evidence to the contrary. Will Rogers said long ago that he wasn't a member of any organized political party: he was a Democrat. Unquestioning following of party leadership generally just isn't our thing.

You have, however, failed to acknowledge the ample dissent, frustration and anger expressed here with the party leadership and instead have asserted such twaddle that Dems here follow their leaders unquestionably, regard them as perfect "superheroes," don't allow dissent and are unwilling to confront Dem pols on their positions. Or are in danger of doing so. That's a canard of your own devising. Dems aren't monolithic. Dems do criticize the party leadership. Many excoriate them in fact. Trying to get Dems all on the same page on any subject is, as they say, like trying to herd cats.

There may be a some here who might maintain for example that their favorite Dem Presidential candidate walks on water and is the best thing since sliced bread. But to longtime political observers that's the stuff of fandom and not the reality of politics or politicians. You've sounded as if you came here as an outsider to take the Dems to task because Dems are the only viable counterweight to this Administration, and you've apparently discovered that Dem politicians are.....politicians. You want Jimmy Stewart on the floor of the Senate perhaps? But this is reality, not a Capra film. And they're real politicians, not Jimmy Stewart. And there aren't 67 votes in the Senate to remove Bush and Cheney from office. Although if they all seriously honored their oath of office IMO, there would be.

Your apparent perceptions perhaps are also a bit skewed as a result of the responses you received since you came in attacking, not merely questioning or criticizing, Feingold of all people. If as you say your threads were calculated to provoke a response, they did: no doubt some perceived you as a troll and responded accordingly. Then you waved the straw man of "dissent is not allowed here," played the victim and compared us to Freepers. Way to go for establishing your credibility here.

Your argument against censure: "And what if the censure fails to pass? What then? Does this not weaken any future attempts by Democrats to bring this administration under the Rule of Law?" So let me ask you this, if you recognize that the milder measure of censure may not pass the Senate, how is it that you think that same Senate would convict on impeachment? The Republicans are just going to flop over and vote for conviction in impeachment proceedings? They'll see reason and vote to save the Republic as their patriotic duty? With a divided Senate, not a huge majority in the House, a partisan Justice Dept and a stacked SCOTUS what is your serious realistic recommendation for effectively holding the Bush administration accountable and subject to the rule of law? You don't want "toothless measures that have no guarantee of passing," so seriously what do you think would be effective given the circumstances and the cards stacked against any positive measures with real teeth?

The reality is that the Dems can't even pass legislation on their own or sustain a veto override. You do understand that, don't you?

Yes, it's a Constitutional crisis and has been for years. Congress abrogated its Constitutional responsibilities years ago. The Dems may be the majority party in Congress in name since November, but the reality is that they don't really control the Senate and they're not monolithic. The Constitutional remedy available for the abuses of the Executive branch requires 67 votes in the Senate that the Dems simply don't have and most likely won't get. Don't like it? Neither do I. Want them to make the effort anyway? Fine. I'm not opposed to that. But I also recognize that it's not simply a matter of "If only the Dems would start impeachment proceedings, Bush/Cheney would be removed from office."

And if you don't want to support "measures with no guarantee of passing," then by your own logic that also includes impeachment. It's an outrage that Congress doesn't rise up and assert its authority over a rogue Executive, but it's not just on the Dems who can count the votes in Congress (and also look toward to '08 and picking up more seats and the Presidency, a matter you might sneer at but is also frankly the only viable alternative to the thugs who have been in power for the last 6 years), it's also those "patriot" Republicans who have sold the Constitution down the river for political power, prop up the Bush administration and make it not possible to pass and sustain effective measures to reign in a rogue Executive branch.

Don't get me wrong just because I tend to write dispassionately here, years ago I saw where this Administration and a compliant Congress were leading us. Not just on the war and the lies. The Bush Administration has been radically revolutionary, masquerading as "conservatives" while overriding the Constitution and the rule of law at will and whim and further weakening the checks and balances on Executive power with their SCOTUS appointments that Congress allowed to go through. What's the so-called "unitary executive" other than an imperial presidency? You're right, it isn't just business, politics as usual and it hasn't been for years.

Criticize the Dems if you want, you'll have lots of company if you don't come off as some outsider just looking to attack Dems, but it's not just that simple to act as if the Dems alone have the power to remove Bush and are failing to do so.

You asked me what the Dem strategy is for protecting the Constitution? You've claimed to be a Dem but expect others Dems to explain the ways of the party leadership to you? If we're allegedly all hooked up to the party line, whatever that is, why don't you knnow? Did you miss a meeting? Really, is your self described critical thinking so limited that you can only think in simplistic terms of black and white?

Without the votes they need to remove Bush from office (and I don't think they think the people at large would support an impeachment effort), I'm guessing what they are trying to do through the various investigations is to reveal the abuses and criminality of the Bush Administration for the record and even that's being stymied by claims of "executive privilege." The Justice Dept apparently will just say "blow me" to contempt of Congress referrals. I suppose the Dems in Congress could send some folks to jail on their own on the grounds of "inherent contempt," likely resulting in an outraged wailing by Repubs that those held in contempt are victims of a partisan witch hunt. I'd figure the wailing that would result and be given wide play in the alleged "left wing" corporate media would make the Scooter Libby defenders look like a demure group suffering from a clinical shyness disorder.

I suspect the Dem leadership may have hoped that the results of the investigations might lead to greater support for stronger measures and actions and pressures on Congressional Republicans and conservative Dems since again, the Dems aren't monolithic and the Dems don't really fully control Congress. That last bit is the sticking point to any effective affirmative action, however merited and justifiable. I suspect they don't think they realistically can remove Bush/Cheney from power before the 2008 election and so are focusing on revealing the abuses, putting the Repubs in a corner so that they either fold or more likely, continue to support the unsupportable. And then let the people judge in 2008 if Repubs or Dems are more fit to govern.

And on Iraq, I figure they're hoping the "catastrophic success" of the Bush Iraq policy and its increasing unpopularity will put pressure on enough Congressional Repubs to repudiate continuation of the Bush policy and provide more support for disengagement.

No it ain't ideal or satisfactory. But the Dems can't get 60 votes now in the Senate on legislation to effectively curb the Administration and don't have 67 votes to remove him from office immediately or in the near foreseeable future. You want "effective measures," what's your realistic suggestion? Shut down the Senate? I'm not altogether averse to that and would also include the House. But I'm also a realist. Ain't going to happen and it wouldn't work anyway, without the votes to pass effective measures. .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. They are Gods and we should be proud to kiss the hems of their garments.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

34. I pray to GOD that this is sarcasm....

Because right now, democrats are not perfect. They are no where near it! They are just STARTING to grow spines.
Duckie

[Sonicmedusa]

36. You MUST march in lock-step with your comrades!

Or you will be punished.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. You have failed to explain yourself, so your post comes across like that of some wingnut.

Explain yourself in detail, give an example!!! If you fail to do so, you'll just leave us either confused or wondering if you're a Rove fan.

[JFN1]

42. I apologize

for any confusion. There are many people out there who blindly support the Democrats - a condition I find equally dangerous to the blind support for Bush. Senator Feingold has stated today he will introduce a censure motion - a toothless measure that Mr. Feingold hopes will ensure history remembers the Dems were "vocal in their opposition" to Bush's conduct of the Iraq war.

I feel this is simply more talk, more political histrionics that do nothing to bring our soldiers home.

I feel We, the People, have for too long sat back waiting for our Democratic politicians to do the right thing, yet they stay in the background like frightened children, mustering up only enough courage to offer motions and statements that, again, say much, but do little.

Impeachment must happen, to protect the Constitution, and our Democracy.

The crimes are too numerous to simply "ride out" the rest of Bush's term. if we fail to impeach, we leave the door wide open for these abuses to not only continue, but to grow even worse.

Senator Feingold said in his Daily Kos diary today that, "while there may be abuses that are impeachable, I am not convinced impeachment is the best way to deal with these abuses." Then when he was called on that, he deleted that statement (though it is preserved in the comments).

It is disingenuous, and just plain wrong for Mr. Feingold to play these kinds of games with us.

I, too, admire his accomplishments, and believe in many of the things he claims to believe in. But what he did today was wrong; and i am right to say so.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. I share the same beliefs as you.

I think impeachment doesn't even need to be on the table anymore. It needs to be IN PROCESS NOW!!!

I'm a Dem (probably more of a lefty than most Dems)but I'm growing increasingly frustrated by the Dems in Congress and their insistance on being polite and nice. NO MORE POLITE AND NICE! THERE'S NO TIME FOR POLITE AND NICE!

[JFN1]

51. Thank you

I coundn't have put it any better. We're out of time, and we need a sense of urgency.

[BeHereNow]

45. I disagree, I believe the poster has been very clear. The LAW has been broken

REPEATEDLY.
Those SWORN to uphold the and defend the constitution have not.
I think the poster poses a fair question.
I too am sick of the political theatrics, band aids on the
shark bite, designed to provide temporary relief to the rotting hole this
country has become.

I too, want ACTION that brings tangible results
to-wards holding those who are guilty accountable for their crimes
against WE, the people, not to mention the victims in
other sovereign nation states.

I too, question WHY we can not name ONE ACTION that has
yet changed the very fucked up course this country is on.

BHN

[Bluebear]

40. A photographic reply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[hfojvt]

41. all strawman arguments are perfect. Never deviate from them.

Do not, repeat, do not engage an opponent based on what they said, or bring logic or reason into an argument. Simply write a sarcastic, hyperbolic screed and pretend it is what they said/believe.

[BeHereNow]

43. Far too much of that going on these days.

Makes me wonder sometimes...kind of reminds me of
the True Believer tactics of the collective mob mentality.
BHN

[Garbo 2004]

49. All you got is a false straw man argument when clearly Dems are frequently criticized here?

Don't like the way your other thread went so you start another one with this disingenuous straw man BS?

[JFN1]

52. No, that is not it at all

The other thread led to this one, since this blind belief that Democrats can do no wrong, is dangerous and unhealthy, and if you read the other thread and it's comments, you can see this borderline fanaticism for what it is - a dangerous potential, the same dangerous potential that has entrapped the Republicans. I seek to address this condition with this thread, while I sought to offer my opinion (something I assume I am still entitled to) in the other thread. And since DU is a forum for offering opinions, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that my opinion, divergent though it may be to some, would be welcome here.

[BeHereNow]

54. Like all fanatics, those inside a movement believe themselves to be "different"

And so it goes with the "left" and "right."
Neither seem capable of understanding that the
crimes committed affect, WE, the people and
that those crimes are being committed by ONE entity
that controls BOTH sides of the aisle.
Different shades of lip stick.
Same pig.

Don't rock the fantasy boat.

BHN

[Garbo 2004]

65. I read the thread. Not everyone agreed with you so that makes them blind followers & fanactics?

Or is it simply perhaps not everyone agreed with you and/or the way you expressed your opinion and concerns and you have a problem with that?

You can't argue for your right to an opinion and then play the victim when others also have their views that may not be in accord with yours. And the apparent suggestion that not going along with your opinion or criticizing it is evidence of "blind belief" and "borderline fanaticism" is simply hyperbole and another straw man.

Have you missed all the threads here criticizing Pelosi, Reid and the Congressional Dems for the last 7 months? Their very existence and the continued criticism of Dems here knocks down your characterization of DU as populated with blind partisan borderline fanatics who can't tolerate criticism of Dems. You want to criticize Dems here, then join the crowd that has been doing so for years rather than act like you're some lone dissenter among sheep. You're not a martyr. But don't expect unalloyed agreement all the time with your opinions or the manner in which you expres them. Good grief, it's a chat board with thousands of posters who don't all agree on anything. (There have been flamewars here about fried chicken for cryin' out loud.)

And just a tip, referring to "you people" in a post is not generally a good idea unless you want to raise some folks' hackles and have some wonder where you actually are coming from. The use of that phrase evokes a bit of a time in history and an atitude to many libs (perhap more so to those of a certain age?). And regardless of any historical context, on its own it also implicitly suggests that the speaker sets him/herself not only apart but perhaps also above those he/she is speaking to. It's a bit of a linguistic gaffe. If we at DU are "you people" to you, then who are you if you're not one of us and who do you really identify with? Clearly you didn't get the point when someone noted your use of that phrase. Too busy perhaps setting yourself up as some valiant lone dissenter among a board full of dissenters and contrarians: i.e., Democrats.

[Bravo Zulu]

55. You need to direct your comments to the Senators

that you think that we follow blindly without questioning, our guys aren’t perfect and probably will make mistakes and do some things that are questionable, but all the Democrats running for president are a hundred times better than the the repukes, One thing I’m pretty sure of is that if Gore or Kerry had been the President that we wouldn’t be in the Iraq quagmire now, so I’m supporting the democrats with all my might.

[BeHereNow]

57. And isn't it interesting how Gore and Kerry both FOUGHT SO HARD for the Presidency.

They both know that the multi national elites will
select the president who will best serve the corporate banking cartel
interest. Not American interests.
Wake up people, the game is rigged and has been
for decades.
BHN

[JFN1]

59. So am I, dammit!!!!!!!

Is support UNQUESTIONING?

Only if you are a Republican - and I am not!!!!!

So if I think my Dems are fucking up, I AM GOING TO STAND UP AND SAY SO.

No politician is worthy of unquestioned support.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

66. Oh, NOW they're "your" Dems.

Interesting change of heart. MKJ

[nini]

60. compared to the neocons we are perfect

but I'm guessing you're being quite extreme in your comments to either start or flame war or present yourself as superior in judgment. :eyes:

[JFN1]

63. Perfect?

That kind of hubris is a trap - just ask the Republicans.

[Swamp Rat]

62. IMPEACH NOW!!