DU does not tolerate non-support of Dems, or support of Indies over Dems...so.....

[Tyler Durden]

Why is this "_______ reasons I will never vote for _________" nonsense not only TOLERATED, but allowed to accumulate rec's and seen on the front page.

If this is OK, then logically, support for Cindy Shehan over Nancy Pelosi should be fine too, right?

WRONG.

I am a Fringe Democrat. That means I haven't seen a candidate that I truly support since Dave Bonior, a personal acquaintance, was forced out of the house by the Michigan rePuke congress' Gerrymandering. The candidates that I would have said OK to either aren't in the race anymore or weren't there in the first place. I've made it widely known here that there are moments I want to see another Caligula in office just to put that last hole in the leaky old tramp steamer that American Politics has become, to watch it sink so we can launch the NEW version. That said, I'm not an idiot: ___________ (Democratic Party Candidate) is far and away better than seeing any of the rePukes in office. Therefore, no matter what I feel about whichever one gets the nod, I will pull the Party Ticket Lever as I always do.

Now supporters of __________, grow the fuck up. This has degenerated to something that bears a disgusting resemblance to a grade school playground "...my pee pee is bigger than YOURS..." contest.

Why have I left the name space blank? Because there isn't one candidate or non-candidate I've yet seen who hasn't had one supporter say that at least once.

[Orsino]

1. I believe mods interpret the rules a little more loosely, to their credit.

One doesn't necessarily have to support every Democrat, and as long as one doesn't actively work for the other side, perhaps we don't need to flash ID cards.

But please PM a mod with your concerns, if they are not responding immediately to your alerts.

[Tyler Durden]

7. Who says they have to support EVERY Democrat?

The point is, when one says "I won't vote for __________ if they get the nomination..." Then that's the time they should be shown THE DOOR. The rules are, SUPPORT THE NOMINEE. To say that you won't support the eventual nominee if it isn't YOURS is against the rules.

To these people I say: Find a more conciliatory method to express your discontent.

[LWolf]

25. There is no nominee until the convention.

That rule can be enforced AFTER the convention. Meanwhile, it's still primary season, and warning Democratic voters about the consequences of their votes is part of that. If it is valid to allow people to run around chanting "A vote for ________ is a vote for the republican," even though that statement is patently false,

then it's certainly more valid to say "Think about your choices in the voting booth, because if you choose to nominate __________, you choose to lose my vote."

[Tyler Durden]

33. Nope, don't agree.

It is not valid to make the non-support of the party threat.

see rule #2.

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

You may argue that there is no "Candidate" yet, but both Clinton and Obama are Democratic Party members of the Senate. I think that makes a difference.

[SteppingRazor]

45. But that is the way the rules are interpreted by the mods.

Until we have a presidential nominee, a large amount of latitude is given to criticism of all potential nominees.

[Tyler Durden]

50. LATTITUDE is one thing: Political extortion is another.

"If _______ isn't the candidate I'm not voting" is attempted political extortion. It shouldn't fly here.

[LWolf]

46. You don't have to agree to make it a fact.

Not that your agreement, or disagreement, is needed to interpret a rule, lol.

The fact is that a Democrat who wanted to see a Democratic victory in the GE WOULD point out the potential loss of GE votes because of party primary outcomes.

It's also a fact that not all Democrats, or Democratic candidates, are supportive of "progressive ideals;" unless you consider the "progressive policy institute" to be actually "progressive," rather than just Orwellian.

Of course, when there IS a Democratic candidate for president, which occurs when the candidate is formally nominated at the convention, DUers may not post anything that suggests non-support.

Personally, I'm hoping for a brokered convention, which results in a candidate that is neither HRC nor Obama. While unlikely, it is the last hope for THIS Democrat, and while it is still possible, I can publicly refuse to support either of the current two without breaking any rules.

There is no rule about not criticizing the actions of Democratic members of the Senate, either. If there were, Lieberman would still be in the pink with DUers, wouldn't he?

Remember him? That Democratic primary candidate from '04, who is also still a current senator?

[Tyler Durden]

52. Lieberman can call himself a frog if he wants...

But the Senate carries him as (I), caucusing with the Democrats. He's fair game.

[LWolf]

61. Which is only recently, of course.

He was still fair game when he was a "D," pre-Lamont, which is my point.

[Tyler Durden]

70. He was fair game in the PRIMARY...

As in "Support Lamont, Defeat Lieberman." This is different.

[LWolf]

103. He was fair game long before that.

I'm sure you know that.

Please remember that we are discussing whether or not a senator is fair game for criticism, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

Lieberman is just the obvious example of how that plays out on DU. I don't remember ANY love for Lieberman on DU, as a Senator or a candidate, even before the '04 primary.

Regardless, the point is that it is not against DU rules to criticize a Democratic Senator, whether or not they are campaigning for office.

[defendandprotect]

143. Well, wait a minute . . . Gore and Kerry would have given us REPUBLICAN VP's . . .

and done it quite openly --- !!!!

Gore certainly KNEW what Liebermann was all about having served with him in the Senate for years!!!
Please, don't bother denying that --

Kerry asked McCain to be his VP --- !!!!

And we're not supposed to criticize any of this ---
check your brains at the door as you enter DU --- ???

Whaat . . . . ???

[LWolf]

151. Of course you are supposed to criticize such thngs.

Some people wish a very narrow interpretation of rules in order to purge those who hold their party accountable from the conversation.

A vibrant, healthy, strong party benefits from open self-reflection and constructive criticism.

The only benefit I see to silencing dissent is for those who wish the Democratic Party to become the DLC/third way party.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

152. Well, we seem to have a handful of people here who want to do just that ---

and as far as I can see, they succeed mightily with what I can only interpret as a very
conservative overview here quite willing to create "taboo" subjects and shut down
discussion.

[LWolf]

153. It's ironic

that many of the same people who scorn the "America, love it or leave it" bigotry espoused by the right behave exactly the same way when it comes to the Democratic Party, or to Democratic Underground.

Some of us love our country, but recognize her serious flaws and want to bring them to the light and heal them.

Some would like to do the same for the Democratic Party, as long as they are not silenced when they bring the corruption and dysfunction to light.

[defendandprotect]

154. It certainly is ironic . . . .

[Baby Snooks]

92. Lieberman is not an Independent

He's a Republicrat hiding behind the label of Independent. Unlike Jeffers, he absolutely has no problem with the Republican Party. But fears he would lose his seat if he actually ran as a Republican. No fool he. He probably would.

[Tyler Durden]

107. No disagreement.

Lipstick on the pig.

[Echo In Light]

9. I've had mods lock my thread & pm me about sourcing websites on DU "enemy list"

And then go on to allow another poster to use the exact same source.

[maddezmom]

12. might want to hit alert if you think the mods need to see something

that's usually how things come to our attention. :)

[Echo In Light]

14. Not my style. I'm not rule-crazy, and find it silly/petty that DU has a list of websites that...

Based on moderate sensibilities prevailing here at DU, are embarrassed and disgruntled over having to allow for views 'they' deem too "conspiratorial." So they cobble together the charge of "this website has been proven to be unfriendly to DU" as a means of censorship. This would be vehemently denied by some, I'm sure...

[havocmom]

23. suggestion: If alerting mods to rules violations is not your style, don't complain

if they miss violations. For heaven's sake, they are not GOD, sitting above the fray with nothing to do but control everything. They are volunteers who are not online 24/7, lurking behind every post waiting to bust chops.

Personally, I'm not nuts for censorship of site links either, but there are lots of sites out there that really are crap and people new to political forums may not have the experience to separate wheat from chaff. I do see the point of making sure sites linked around here are not gonna be too damaging to DU's rep. It IS a private property forum and not a street corner on Main Street.

I also share a certain hesitation about DU rules to not link to sites which are sorta anti-DU liberal sites where some banned liberals have chosen to meet and chat. But then, this is not my house and I agree to the house rules to play here.

But I don't whine about mods not acting then refuse to alert on violations because it's not my style. Can't have it both ways.

[Echo In Light]

48. That you frame my view as "whining" says a lot. Global Research was the cite, and they cover 9/11

Views extensively. So, no, "they're" not "god," but some clearly do cherry pick.

[havocmom]

53. LOL You have NO idea of the sites I favor. No idea what so ever.

My observation has to do with your complaint that you got busted for something someone else got away with AND your statement that you won't alert.

If you don't like the fact that the rules get applied unevenly, you might realize the mods don't see everything and if no one alerts on violations, some of them squeak by. If you are among those who don't want to alert, fine, but your complaints that enforcement is uneven sorta looks silly in light of your preferences.

Can't have cake if you've eaten it.

[Echo In Light]

57. Two wrongs don't make a right

Not so much "complaining" as using the example to illustrate a point. Aside from that, I give less than shit about your opinion of my "silly" views. Carry on.

[blondeatlast]

88. So you whine about it in public rather thatn take it to the Administrators.

How mature of you.

[havocmom]

95. LOL and the poster doesn't like that fact pointed out either

:hug: thanks for another voice addressing the disconnect.

[blondeatlast]

97. EiL has a bad case of the "poor, poor, pitiful me's"--combined with GWB-like smugness. nt

[defendandprotect]

144. Agree --- and it encourages close-mindedness here -- while blocking

subjects as "taboo" for the comfort of some here easily shocked and offended, evidently ---
while the most shocking and offensive things are going on in the political world we are
pretending to understand --- my gawd . . . just look at the line up of meaningless threads!!!

[Tyler Durden]

26. You're telling me that "I won't vote for ______ if they're the nominee" will get locked. Right?

Somehow, I doubt that. I don't feel a lot of "neutrality" lately.

Not aimed at you, really.

[Echo In Light]

55. I've sourced two OP written by Cindy Sheehan that were locked specifically because DU doesn't

Support her. And this occurred even though her OPs were covering other subjects, not specifically her run for the senate.

[Tyler Durden]

58. Like I said: no excuse.

A certain "lean" is detected, if you catch my drift.

[defendandprotect]

146. And that also successfully blocks anti-war positions and discussions . . .

just coincidentally --

I get direct e-mail from Cindy Sheehan so I'm fairly aware tho sometimes I don't get a chance
to read it all ---

[thunder rising]

2. She's such a queen she'll fire Howard Dean. So to save the Party I will not vote for Hillary

She's such a queen
she'll fire Howard Dean.
She's such a queen
look at me, look at me

Damn it's a song

[baldguy]

4. Another supporter for President McCain

[liberal N proud]

5. Yup!

[NNN0LHI]

30. Why doesn't that surprise me?

[JackRiddler]

38. Your Logic is Impeccable.

Your signature line favorably quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski, founder of the Trilateral Commission, destroyer of the Carter Administration's progressivism, architect of the Afghanistan jihad, and old fashioned imperialist. (Lately adviser to Obama, though what can I say, Clinton's demonstrably worse.)

"This is not my Democratic Party."

[baldguy]

127. "The real problem is that Bush's policies divide us from our friends and unite our enemies..."

"...and it should be the other way around."

That statement is in my sig because I agree with it. Any sane person would.

[JackRiddler]

138. "Zbigniew Brzezinski is not my friend..."

Even if I find myself considering support for one of his proteges in the face of the naked horror of "choices" we have been presented with, in which the Clinton Wing of the Bush Party is the only other alternative. (Since no, I am not "for McCain" no matter how often it is moronically insisted that to be against Clinton is to support McCain.)

The founder of the Trilateral Commission, etc. (see above) is not my friend, nor a friend to the vast number of people in the world.

[Marr]

104. The people supporting Hillary are going to deliver a McCain presidency.

Please don't try to pass her inevitable loss off on everyone else.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton will energize the Republican base. She's the only chance they've got. On the other hand, with a McCain nomination, Obama could actually pick up some of the other side's votes-- Hillary hasn't got a chance of doing that.

I am no Obama supporter, but I can see that Hillary Clinton hasn't got a shot in hell against McCain. If she wins the nomination she will lose-- and it will *not* be everyone else's fault. It will be HER CAMPAIGN'S fault, and that of her supporters.

[Tyler Durden]

108. Good posiblity.

Personally, I feel that either of them will likely deliver a McCain presidency, And that a ticket with both of them will guarantee a McCain presidency.

This is not a very enlightened nation, to put it politely, and around this time last year I was hoping for GORE to take it away so we'd already be on our side of the endgame. Instead we've tried to make a point instead of concentrating on WINNING which was so very critical this time.

[Marr]

131. I agree with you completely.

I don't think either of our remaining candidates has a good chance of beating McCain. A lot of people are overestimating the character of the American public around here. I feel as if the election was lost when the public just blindly accepted the media's two choices.

Still, having said that, I do think Obama has more of a chance than Hillary Clinton. He can actually benefit from the McCain nomination, while Hillary won't.

[defendandprotect]

148. If Hillary gets the nomination and loses, it will be because of Democratic Party corruption . . .

combined with a stolen election by GOP ---

We deserve better candidates ---
and less FEAR-based reasoning ---

[Tyler Durden]

8. A perfect example of what I've said.

Even Pat Buccannan thinks McCain will make Cheney look like Tinkerbell.

I've said in the past that I would vote for SATAN over a Republican if I believed in Satan.

It's toe cuttin' time. You can't be a Democrat, go Green, go Indy, but go away.

[cyclezealot]

3. I think a wide range of possibilities is the best course.

Of course not Repuke thinking. But, solidifying progressive forces need be considered. The Democratic selection process is important how it affects independent minded liberals and moderates. How do we obtain a majority . Put your head in the sand and ignore the feelings of potential allies, we only hurt ourselves to not attempt to realize how our choices affects those who might be attracted to our cause.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. DU rules state that during primaries, just about anything goes

about the various candidates. Wait until a nominee is chosen. If anyone starts a thread saying "I Won't Vote for the Nominee", it will be taken off the board and the poster, at the very least, warned severely.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Jamastiene]

11. I can't wait until the blinders come off and the mods start to see through

that one. It's obvious and has been for a while now.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. Were you around in 2004?

Or for the CT primary in 2006 with Ned Lamont and Holy Joe? Just curious, as things got rather hot at that time as well.

[Tyler Durden]

54. Since the board went up: 2001

I wisely kept my mouth shut, until Joe went down and went (I).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

89. You were wise

what I tend to do with the posts that you are objecting to is to ignore them, just as I ignore posts on R/T that I feel are dissing believers. Not much I can do about them, except not read them.

[Tyler Durden]

91. I am OLD.

I've seen the young and easily influenced disillusioned and fallen into apathy. Our two potential candidates are, let's face it, long shots. We are running a Black man against the South and the West, and we are running the most hated woman in America.

We need every single vote, not some 21 year old sitting home and pouting because their candidate isn't "THE ONE."

Unless President McCain sounds like a good deal: not to ME.

[natrat]

13. what a load of shit-D politicians have screwed us beyond belief yet people blindly support

[Tyler Durden]

21. Two words: President McCain.

TELL ME one way that is a "good thing", and how we avoid it without Party Loyalty.

The rePukes, no matter WHAT their press says, would vote for TEDDY KENNEDY if he changed parties and got the nomination for President.

But go ahead. I've said many times that maybe it just has to get much, much worse before it gets better.

[JackRiddler]

39. Phrase: Two-Party Racket.

Trying to terrorize conformity in politics through the threat of whatever the latest Republican ogre is.

[Tyler Durden]

64. Tactic: Political Extortion

"If it's not my candidate, I'm not voting at all"

And yes, it's a two-party Racket. I can't WAIT to see it crumble. Until then, dance with what brung ya.

[JackRiddler]

69. What brung me?!

I don't have a candidate. I just know what I'm stuck with - and won't be stuck with a Clinton restoration willingly.

[Tyler Durden]

72. Fine, as long as you don't advocate the failure of the Candidate....

Whoever that may be.

I will be holding my nose and taking anti-nausea meds no matter which one of them takes it; trust me. But I WILL vote for the Democratic Party Nominee. And I WILL vote.

[Joe Fields]

101. Heh, my dance partners have been doing the Flamenco on my head.

Time to sit this dance out.

[Tyler Durden]

106. Boy don't I wish.

The whole thing gives me a headache, and I get enough migraines as it is.

[Joyce78]

15. Party Loyalty

Feb. 4, 2008 on Good Morning America


ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats her husband, becoming the first woman nominee. Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?

OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

[Tarc]

16. Yep. If the Obamas themselves can't even do it

then what hope do the mods have of getting Team Obama here to do it either?

A sad situation all around.

[stahbrett]

18. "working to support" is different than "voting for McCain" (n/t)

[Tyler Durden]

24. "I won't vote for Hillary in the election" is different from "Working to support Obama"

[stahbrett]

47. Exactly, but Michelle Obama has not said that she wouldn't vote for HRC (n/t)

[Tyler Durden]

56. "I'll have to think about it, and review her blah blah blah"

Not exactly a Party Supporter. Not a fair question, either, but she could have dodged the bullet completely: "I AM hoping that the candidate is my HUSBAND!"

A lot more TACTFUL. After all BARACK is running, not her.

[NeedleCast]

17. Irony For the Win!

The fact that this thread is quickly tunring into another Obama vs Clinton thread wins my Irony award for the day, before 9:00 AM no less!

[Tyler Durden]

27. Who's LEFT???

Personally, I don't like either of them. But I'd vote for Hillary in a DOM outfit or Obama in a pink tutu if they were the nominee.

[Jamastiene]

31. Mmm, sexy.

:D

[Tyler Durden]

34. You KNOW I just love the way you think.

I may be STRAIGHT but I'm not NARROW.

[Joe Fields]

109. Quick question, Tyler...What would you rather have happen to you?

Would you prefer to get pushed from the roof of a 20 story building, or would you rather get bludgeoned in the head by a baseball bat repeatedly? I ask this question simply because, as of right now there is no difference between the two parties. These last fifteen months have left little doubt that the politicians are just the puppets in this freak show, and we, the people have absolutely no say. Politicians do not represent us. They have their own agenda, and what is good for the country ain't part of it.

This is the first time in my life,(I'm in my fifties) where I have been made to feel completely ambivalent toward whoever our nominee is. I have long held the belief that it IS going to have to get worse here, before people get their heads out of their asses and take back their govt.

Right now, the democratic flagon of poison will kill us just as dead as the republican one.

[Tyler Durden]

115. Do you think I disagree with you?

I don't. I'm in my 50's as well, and the enthusiasm of RFK, McCarthy and McGovern has been bled out of me. It makes me sad and terrifies me to the core to see this happening. In my opinion, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a cakewalk compared to this.

Those of us who pray would be well advised to pray for a miracle, because I don't think anything short of one will hold off the disaster.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Where I see the irony, or hilarity, is that..

we're all fascinated by a Republican "meltdown" where Anne Coulter is making the ridiculous statement that she'll vote for Hillary over McCain (we all know that's bullshit hyperbole) while we're doing the same thing ourselves.

We went through this before when the Nader thing happened, or "If I can't have Dean, I'll have no one." Now, everyone's doing it.

Methinks a lot of people should go back to believing in God, since religious fervor for politicians isn't working out too well.

[gratuitous]

20. If you don't like the rules

You could start your own website.

Just sayin'.

[Tyler Durden]

28. Rule #2.

"2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

Your serve.

[gratuitous]

32. I guess that's why it's call Democratic Underground

Imagine that. So a self-professed Fringe Democrat, who doesn't support any Democratic candidate, isn't finding the warmest of welcomes. My goodness, Tyler, how do you persevere? It's an extraordinary testament to your spirit that you even get out of bed!

So when you start your own website (I'll not be going, sorry), here's your first two rules for participants:

1. Tyler Durden is always right.
B. If Tyler's wrong, see Rule #1.

Good luck and have fun!

[Tyler Durden]

35. It's because I don't threaten not to vote, and I support the Party.

Obviously you would rather play games. I support the PARTY. At this point, I am keeping my opinions to other places. I have them, but they are inappropriate in the GD and GD-P forums.

[IsItJustMe]

22. I will vote for either, not because of passion, but rather out of necessity. Now for these people

who say they won't vote for the other candidate, if their candidate don't win, I will agree with you. They need to grow the fuck up. If you loose the election because of this type of stupidity, well then, I don't want to hear these people complaining as this country continues to sink into authoritarianism.

Just like the election of 2000 when I had several friends vote for Nader, they were the loudest complainers when we went into Iraq. I told them to STFU. I told them that they had a chance to make a difference and they pissed it down the toilet.

For those people who will not vote for the Democratic nominee, I say, get your self-importance out of the way for once and do the right thing. If you don't, don't complain when the world falls in around you.

[Tyler Durden]

29. Thank you.

We don't have to LIKE it if our candidate doesn't get the nomination, but at the moment, this is for all practical intents and purposes a 2-Party State. There is no "Door #3" Monty.

[JackRiddler]

36. Your Tombstoning Offensive would leave this place rather bare...

Imagine what it would be like around here with only the Cheerleaders left.

May I ask, what do you see in the character of Tyler Durden?

[Tyler Durden]

42. You're missing the point.

The point is, while you're HERE, there are rules. And if you can't stomach going along with the Party Nominee, then shut up or go away.

Note that in the end, Psychosis is not shown as a productive life style.

[alarimer]

37. Who the hell are you (or anyone else here) to tell me who have I have to vote for?

I can vote for whomever I please. "Vote for the candidate or else" is bullshit.

If these people on this site cannot deal with a little dissent, they can go to hell. I am deeply unhappy with the corporate lackeys our media has chosen for us. As far as I am concerned our country is gone. Neither Obama nor Hillary are going to restore the things destroyed by Bush and company.

And if they kick me off here, so be it.

My values are no longer represented by the Democratic Party. At all. So, I am actually considering sitting out this election in the fall. Frankly, I do no think it makes a big difference if we lose. We are fucked no matter who wins. The corporations will always win and always screw the rest of us over.

[Tyler Durden]

41. Then leave.

Rule #2
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

If you can't support the Party Candidate, you don't belong here. "And if they kick me off here, so be it." sounds one hell of a lot like "TOMBSTONE ME RIGHT NOW."

[TahitiNut]

65. And what about the times that "progressive ideals" are CONTRARY to the "Democratic candidates"??

This perverted "love it or leave it" attitude is completely contrary to any notion of self-improvement and grass roots democracy, imho.

I've seen DOZENS of threads started with the "bold" proclamation that "I'll support the Democratic nominee, NO MATTER WHO it is!" I doubt I've seen even one-fourth of such threads, since I regard them as childish, self-serving, intellectually superficial, and authoritarian. So I avoid them.

When allegiance to a party overwhelms allegiance to values and principles (e.g. "progressive ideals") then partisanship becomes an evil of its own. That's EXACTLY what the GOP has become. It's at the very root of the "Gingrich Revolution." Traveling down the same pathway is the journey of a fool!

[Tyler Durden]

74. Then start "Independent Underground."

Think of this as a "club." When you "joined," you agreed to the "rules." If you no longer agree to the "rules," for the sake of your own conscience you should leave.

I don't like what this has become EITHER. Frankly I see no way of changing it within the current political system. I hope the inevitable (because they always happen) economic upheaval and depression that is coming will spur the process.

[TahitiNut]

81. The "rules" apply to the content of posts and NOTHING else.

I am fully able to maintain both my integrity and my participation in DU without selling my soul.

Speaking for myself, I have been supportive of Dennis Kucinich and, secondarily, John Edwards. The last I heard they're "Democrats." As an independent and resident of Michigan, the Democratic Party has made it abundantly clear they don't care what I think. I have indicated my intention to vote for Kucinich. I did so when Kucinich was an "official" candidate. I need not change my INTENTION as I comply with DU Rules and ensure that my posts, while 100% honest, do not "cross the line."

I vote. I vote in every General Election and most open primaries. As many of the rabid partisans of DU have demonstrated, the "greatest evil" seems to be people who vote ... not people who don't vote. That's shameful, imho.

No matter how often the difference between "attack the message" and "attack the messenger" is pointed out, the vast majority of posts on DU seem to reflect an almost total lack of comprehension of the fallacy. A fallacy is not merely an academic critique of a logical argument, it can be symptomatic a mental malfunction when it demonstrates the actual thinking processes of the individual. Appalling.

[Tyler Durden]

90. Check rule #2

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

I understand your point of view. I also understand that advocating not voting if a particular person is the candidate of the Democratic Party is against the rules; remember Cindy Shehan?

Modern Politics has taken on the virtual characteristics of armed conflict. In the words of Lt. General James Longstreet, CSA: "This war is a nightmare; you have to pick your side and put your head down."

Don't think for one minute that I AGREE with the POLITICS of this situation; I merely hold that no matter what happens, President _____ is better than President McCain. That's the fight, and it still must be clear that unless one wishes (as I have said on occasion) to : "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out," then there is a right side and a wrong side in this fight. To suggest that you do not support the "right side" because your candidate isn't the one running is counterproductive.

AND against the rules.

[TahitiNut]

93. Such repetition gets insulting.

Self-appointed Hall Monitors are tiresome, imho. Democratic Underground has a number of rules ... INCLUDING the mechanisms for the determination of whether or not an individual's membership is terminated. It's ironic (and intellectually dishonest) that anyone would "proof text" the DU Rules for the transient convenience of their rant-of-the-day.

You've tried to quote the rules. Here's another rule ...

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Physician heal thyself!

:eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

96. As I recall, I didn't accuse you of anything....

With the possible exception of the misinterpretation of the rules.

I also didn't suggest you be "terminated."

Don't you see that I am in AGREEMENT with your premises? I simply am realistic enough to know that under the current political system and climate, there are TWO SIDES, and as the last 13 years have shown, one side in control vs the other can create enormous issues.

Again, I accuse you of NOTHING. AND if there were another place where completely open discussion was allowed and PRODUCTIVE I'd love to visit, and if you find it, please tell me.

[Zodiak]

135. I agree

If they want to be mods so much, then they should apply. After all, the site needs mods.

Anything less is just empty threats, cajoling, loyalty oaths, etc.

[TahitiNut]

139. It's my pet peeve.

We have vigilantes and hall monitors, many of whom repeatedly tread over the line of 'other' rules (one's not quite so conveeeenient for their particular rant-du-jour), and many of whom ALSO proclaim 'proudly' that they're not "tattle-tales" who hit the Alert button.
:wtf:
During the six months that I was a moderator during the 2004 primary season (with the Greatest Mod Squad - yes, MrsGrumpy, that's about YOU - in DU history!), I loved those who assisted by hitting Alert. Almost without exception, they were extremely helpful - and I seriously doubt the job can be done without that assistance.

While that primary season was very trying - in some part due to the experimentation with the rules and the software - it was FAR more well-behaved than this one. Far too many DUers seem 'conveniently' self-exempted from helping keep this site diverse, civil, and seminal. In the aftermath of that time, we've slid into a far less mature, far less civil, and far less participatory (in the real sense) 'community.' While we're seeing some extraordinary models of civility and reason, the sheer volume and frequency of immoderate and adolescent posting behavior is overwhelming. We seem to also have an overabundance of scolds, nannies, whiners, and pedants. (I plead 'guilty.')

:crazy:

[Zodiak]

141. Don't forget the sophists and griefers!

I came from another leftie website about that time (the SmirkingChimp). It was pretty bad there, as wll, but not like what I have been seeing here lately. To me, this is not a game, and the members of this community who earn my ignore now will not have it removed because it is not primary season, any more. As far as I am concerned, true colors will out, and these are times where they do. I am not liking the mural of DU that these posters have been painting.

I'd like to go back to having more substantive arguments...all this pissing and moaning over facile crap really has ratcheted my respect for this community down. Of course, the DUers that I have always felt a kindred with have not changed behavior much at all in this primary season.

[LWolf]

147. Recommended.

Even though I can't. Put it up in it's own thread, and I will.

[davsand]

40. Any Primary can get brutal, it is how you act afterward that defines a partisan.

I don't care what level it is at, a Primary can get pretty bloody. I have been on the winning side sometimes and I have been on the losers' side too. What allows me to self define as a Democrat is the fact that I am still working for the party as a whole after that Primary is over--win or lose.

I have had times when I would focus on a different race and work the hell out of that--but I was still out there working for the party. Literally, I have carried lit for the guy that I just lost to, and that is how it works if you are hauling your freight in a political party. You may not be thrilled with one particular candidate, but I'll guarantee that there is at least ONE race on the ticket that you can feel good about working-and THAT is how you keep on going.

Locally, we had a particularly brutal Primary fight in a County Board race. It got ugly and stupid and there were a lot of people dragged into it from outside that district. Once the race was done the losers kept on attacking all the way into the General--to the point that they recruited a candidate for the Green party to be slated in that race.

Dems held the seat, but it is 6 years later and the battle STILL rages on with that SAME faction working in court to remove a Dem from the ballot in this last election. I understand being unhappy with somebody and taking them on in a Primary--but NOT at this level--NOT like this. Those people have become a danger to the local party and THAT is a problem to me. Had they been successful MUCH that our party has worked for would have been lost.

It goes on everywhere--and we see it at a national level here at DU. My advice to anybody that is unhappy with the outcome of ANY given race is to either suck it up and find a place to be constructive or else STFU and stop saying you are a Dem. It is hardcore, but it is how I honestly feel.

Regards!



Laura

[Tyler Durden]

43. Bloody Primaries are one thing: Threats and extortion are another.

The can say all day long "I won't vote for ______ in the PRIMARY, and this is why:..."

It's those who say "If _________ is NOMINATED, I won't vote for them..." that need to shut up or go away. Rule #2 violation.

I got suspended for something that someone THOUGHT SOUNDED RACIST. I'm tired of people issuing threats to the Party.

[tuckessee]

44. Enabling warmongers. n/t

[Tyler Durden]

60. Name a current candidate who voted AGAINST ALL of the war funding resolutions.

(crickets)

[Tyler Durden]

66. (crickets)

Waiting...

[tuckessee]

71. Since you asked - Ron Paul.

Oh, I know- he's nuts, unelectable, fringe, a repuke, etc., but that is the answer to your question. And it's a shame he's the only one.

cruuunch
(crickets being squashed into silence)

[Tyler Durden]

77. And he will be the Democratic Party Candidate How?

I asked for current candidate, and you feed me Ron Paul.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. Name a candidate who always voted with The Party.

[Tyler Durden]

94. You said WAR MONGERER

You're changing the subject.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. I have the quaint notion that my vote is my own, not The Party's.

"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.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

“Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.“
- Rosa Luxemburg

[Tyler Durden]

59. Rule #2.

This is not INDEPENDENT UNDERGROUND. When Adams and Jefferson were alive, that meant something. We break up the school, the sharks have dinner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Yeah, those old guys weren't skeered enough to be "practical".

Methinks you highly overestimate the influence of posts on DU. Believe it, or not, most DU'ers are adults capable of making their own decisions without being coerced into it by Loyalty Oaths.

[Echo In Light]

67. *chuckling..."Loyalty Oaths" = Groupthink = "Free Speech Zones"

[stimbox]

102. And we have self-appointed Capos to enforce the Loyalty Oaths, Groupthink, & Free Speech Zones. n/t

[Tyler Durden]

68. I don't care HOW they are influenced.

Think of this as a "club." You "joined." There are "Rules." Follow them or quit. That's how it works with EVERY club.

It's not "Hillary Underground" or "Obama Underground," the word DEMOCRATIC refers to PARTY, that which DEFEATS REPUBLICANS when we outnumber them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. The politics of fear?

If you don't care how they are influenced, why are you so obsessed with getting them to..

[TahitiNut]

75. Well, isn't that what makes "discussion" possible?

Heaven forbid there be disagreement! :eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

76. Notice that all of the figures on your poster are still ROBOTS.

I care that they practice Political Extortion against the rules of the board.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Extortion? The irony is delicious.

You are the one demanding that we all vote the same way or be thrown out. That's "extortion".

It used to be that politicians had to earn our votes, not threaten us with doomsday scenarios of the horrors that would be befall us if we mindless peasants didn't vote for them.

Now, we are expected to cast aside our reservations, and our responsibilities as citizens, and happily vote for The Party because little dictator wannabees tell us to.

No thanks.

[Tyler Durden]

83. Seeing as this is "Democratic Underground," then I guess you'll be leaving.

I respect your opinion, but in war there are two sides. Modern politics has descended from war down to the level of two gangs in a street fight: ugly, bloody, and stupid.

But this is ONE SIDE, and in November, if you can't stand with THIS side.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. No, I won't.

And, I'll reserve my right to vote for whomever I please.

[Tyler Durden]

100. No one denies you that right.

But the club rules are pretty clear...I would assume as long as you don't try to do a "NADER" or don't encourage others not to vote at all, there probably won't be any issues from anyone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

132. I only state how I may vote. Other's are free to make up their own minds.

But, perhaps I misread your OP. You seemed to infer that we must "support" the selected candidates. I probably will not "support" the chosen one, but I will leave others to do as they please.

[TahitiNut]

86. Playground bullies rarely seem to grow up.

Some become cops. Some become self-appointed vigilantes. Very few become mature adults.

:shrug:

[Tyler Durden]

99. Neither do people who sink to name calling.

You really are taking this to a low level. Sad, since you and I are basically in political agreement on a theoretical level.

I seem to be one against many: I would say that rather puts the "bully" epithet out of my court.

[Iggo]

62. Rules are rules.

I'm with TD on this.

The gray area I see (and others may see it differently) is this:

Are they breaking the rules, or are they threatening to break the rules? And is threatening to break the rules a violation of the rules?

Mods, I need a ruling.

[crispini]

80. Amen! Say it! nt

[philly_bob]

82. Depends on whether they're talking about primary or general election... /nt

[Lyric]

84. I absolutely 100% agree with you, Tyler.

Everyone wants to wax idealistic about it, trotting out the "Ooooh, my vote is mine!" line. Yes, that's true. But if you're posting HERE, then your vote is DEMOCRATIC, or else you don't belong here. Period. This is not Independent Underground, Progressive Underground, or "I MIGHT vote Democratic" Underground. We support Democratic nominees here, no matter WHO they might be. If you cannot or will not support the nominee if your Chosen Favorite doesn't win, then do us all a favor and leave NOW. The rest of us might actually be able to have some decent conversations and debates without the whiny, self-absorbed, MEMEME! melodrama of the aforementioned type of poster. People like that are the ones who are killing our party.

Until we have a viable multi-party system (which is NEVER going to work so long as the Rethuglicans continue to vote en masse for a single party, so if you want multiple parties, go talk to THEM) the Democratic Party is the ONLY party large enough and powerful enough to thwart the insanity of the GOP. It isn't perfect, and I can accept that, because it's fucking light-years better than the guaranteed Republican-rule alternative if we can't come together and compromise. If you have to hold your nose, I won't complain, but voting for anyone other than the Democratic nominee (or not voting at all) is a disaster. The idealistic effect is that you uphold your "principles", but the practical reality is that the Republicans will win. Idealism is a wonderful thing, but people are DYING--not just from the War, but also from malnutrition, disease, and suicide from the despair of watching everything you worked for taken away as the economy tanks. I cannot imagine any higher "principles" than the "principle" of feeding hungry American children, helping the working class make it through the depression, protecting a woman's right to choose, and funding research into finding cures for things like AIDS and cancer. You can vote Democratic, knowing that every single nominee we have will be better for America based on THOSE principles than any Republican candidate.

And of course, there's the Supreme Court--the only thing that stands between us and absolute tyranny of the sheeple majority. Goddess help us all if John McCain gets his hands on the Supreme Court. Republicans have already compromised habeas corpus--what's next? Freedom of the press? Political dissent? Will we start arresting "subversives"? Requiring oaths to prove your loyalty to capitalism? If McCain gets the White House, half of DU will be on a federal "list" somewhere before the decade is out. Are your principles worth THAT?

[Baby Snooks]

87. The Reality of Independants

I truly think people need to accept that in some races, the only hope will be an Independent. Cindy Sheehan is one reason why.

It would have been better had she challenged Nancy Pelosi as a Democrat. But would the Democratic leadership in that district stayed neutral? Of course not. Democrats and Republicans are not themselves necessarily corrupt. But the parties are. That is a reality.

I cannot think of any reason to support Nancy Pelosi at this point. Can Skinner or any of the moderators offer a reason other than she's a Democrat? She's not a Democrat. A Democrat does not revel in the ability to have homeless people arrested. Not too many Republicans do either to be honest. But the Republicrats do. The serve the agenda of oligarchy rather than democracy. Regardless of their "official" party affiliation.

How about just not promoting some Democrats when they have made it quite clear they really don't represent Democrats?

Party loyalty ruined the Republican Party by allowing it to be hijacked. The same will happen with the Democratic Party if the "you are not really a Democrat if you don't vote for the Democrat" mandate continues.

No one should be on DU promoting Cindy Sheehan. By the same token, no one should be on DU promoting Nancy Pelosi. Everyone knows Cindy Sheehan is running. Let the voters in the district decide for themselves. And in a way for the rest of us. She is not just another representative from California. She is Speaker of the House. Telling them they HAVE to vote for Pelosi is not allowing them to decide for themselves.

Reality is Democrats are not the mindless voters that Republicans are. I don't know about other states the way I know about Texas but in Texas many Democrats who refuse to be told who to vote for simply don't vote at all. And that of course is how we ended up with George W Bush to begin with. And with Rick Perry. Anyone who says nothing could be worse than George W Bush obviously doesn't live in Texas or spend much time here. Rick Perry asolutely is worse than George W Bush. He's a former Democrat who became a Republican simply because he knew being a Republican ensured he would win. Even with just 39% of the vote in 2006, he still won. He took the worst of the Texas Democratic Party with him. Good riddance. Unfortunately some who remained in the Texas Democratic Party need to join him. And that probably is true in other states. The Republicans however are fed up. And so some of the "Republican" politicians may go back to the Democratic Party. And no doubt be welcomed back by some. Fools, it seems, never do learn.

If I were in San Franciso and voting in the district, I would not be using DU to convince others to join me in voting for Cindy Sheehan. I would be out on the streets. Hoping Nancy Pelosi didn't call the cops and tell them I was a homeless person and needed to be arrested.

Which I suspect she will do. She threatened to do it to the Pink Ladies. Apparently they dress too well to pass as homeless people or she would probably would have had them arrested.

I suspect Cindy Sheehan will prove to be the battle royale on DU more than anyone else. A local race that nonetheless will determine the future of this country. We don't need an Empress who serves the Emperor as the Speaker of the House.

Not to be hateful but no one thought anyone could be worse than Tom De Lay. Until Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. Her first piece of legislation was the minimum wage bill. That she conveniently had an exclusion inserted in for the sole purpose of excluding one of her major supporters. Starkist Tuna. That was really the point she should have been tossed. Along with Starkist Tuna. And it has gone downhill from there.

The conservatives hate George W Bush. To the point that at this point Tom De Lay probably would have filed the bill for impeachment himself.

That in itself is quite scary when you realize that Nancy Pelosi made it clear, after the elections in 2006, that impeachment was off the table.

Nothing wrong with party loyalty. As long as the candidate is loyal to the party.

[Tyler Durden]

112. I agree with every word you say....

...I simply state we can't say it here. Where I wouldn't cross the street to spit on GWB's shoes, I would make a point of it with Pelosi. I think people like her epitomize the fact that politics in this country has become the realm of the elites and the corporations.

I would see Parties DESTROYED and elections made 100% publicly funded, with candidates who have constituents PETITION the elections committees to have them on the ballot, with runoffs.

[defendandprotect]

120. Excellent comments --- and . . .

in fact, what some here would like to deny is that much of the Democratic Party is already
overtaken by GOP interests --- the DLC is the corporate/Repug win of the Democratic Party ---
and the "blue dogs" -- how many? 42-45 of them? --- are conferring with the Repugs on strategies
and votes!!!

Who is it who's betraying truth here ---
people who understand it and point to it ---

or those here who want NOT to see it --- ????

[LWolf]

133. I love your post.

I wish I could recommend it.

Since I can't, I'll just say thank you, and I concur.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[natrat]

136. excellent points-supporting pelosi ought to be viewed as shameful-but not here

simply because she has D next to her name-how can intelligent people here support this-i don't understand

[leftofthedial]

98. well, Tyler Durden

my pee pee IS bigger than yours.

seriously, the rancor here is hard to put up with. Part of the problem is that there is so little substantive difference between the two candidates, so the focus shifts to personality or emotional attachment. The corporate media also fuels much of the process.

It is almost impossible to get logical discussion and analysis of issues and positions.

[Tyler Durden]

105. Extremely Well Put.

You want to know exactly how I really see all of this?

Our modern political process has become a war of attrition between SLIGHTLY different factions of the Elite Classes of society. To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut: in "The Sirens of Titan" he put forth the idea that if a person on one planet was the smartest person on that planet and always right met a person from another planet who was the smartest person on THAT planet and always right, they would likely disagree and kill each other.

To say that politics in this country has become one corporate philosophy battling another just slightly nastier corporate philosophy is probably the most accurate way of putting things; sort of like a choice between Hitler and Mussolini: neither is desirable, but one could get you dead a whole lot faster than the other. It doesn't mean you LOVE Mussolini: you just don't want to go to the Camps just yet.

This is a very, very BAD way of governing, and as I view it, a very unstable way as well. Is this good? Well, maybe, because CHANGE does not necessarily need someone to lead the change. Leave a dead cow in the middle of your living room, and eventually SOMEONE will organize a crew to remove it: it only has to stink bad enough and draw enough flies.

[leftofthedial]

110. bingo

but the corporate masters are utterly indifferent to the entire concept of "governing"

they have bought the parties, the process and all the candidates in order to ensure a LACK of governing

[Tyler Durden]

114. Think it'll last too very much longer?

Dynamic Equilibrium is inherently unstable, and usually makes a BIG NOISE when it crashes.

[leftofthedial]

118. can you say dark ages?

mass human die-off?

I don't see any more French revolutions in our near future.

[Tyler Durden]

121. One reason I'm buying wind generators and green houses.

I just wish I could get Deb to agree to a much more northern location. I feel the heat of the cities around us like the flush of an infection, waiting to ulcerate.

[leftofthedial]

125. I can feel my part of the world turning into a desert.

the climate here is currently more like the climate was about 600 miles further south thirty years ago.

[TahitiNut]

117. Let's take the metaphor of Hitler and Mussolini and run a bit further with it.

Does anyone doubt that Mussolini would've maintained power for a lot longer if it weren't for Hitler??? (Look at Franco.) The extreme of Hitler contained its own downfall. Indeed, MOST of the rest of the world spent the MAJORITY of the time he was in power attempting to placate and appease him.

This is (Heaven forbid!) Nader's borrowed paradigm of boiling frogs. He (and others) have argued that it's better to plunge more rapidly into fascism for the sake of making the experience shorter than to prolong the predation and (arguably) increase the harm.

People get the government they deserve. If, as a nation, the People DON'T take over their own governance, they're complicit in whatever government they tolerate and appease. With every cent paid in taxes. With every vote for an "evil" whether 'lesser' or 'greater.'

As I've said (self-inclusively!), we're an outlaw nation composed of cowards and criminals unless and until we assert the sovereignty of self-governance and punish people for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed IN OUR NAME.

[Tyler Durden]

119. APPLAUSE. VERY well put.

Nice to be back on the same page with you.

[defendandprotect]

122. And the sad PROOF of that has been the awakening that has happened under Bush's fascism ---

and still, we are not sufficiently awake and sufficiently ready or able to jump
out of the pot ---!!!

[Tyler Durden]

124. Frogs aren't very smart.

Apparently, neither are we as a species. Even the stupidest lower animal cleans the shit from its nest. We specialize in fouling ours.

[defendandprotect]

128. Sad but accurate summing up ---

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

137. "..a government by the people, of the people, for the people" carries responsibility.

A responsibility usually ignored or diminished to casting a ballot for whatever candidate The Party decides is "electable".

The decision to take on, at least, some responsibility as a citizen, not just of this country, but of the world, and refuse to participate in the charade, is viewed as treason to The Party.

The Germans and Italians who went along with "The Party" could, and did, claim to be merely "practical", and "loyal".

The condemnation carried in the statement, "It's all about you", is used to batter those with a conscience into submission. It is "all about" me. My conscience, my choices, my willingness to participate in crimes for the sake of getting along and shunning my responsibilities. Just as it was "all about" the individual Germans and Italians.

[mod mom]

111. If Hillary is the nominee, I intend to write in Gore (a Dem) and work for lower ticket Dems.

[Tyler Durden]

113. As long as you don't advocate it HERE, you're in compliance.

If it were not so critical in my opinion, I might do the same myself.

[defendandprotect]

116. This seems another part of the strong desire by a few here to CUSTOM make DU

into their own image ---

and all it ever requires is shutting everyone else up ---

[Tyler Durden]

123. No need to shut anyone up.

There are rules. They have been made VERY clear to ME by having been put on suspension. This isn't an independent nation; it is an owned high bandwidth blogsite. I've decided to toe the line when I viewed my infraction as non-existent.

[defendandprotect]

129. Yes -- it is intended to shut up people who are rejecting the current

Democratic candidates --
how could you possibly deny that -- ?

And they have worked to "shut up" those who oppose Pelosi --

They want there to be no real discussion between competing forces between Hillary and Obama,
actually ---

What they want is Vanilla Ice Cream at DU --
and, by gosh, they're gonna get it ---!!!


but . . . what if so many of us are right and we have fascism crossing our threshold?
What if, we have a Democratic Party being co-opted by the Republican Party?
What if, some of these Democrats are wolves in sheeps clothing ---
Should DU be the FIRST of the LAST to know --- ????

[Tyler Durden]

134. Like every subset, it has inherent limitations.

One being: the support of Democratic Candidates is implicit and non-negotiable due to the rules. There is no zero or empty set prohibition, that is: you may choose not to SUPPORT, as long as this does not take the form of negative posting, ie: "don't vote for ______" when that person is the November Nominee, or support of opponent.

There are other implicit prohibitions, but they aren't the one we're discussing.

[uppityperson]

126. I support SOME democrats, not ALL democrats. That is why.

Just because I might say I won't vote for _________ does not mean I won't vote for another Democrat.

[defendandprotect]

130. Ah, but these CUSTOM-RULE-MAKING members want you to support THE candidate ---

you're missing their point and the extent to which they want to shut up and shut down posters.


They've only recently succeeded in splitting the General Discussion threads into

General Discussion and General Discussion/Primaries because they didn't like the

heat of the primary discussions.

[TahitiNut]

140. The beatings will continiue until morale improves.

You must be adequately demonstrative and cheerful during the pep rally, comrade.

:dunce:

[defendandprotect]

142. I was afraid you were going to say that --- !!!

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrowmindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion." — Lord Acton

... but I did find your Lord Acton quote very interesting ---
would it be admitting to too much stupidity to tell you that I'm not sure what the second sentence
really means? Got any examples of that laying around --- ???

[Lorien]

145. Do you think that Bush is a "Christian" or a "compassionate conservative"?

He applies those labels to himself, but they don't fit. Not at all. The same with many "Democrats". It's a label that doesn't fit those whose ideas, beliefs and platforms are centered around promoting corporate power and profit, and not serving the interests of the people and the planet.

[rucky]

149. Because they're full of shit and everybody knows it.

except for the person posting it and the people rec-ing.

[Fire Walk With Me]

150. Democrats are far better than any of the Republicans BUT...

Neither Obama nor Hillary give me the sense of having an agenda that will truly correct the problems we are facing.

Why is supporting Dennis Kucinich's ideals of immediate impeachment, banishing of the corporations and military industrial complex, ending the cash cow and oil grab of the Iraqi invasion, etc. truly becoming the underground of Democratic Underground? Why bash us for bringing up these Democratic issues in the hopes that the supporters of the remaining candidates will make them talking points, hopefully spread the meme, and cause the candidates to make them a part of their platform?

And why aren't more of us donating to support Dennis? If he can't win the Presidency, please support this true Democrat in his struggles against the corporations and their political lackeys, and keep his voice in Government, for all of our sakes.

Is solving the problems that face us, and discussion on the matter, anathema? Why the bullying against naming the problems and demanding that the Presidential candidates do more then Pelosi and friends?