Democrats Have No Balls

[ulTRAX]

Reading some of the material from the Progressive movement of a century ago... http://www.populist.com/Populist.Reader.html it's clear that in comparing that movement to today's mainstream Democrats, the latter has been co-opted by special interests, money and they take their positions for granted. Add to that a blind belief that our nations MUST have an anti-democratic government because the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be so... the result is mainstream Democrats stand for little because they lack any guiding principles.

If most Democrats have such shallow convictions that they can not even take on the moral illegitimacy of the Electoral College that against the Will Of The People has brought the nation into the Bush Dark Ages... how are they EVER going to take on OTHER important issues? How are they going to educate and inspire the party faithful and all those non-voters to get passionate about taking this nation back from those who seek to dismantle whatever semblance of social justice we have left?

Then Democrats wonder why there are defections to Nader? Hell... I voted Nader in 96 and 2000. When I vote Democrat this year I'll be holding my nose.

[wtmusic]

1. Americans Have No Balls

In 1892 we were not even 30 years outside the Civil War and a few Americans knew what honor meant.

Not anymore.

[ulTRAX]

5. at the time...

At the time there was a tradition fresh in people's minds that they could start fixing the defects in the Constitution. Today... as evidenced for so many posts here... the will of the dead Framers of the Constitution is placed above the interests of the living.

While I'd like to blame our educational system for failing to teach basic democratic values.... ultimately the fault is with every person who CLAIMS to be a Democrat yet has no respect for basic democratic principles. They have refused to question the rationalizations used to sell the anti-democratic Constitution to the public 220 years ago. Fortunately though US history some have had the courage not to have their minds straightjacketed by the politics of 1787. They actively opposed slavery... and fought for the voting rights of non-whites and women. If those fights were today... I fear the Democrats would be no-shows... just as they are no-shows in the fight to make the Constitution more democratic.

[wtmusic]

9. What's anti-democratic

about the Constitution now?

I'd be happy if Republicans would uphold the Constitution. That'd be a great place to start...

[ulTRAX]

15. what's anti-democratic about the Constitution?

Not to be insulting, but... that's a curious question given the result of election 2000.

If democracy means one person one vote... and all votes weight the same... then the Constitution is nothing by a giant vote weighing scheme.

Currently 15% of the US population gets 50% of the Senate seats. Soon it will be 10%.

Currently 4.5% of the population in the smallest states can block any amendment.

The EC formula gave the vote of each citizen in Bush's Florida lead 1000X the weight in deciding the outcome as any citizen in Gore's national lead. The EC has AGAIN imposed upon the People a morally illegitimate minority government.

Getting the picture? If not your thinking on this subject has not progressed past whatever you learned in 4th grade US History.


next question.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Here's a "picture" for you to "get"...

...the 2000 election was a complete sham. The popular vote meant nothing. The EC vote meant nothing because the EC imposed nothing at all. Period.

Here's the real story for those way too slow to catch on...the NeoCons conducted a bloodless coup that included a selection of Junior by the SCOTUS. End of story.

Maybe you're the one whose "thinking on this subject failed to progress past 4th grade US History".

Get the picture now?

Next question.

[ulTRAX]

23. You have a defective view of Election 2000...

Media_Lies_Daily tries to rewrite history: "Here's a "picture" for you to "get"...the 2000 election was a complete sham. The popular vote meant nothing. The EC vote meant nothing because the EC imposed nothing at all. Period. Here's the real story for those way too slow to catch on...the NeoCons conducted a bloodless coup that included a selection of Junior by the SCOTUS. End of story.
Maybe you're the one whose "thinking on this subject failed to progress past 4th grade US History".
Get the picture now?"

One of these days you'll say something worthwhile. That day is not today. The ONLY reason Kate Harris, the GOP goon squad and the USSC were factors was because the anti-democratic EC formula made them factors.

If there had been a popular vote with or without a run-off... NONE of the above would have mattered. Gee.

Would you be happy if Bush had a clear 20,000 vote victory in Florida yet lost the popular vote by 530,000? I didn't think so. So let's TRY to put the blame for Election 2000 where it belongs... OK Einstein? Or is it REALLY that hard for you to connect the dots?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[ulTRAX]

46. I repeat again for the deaf....

NOTHING you mention would have been a factor in 2000 EXCEPT for the fact we have an anti-democratic method for electing President. It's time YOU connected the simple dots Einstein. Else all you're going to do it delude yourself that if all the shenanigans in 2000 could be eliminated... all would be well.

The simple truth is that you can have 100% accurate count of votes... no GOP Goon squads, no Kate Harris... no coup in the USSC... and under our anti-democratic system the election loser can STILL win.

You can tweak a system as much as you want. But as long as it's fundamentally flawed... there's a very good chance that it will again produce another George Bush. The ONLY way to prevent another Bush is to move to the popular vote and have a run-off system. That this SIMPLE truth. Please let it sink in before posting more nonsense.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

101. Believe what you want to believe.

[wtmusic]

33. Not to be insulting?

That's actually of of the most insulting replies I've gotten on this board.

I might actually feel insulted, had it been from someone who knew the meaning of the word "democracy', which is "government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives".

"One person, one vote" is your idea, and not the best one for the US where huge regions of the country would be underrepresented anytime the environment or natural resources are at issue.

The problem with Florida was not the EC but the fact that Katharine Harris purged the voter rolls of some 90,000 democratic votes. So I won't be snide or insulting, except to say you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[ulTRAX]

41. Please place the blame for 2000 where it belongs

wtmusic wrote: "Not to be insulting? That's actually of of the most insulting replies I've gotten on this board."

If you had to live with MLD's harassment... you'd understand my lack of patience with him.

"One person, one vote" is your idea, and not the best one for the US where huge regions of the country would be underrepresented anytime the environment or natural resources are at issue."

Since when does acreage or farmland deserve a vote? As I have said in other threads... there are BETTER ways to protect the legitimate rights of small states than to give SOME citizens a bigger vote than others. That's though the Bill of Rights approach. It protects rights AND protects the moral legitimacy of government.

"The problem with Florida was not the EC but the fact that Katharine Harris purged the voter rolls of some 90,000 democratic votes. So I won't be snide or insulting, except to say you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about."

NONE of what you mention would have mattered if we had a popular vote. Gore would have been the clear plurality winner. If we had a run-off system.... most Nader votes would have gone to Gore. The ONLY reason Bush could win being 550,000 votes behind is because the EC formula weighs the vote of SOME US citizens more than others. The math is quite simple. The presidential vote of a citizen in Wyoming weights some 3.5X that of a citizen in California.

The ONLY reason Kate Harris, the GOP goon squad, and the USSC were factors was because we did NOT have a popular vote. If you don't understand this... you'll NEVER try to fix it. It really is that simple.

[wtmusic]

50. Acreage, farmland, natural resources

deserve representation as long as they're part of America. America is more than just people. If you think the people of Manhattan should have more of a say in the affairs of this country than the people of Wyoming, D.C., Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, and Hawaii combined, you're wrong.

[ulTRAX]

52. who deserves repesentation?

wtmusic wrote: "Acreage, farmland, natural resources deserve representation as long as they're part of America. America is more than just people. If you think the people of Manhattan should have more of a say in the affairs of this country than the people of Wyoming, D.C., Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, and Hawaii combined, you're wrong."

I see you are stuck in the politics of 1787. All you see are states. I see US citizens regardless of where they choose to live.

Why should just STATE interests be the basis of special power and privilege? What's the moral justification for ANY US citizen to be granted a bigger vote and the expense of other US citizens? And if THAT'S moral... then why not include OTHER deserving groups... racial minorities. women, Gays and Lesbians... people with handicaps. Getting the picture?

And just what protections are there to stop any minority government from interfering with things that the bi-coastal states hold dear? Do you REALLY think that there's any limitation of the powers of a MINORITY government in the US to stick to farm and natural resource issues? Who voted for Bush's irresponsible tax cuts? Star Wars2? A RR Christian agenda? A Supreme Court packed with RR Neanderthals?

[wtmusic]

53. Where did I say JUST state interests

should be the basis of power and privilege? They are part of the basis of power; that's why there are state laws and federal laws. That's part of the Constitution that goes far beyond the EC and should.

The view that there should be no regional representation is simplistic and naive. Get the picture?

[ulTRAX]

56. you can't have it both ways

wtmusic "Where did I say JUST state interests should be the basis of power and privilege? They are part of the basis of power; that's why there are state laws and federal laws. That's part of the Constitution that goes far beyond the EC and should."

You're defense of our anti-democratic Constitution is the traditional one. You're just not seeing the internal contradiction of your argument. You can NOT propose something OTHER than citizens, or along with citizens, be represented... in this case the states, trees, farmland whatever... and have civic equality where all votes weigh the same. The BEST way to protect small states AND majority rule is to protect legitimate states rights in the Constitution.... NOT by granting SOME US citizens more power... and running the risk of minority government as we have now with Bush. You really can NOT have it both ways.

"The view that there should be no regional representation is simplistic and naive. Get the picture?"

Of course I get the picture. Ever hear of the House of Representatives. What we do NOT need is BOTH chambers of Congress representing geographical interests. All the Senate is, is a vote weighing scheme. It provides a citizen in Wyoming 68X the influence in the Senate than a citizen from California gets. No.. this does NOT balance out in the House. Citizens vote for a representative of a DISTRICT... not for their "state delegation".

[ulTRAX]

57. you avoided these key questions...

And just what protections are there to stop any minority government from interfering with things that the bi-coastal states hold dear?

Do you REALLY think that there's any limitation of the powers of a MINORITY government in the US to stick to farm and natural resource issues? Who voted for Bush's irresponsible tax cuts? Star Wars2? A RR Christian agenda? A Supreme Court packed with RR Neanderthals?

Of course maybe you DO think Bush in MORALLY legitimate because the EC says he is. Well?

[ulTRAX]

60. SCOTUS: Legislators represent people, not trees or acres

from USSC Renyolds v Sims.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

I quote this MORAL argument.. knowing that legally it's not applicable to the states. None the less THIS is the crux of the anti-democratic nature of the Constitution.

"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Of course, the effect of <377 U.S. 533, 563> state legislative districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. 40 Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State. Two, five, or 10 of them must vote before the effect of their voting is equivalent to that of their favored neighbor. Weighting the votes of citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen to reside, hardly seems justifiable."

[Prof Luke]

94. democratic constitution?

Well, "anti-democratic" goes a bit too far, in my opinion. You talk about 4th grade history, but what about high school civics? Didn't you ever learn that the Constitution is a COMPROMISE between states' interests and peoples' interests? America is NOT a democracy, it is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, or a REPUBLIC. And please do not confuse large D and R "Democrat" and "Repbulican" (the parties) with small d and r democracy and republic (the forms of government). Far too many people do that. One can be a Democrat and still be a republican. That is the first thing I cover in my Intro to Poli Sci class. At issue isn't the question "is the Constitution democratic," but "is it time for a new Constitution if you believe in pure democracy?" The movement is out there.

Doc

[blurp]

65. How about the bill of rights?

The bill of rights and the rules regarding the amendment process are anti-democratic.

If we were just a democracy, we'd have much greater limits on speech and we'd have a national religion. Talk of the US being a Christian nation wouldn't be commentary about the religiosity of the people -- it would describe what sort of churches the government funds.

Fortunately, the founders recognized that it's a good thing to recognize the rights of the individual. This has allowed us to avoid all sorts of trouble.

It's also pretty unusual in history. In most societies, the individual is made to be subordinate to the group. The group comes first.

When this idea gets really out-of-control, you end up with fascism. Read the definition from www.m-w.com below:

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

[ulTRAX]

66. red herring alert

blurp wrote: "If we were just a democracy, we'd have much greater limits on speech and we'd have a national religion. Talk of the US being a Christian nation wouldn't be commentary about the religiosity of the people -- it would describe what sort of churches the government funds.

Fortunately, the founders recognized that it's a good thing to recognize the rights of the individual. This has allowed us to avoid all sorts of trouble."

You're confused. The Bill of Rights PROVES there are ways to protect legitimate minority rights WITHOUT the need to create an anti-democratic government in which SOME citizens are actually given more power at the expense of others. The simple fact is we could eliminate this federalist power arrangement... have a more democratic government where there's no risk of minority control... and STILL protect minority rights.

[FDRrocks]

2. Pretty much...

[niceypoo]

3. I agree

Democrats lack cahones thats why the midterms went GOP

[corporatewhore]

4. well duh!!

[Skittles]

6. *NEWSFLASH*

BALLS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR COURAGE. UNDERSTAND ???

[Cocoa]

44. right, Skittles

the whole "balls" thing has got to go, it's like a relic from a more ignorant era.

[Skittles]

58. YOU KNOW IT COCOA

It is sexist, demeaning, outdated. I've alerted on it.

[ulTRAX]

62. your post is rather funny

That ANYONE felt the need to rat me out on this non-insult is rather comical. Thanks to the mods for showing some common sense.

[Skittles]

67. I did not alert on YOU

I asked them earlier to please consider not allowing sexist, outdated, demeaning expressions. You should consider the same and update your language. WHY is it necessary to infer balls are necessary for courage? Surely you can think of something better to use.

[ulTRAX]

73. then what did you mean when you wrote:

Skittles Mon Mar-22-04 03:17 PM Response to Reply #44
58. YOU KNOW IT COCOA
It is sexist, demeaning, outdated. I've alerted on it.


Your own words seem to be an admission you alerted the mods. You used past tense. Of course the other possibilities are that you were being less than honest... or your alert was ignored.

[ulTRAX]

61. thread titles are often.....

Titles are often merely provocative attention getters, In THIS case it also reflects how appalled I am by the moral cowardice of the Democratic Party which has been AWOL in the fight for democracy itself.

[Skittles]

68. well it appalls me

you feel the need to be sexist to get attention

[ulTRAX]

69. Actually what's REALLY appalling...

Actually what's REALLY appalling is that you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the rather important issues I raised in this thread... but instead are TOTALLY preoccupied with some silly side show. Oh well... no accounting for some people's priorities.

[VelmaD]

72. Typical sexist bullshit

Belittling the woman who calls you on your sexism by referring to her complaints as "silly" is about the oldest misogynistic trick in the book.

Pretty fucking pathetic. :eyes:

[ulTRAX]

74. the only sexism here I see...

VelmaD wrote: "Typical sexist bullshit. Belittling the woman who calls you on your sexism by referring to her complaints as "silly" is about the oldest misogynistic trick in the book. Pretty fucking pathetic.

Right now the ONLY sexism here I see is that YOU are jumping to a generalized conclusion of what you think some males act like. You have not backed up your accusations with ANY evidence.

As the say... put up or shut up. The burden of proof is on YOU to back up your accusation that I am a sexist. I have written some 450 posts at DU.... WTF are YOU judging me on? ONE world in a post title? My my... I hope you're never called for jury duty.

What you CHOSE to ignore is the ANOTHER possibility that explains ALL the evidence: that I'm not a sexist and I'm merely irritated that someone is SO oversensitive that they are obsessed with a poor choice of ONE word while they ignore the REAL issues I brought up. That I resented their claim that they ratted me out.

So I await your HARD evidence... or a retraction. Are you "person" enough to do so?

[VelmaD]

75. Gee, oversensitive much?

And I am not reacting to one post. I am reacting to your inability to address Skittles concern at your sexist language without resorting to demeaning her complaint as "silly" - your exact word. I am reacting to the way you deflected from answering her concern by getting all offended that she might have alerted the mods on you. I am reacting to your contention that YOUR concern is the only REAL issue here.

[ulTRAX]

76. translation....

TRANSLATION: You can NOT actually back up your accusation that I am a sexist nor have the integrity to retract that accusation.

VelmaD wrote: And I am not reacting to one post. I am reacting to your inability to address Skittles concern at your sexist language without resorting to demeaning her complaint as "silly" - your exact word."

If you read the posts SHE first wrote "It is sexist, demeaning, outdated. I've alerted on it." ya... I think her reaction IS silly... as is yours. What someone perceives as a sexist word does not prove sexism. A record of sexist attitudes does. But it's clear you have no intent of either proving your point or dropping the false accusation.

VelmaD: "I am reacting to the way you deflected from answering her concern by getting all offended that she might have alerted the mods on you."

Yesterday I addressed this issue in other parts of this thread. I'm not responsible if she or you have not read those posts. Nor am I responsible for the oversensitivity of others. There is a difference between offending someone... which you did by making a false accusation you can neither back up or have the integrity to retract... and CHOOSING to be offended which is what you and Skittles are doing.

And it seems you are projecting again. For the record I was NOT "all offended" that she claimed to have "alerted" on me. If you will recall I thought her comment funny as SHOULD have been evident from my post. But perhaps it was read with your nit-picking filter on high. I wrote: "your post is rather funny. That ANYONE felt the need to rat me out on this non-insult is rather comical. Thanks to the mods for showing some common sense." Nor is there any evidence I was "all offended" in my next post when I wrote: "Your own words seem to be an admission you alerted the mods. You used past tense. Of course the other possibilities are that you were being less than honest... or your alert was ignored." Don't worry, I'm not really expecting any heartfelt retraction for this false accusation either.

VelmaD "I am reacting to your contention that YOUR concern is the only REAL issue here."

You mean the REAL topic of this thread is now secondary and the world should revolve around the oversensitivity of others?

I think not.

[VelmaD]

78. I'm gonna post this last comment...

and then hopefully I will be done dealing with you.

I am frankly not interested in going back and reading every one of your posts to determine whether you have a pattern of sexist language. I am merely going to say this - this board has a pattern of tolerating sexist language. Many of the women on this board are tired of it. And we are more tired of being told we're "silly" or deflecting from the "real" topic every time we call someone on it. For us sexism is always a "real" concern. Cope.

If you really are not a sexist then the easiest way to show that would be to agree that the implication that balls are somehow a prerequisite for courage is sexist and then we can all move on. This is not, however, how you chose to react to the situation.

In closeing, to return to the "real" topic of the thread...I can think of at least one Democrat without balls who was the definition of political courage...Barbara Jordan.

[Skittles]

91. Thanks Velma

I'm sick to death of the sexism and what is worse is all the progressvie males (and even a couple of females) who cannot admit it when they are confronted with the fact they are using sexist language. :puke:

[Skittles]

89. gee. LOL, just a BIT

I never said you were SEXIST - just that YOUR LANGUAGE IS. Lots of people acknowledge it when it's brought to their attention - that inferring that male anatomy parts are requried for courage is SEXIST.

[ulTRAX]

96. more contradictions

Skittles wrote: "gee. LOL, just a BIT. I never said you were SEXIST - just that YOUR LANGUAGE IS. Lots of people acknowledge it when it's brought to their attention - that inferring that male anatomy parts are requried for courage is SEXIST."

I tire of this. You accused me of sexism in this post:

Skittles Tue Mar-23-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
91. Thanks Velma
I'm sick to death of the sexism and what is worse is all the progressive males (and even a couple of females) who cannot admit it when they are confronted with the fact they are using sexist language.

Obviously you equate what YOU consider my sexist "language"... with sexism. This is made worse by YOUR oversensitivity. You see a word and go nuts. You don't look to see if it's used in a sexist context.... or betrays actual sexist attitudes. The you expect the world to revolve around YOUR inaccurate perceptions. So I will put the same challenge to you as I did VD... I have a posting record of some 460 posts. Show me where I have EVER exhibited any ACTUAL sexism.... or racism.... or any other non-PC-ism".... or retract your false accusation. Sounds fair to me.

[Skittles]

98. HA HA, HA HA HA HA

Oh Lord. If you can't see that inferring that male body parts are required for courage is SEXIST then please just forget it. :puke:

[ulTRAX]

79. I, too, can play your over-sensitive game

From YOUR homepage at http://www.ravenswing.com/EVILTWINS/spankme/index.html

"Have you noticed how all the really great movies have men in skirts?"

I find this comment both ignorant of film history and demeaning to all those talented producers, script writers, directors who have made GREAT films and NEVER had their male actors in "skirts".

"We've decided the world would be a better place if more beautiful men wore kilts, skirts and other sundry skirt-like apparel."

This comment is offensive to ALL men who would not "look good" in shorts, skirts, or kilts. How DARE you impose such expectations on them? How DARE you demean their knobby knees... or skinny legs... or varicose veins? Are you implying that such men are not deserving of respect as members of the human race?

"If you agree, please join the movement (or our mailing list... see below)!
We'll take Rob Roy fic, Gladiator fic.
We'll drool over our beskirted menfolk.
We'll discuss attractive knees at length.
We can even talk about easy access!"

"Drool"? "Easy access"? Such reduction of men into sexual objects is both despicable and blatantly sexist. You're also demeaning more mature women who might not appreciate your juvenile attitudes.

Gee... it seems that ANYONE can take offense at ANYTHING... if they try hard enough. Or is your defense that only MEN can be sexist?

[VelmaD]

80. *snort* I said I was done...

but this was too fuckin' funny to pass up the chance to respond.

The Society for the Promotion, Advancement, and Necessity of Kilts on Men Everywhere (SPANKME) is the antithesis of sexist. We're advocating freedom for men to dress however they want, including a sarong, skirt, or kilt if they are so inclined. We're opposed to the ridiculous sexism of our culture that tells men that wearing a skirt is somehow less than masculine. :)

And for what defines a great movie...you are entitled to your opinion. Myself and the co-founder of SPANKME are also entitled to ours. :evilgrin:

And no, not only men can be sexist. However, because of the power imbalance between the sexes in our society it's easier for men's sexism to negatively affect women's lives every day.

I hope you enjoyed the web site. There's some great homoerotic fiction there. :)

BTW, on a more serious note...the cry of over-sensitive is getting a little old. It's one more way men have historically denigrated the concerns of women.

[ulTRAX]

82. ROTF

VelmaD wrote: "*snort* I said I was done..."
but this was too fuckin' funny to pass up the chance to respond.

And yet here you are... and, as predicted, not retracting you accusation. I love being right.

"The Society for the Promotion, Advancement, and Necessity of Kilts on Men Everywhere (SPANKME) is the antithesis of sexist. We're advocating freedom for men to dress however they want, including a sarong, skirt, or kilt if they are so inclined."

Actually you are misrepresenting your own site. You're ONLY concern seems to be that "We've decided the world would be a better place if more BEAUTIFUL men wore kilts, skirts and other sundry skirt-like apparel." Emphasis mine.

Since there's NO evidence you have ANY desire to see ALL men feeling to wear "kilts, skirts and other sundry skirt-like apparel"... visitors can only assume that presumably you want the "unbeautiful" men of the world to remain repressed so they not offend your sexist sensibilities with their knobby knees, skinny legs, or varicose veins.

"We're opposed to the ridiculous sexism of our culture that tells men that wearing a skirt is somehow less than masculine."

If true... then perhaps you should actually say that. How about some OTHER examples of these men you want to wear skirts? How about Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld?

"I hope you enjoyed the web site. There's some great homoerotic fiction there. :)"

Not my thing Toots (sic). ;-)

[VelmaD]

84. You're making a HUGE assumption...

that we don't find "skinny legs" or "knobby knees" beautiful.

Honey, as far as my best friend (the co-founder of the site) and I are concerned the vast majority of men are beautiful. Dick Cheney...not so much...but most men. :)

If you followed on to the yahoo group associated with the site you'd find lots of normal, average guys who like kilts and the women who encourage them to go for it.

BTW, I'm not retracting the original statement that your thread title was sexist...because it is still sexist. You have yet to address that issue AT ALL. It still implies that balls are required for political courage when you say that those who lack courage lack balls. It's that simple.

[ulTRAX]

95. you're in error again

VD posted: "You're making a HUGE assumption...that we don't find "skinny legs" or "knobby knees" beautiful. Honey, as far as my best friend (the co-founder of the site) and I are concerned the vast majority of men are beautiful. Dick Cheney...not so much...but most men. :)"

Then I await the changes you're sure to make to your site now that you want to clear this misunderstanding up.

VD: "BTW, I'm not retracting the original statement that your thread title was sexist...because it is still sexist."

Of course not. I don't expect you to suddenly find any integrity. You have yet to demonstrate that the mere use of a common phrase YOU and Skittles consider sexist is actual evidence of sexism. It was YOU who assumed that my comments to Skittles were sexist because YOU assumed there HAD to be a superior male vs female dynamic at work. In reality I didn't care who s/he/it was. To me she was just another poster with a silly obsession. Compare that to what YOU accused me of:

VelmaD Tue Mar-23-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #69 72. Typical sexist bullshit
Belittling the woman who calls you on your sexism by referring to her complaints as "silly" is about the oldest misogynistic trick in the book. Pretty fucking pathetic.

So I'm a misogynist? You ONLY could accuse me of this because YOU are the person guilty of gender stereotyping. So let the record show that you have neither backed up you accusations with facts... or refuse to retract. That's OK... I'm fully aware some can always find excuses for their own hypocrisy.

VD: You have yet to address that issue AT ALL. It still implies that balls are required for political courage when you say that those who lack courage lack balls. It's that simple.

Aside from the fact that I HAVE addressed this issue elsewhere... your repetition of a deeply flawed argument does not make it more credible. First, it's self-evident that testicles are not required for courage. Second: given that we all know the Democratic Party is multi-gendered your claim that the phrase MUST be seen as sexist attack on the Party is laughable. Don't you think? Or don't you?

[Andy_Stephenson]

81. Men in skirts is not sexist

they are damned sexy!

[ulTRAX]

70. NEWSFLASH ?

Skittles shouted: "BALLS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR COURAGE. UNDERSTAND ???"

That's pretty self-evident. Why is that a News Flash?

[noiretextatique]

86. women have balls too

they are just internal...ovaries.
one could consider them "balls" to settle this issue....once and for all :D

[Skittles]

90. that's like putting lipstick on a pig

it doesn't make it pretty. That tired old sexist expression needs to be put out to pasture.

[noiretextatique]

99. actually...it's not. balls are gonads

women have gonads...they are called ovaries.
men have gonads...they are call testicles.

i think it's time for women to claim their goddamn balls.

[Skittles]

92. because the language you use infer you do not understand

nt

[CalebHayes]

7. I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT!

I have got balls.

[ulTRAX]

8. if so.......................................................

If so... then how do they manifest themselves?

[geniph]

88. I'll answer that for Caleb

He's a 13-year-old kid who started his own anti-Bush website and publicized it despite receiving hatemail and adverse publicity. He's the WRONG kid to say doesn't have gumption.

You go, Caleb!

[fearnobush]

12. Oh really, well I have 3.

[Virginian]

32. Polyorchid like James Bond?

[Zinfandel]

10. WOW! You just getting it...so what else is new?

[ulTRAX]

11. and the evidence...

And the evidence for your assertion that I am "JUST" getting it is... where exactly? Do you SERIOUSLY believe that one's posts are directly correlated to one's immediate insights?

[Zinfandel]

17. No...and one shouldn't feel so threaten and take it personally. You ever

hear of dotting the "i" or exclamation of agreement? Or echoing the thought? It was "in the moment"...shit, relax!

[ulTRAX]

20. don't confuse me with someone with a sense of humor

I've been at this too long. I have no sense of humor when I think I am being unjustly attacked or an unfair comment is made about me. I take such comments to be insulting. It's akin to someone posting a notice for others to watch 60 Minutes... and getting some snide comment back "Hey 60 Minutes has been on since 1968... where have you been?"

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[ulTRAX]

16. ROTFLMAO

Me a Freeper?

[RandomKoolzip]

43. Seriously, you need to calm down.

Most of the posts you give us are filled with insults and invective. Those posters who are brave enough to refute or question your assertions are called names and belittled. That's not fucking cool.

These are indeed serious issues, but we can discuss them rationally and civilly, and without resorting to subject lines like "Democrats have no Balls," or jumping down the throats of those with whom you disagree.

And not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Your passion is admirable, and you make some excellent points (I agree with what you're saying, but your delivery turns me off to your message!) but your Morton Downey Junioresque harangues will win few converts. Please, for your own sake, stop making enemies of those who are closest to you ideologically.

You seeeeeriously need to take it down a notch.

[ulTRAX]

49. OK... but...

The posters I've lost patience with are those who I've run into in other threads. One is just here to harass this thread. They are free to say what they want. Just as I am free to not toletate their nonsense or unsupported opinions.

[IronLionZion]

14. There is this doctor from Vermont

Maybe you have heard of him? He is still trying to do exactly that with his new group Democracy For America.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

Check it out. I think you'll like it. The way to take this country back is through the grass roots.

edit: spelling

[Lorien]

36. Thanks for the link

I'm happy to see that the good doctor is still out there fighting for progressive values.

And as a first hand witness to the stealing of the presidency here in Florida, I agree with the original poster; if we don't address the coup that got us here, we are lost.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. I don't recall ever reading anywhere that our Framers intended that...

...our government be "anti-democratic". Do you have a link of some sort, or are you just repeating what you read somewhere on Free Republic?

If you have to hold your nose to vote against Junior and the rest of the NeoCons, do me a favor. Just stay home. That way, none of us will have to feel that poor little ulTRAX was forced to vote.

[ulTRAX]

I see MLD has found another hydrant....

I see MLD has found another proverbial hydrant to piss on. Feels good to try and stake out some territory MLD? When it suits you, feel free to add some intelligent comments to one of my threads. Don't worry... I won't hold my breath.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. At least you seem to understand...

...my high regard for your so-called intellect. That gets you a promotion in my book to the level of the average houseplant...you should be proud.

I don't have any problems with intelligent discussions, ulTRAX...what I do have a problem with are those posters who post bold statements about what the Framers of the Constitution really meant and then fail to show any form of documentation to prove your point.

I also have major problems with posters that claim to have all of the answers which the rest of us must accept at face value. Sorry...I've seen way too many posters with your kind of attitude and I've had enough of them and you.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Hey, slick...document your argument, then we'll talk...

...until then your comments are nothing but hot air being released in an explosive fashion from your nether regions.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[ulTRAX]

54. since you seem unwilling to engage in simple intellectual inquiry...

Media_Lies_Daily wrote: "Hey, slick...document your argument, then we'll talk... until then your comments are nothing but hot air being released in an explosive fashion from your nether regions."

I find your nic curious given your seeming unwillingness to separate fact from fiction. So it comes as no surprise that you would make such a false claim. The reality is I HAVE been documenting the math of our anti-democratic Constitution since I came here. It's not that hard... one only needs to WANT to pursue this line of inquiry. Here's a thread from a few weeks ago. This covers three main aspects of the Constitution: the EC, the Senate, and the amendment process. There may be some further discussion on Gerrymandering... but that's not a feature of the Constitution... just a by-product of having all elections based upon set geographical districts. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1189523

Since the TRUE lesson of Election 2000 has obvious been lost on you... may I suggest some further reading... How Democratic Is The American Constitution by Robert Dahl.... and a great article from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/lind_DUP2.html

You're welcome.

[ulTRAX]

55. at least this "houseplant" believes in democractic principles

Media_Lies_Daily wrote: "At least you seem to understand my high regard for your so-called intellect. That gets you a promotion in my book to the level of the average houseplant...you should be proud.
I don't have any problems with intelligent discussions, ulTRAX...what I do have a problem with are those posters who post bold statements about what the Framers of the Constitution really meant and then fail to show any form of documentation to prove your point."

Anyone with 4th grade math skills can do the math just how anti-democratic our Constitution is. Your problem is you can't see any problem... so you don't bother. Our difference is I have respect for basic democratic principles such as one person, one vote... and all votes weigh the same. If you shared this view, you'd see just how anti-democratic our Constitution is.

[FDRrocks]

28. "Vote against" or Vote for?

Why do you cast a vote, to vote for someone, or vote against someone?

[Desertrose]

31. I was really excited about voting FOR...but looks like

I'm gonna have to suck it up and votes *against*...again....damnit

Peace
DR

[ulTRAX]

59. now I'm a freeper? rotflmao

Media_Lies_Daily wrote: "I don't recall ever reading anywhere that our Framers intended that our government be "anti-democratic"."

That's pretty self-evident when you just look at the math. What do you think the purpose of the Senate and EC were if not to insure that the small states would get a bigger voice than their population deserved? You call THAT democracy?

"Do you have a link of some sort, or are you just repeating what you read somewhere on Free Republic?"

It's so sad that you can't even distinguish a Progressive from a Freeper. Actually YOUR views are more in keeping with that crowd than mine. Your defense of our anti-democratic system is traditional conservative Constitutional apologetics. No that's not an insult. It's an accurate reflection of your views.

I've posted enough material you obviously chose not to read. But maybe someone else following this discussion would like a bit more insight. Here's a great excerpt: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336859827.html

One man, 68 votes

American democracy had deep flaws long before the 2000 election. For instance, each of our 50 States elects two of the country's 100 senators. Wyoming's 500 000 residents elect two senators. California has 68 times the population of Wyoming; its 34 million residents also elect two senators. This means each Wyoming resident has 68 times more weight than a Californian in choosing the country's 100 senators. Instead of 'one man one vote', we have 'one man 68 votes'. Because of the many low density conservative States in the middle of the country, this one issue has a major influence on the tone of our national debate. It gives conservatives a voice out of proportion with their numbers. It also gives them an unfair weight in questions the Senate settles without input from the House of Representatives, like confirming federal judges. (For laws, the House of Representatives balances the Senate somewhat because we elect its members in proportion to population.) To make matters worse, the high cost of senatorial campaigns gives us a Senate that resembles a millionaires' club. The 100 members of the 108th Senate include at least 40 millionaires--taking the low end of official financial disclosures that exclude the value of senators' homes.<1> The 100 senators include 86 men, 59 law school graduates, no Hispanics and no blacks, a composition that hardly mirrors the population.<2>

Apologists for our system of two senators per State say that the citizens of each State should have equal weight in one of the houses. Under the same logic, others could say that the citizens of each gender, religion or ethnicity should have equal representation in one of the houses: 50 senators chosen by men, 50 chosen by women; or 20 chosen each by whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans. We could end up with four houses: one giving each citizen equal weight (the House of Representatives); one giving each State equal weight (the Senate); one giving each gender equal weight; one giving each race equal weight. Taking even more groupings (like age, religion, favourite colour), houses would multiply; the houses would never agree, laws would never get passed. There is nothing magical about the division of the citizenry into States rather than races, genders or any other grouping, nothing that justifies upsetting plain democracy to give one man 68 votes. If we chose all members of Congress democratically, could the more populous States outvote the less populous States? Sure, just like today whites can outvote blacks. One man one vote, the many outvote the few--that is called 'democracy'.

[zulchzulu]

21. Women have no balls

Ah..never mind.

You forget to say "liberal intelligentsia" and "corporatization of (fill in blanks)".

What a stereotype, dude.

[Skittles]

93. Gawd, how I love the men who "get it"

seriously.

[Guaranteed]

100. OH! You mean that LITERALLY!

I see. I think he meant it figuratively.

[Dogmudgeon]

27. What does "having balls" have to do with ...

... self-righteousness, arrogance, haughtiness, and bourgeoise cynicism?

I've read the thread, and it appears that "balls" means acting like a morally outraged high-school principal suffering the inconvenience of having to monitor detention for the afternoon.

"You suck. I rule. Vote Nader." Yeah, I think that method has been tried before, and on behalf of people other than Nader, too. The only problem is that it doesn't work. Nobody gives a rat's ass about pleasing the cynical hipster club except for marketing executives from the recording industry, MTV and The Gap.

If you want people who oppose the regime to grow "balls", you should try helping them cultivate some. Playing Patton-with-a-modem and bragging about one's own machismo is already a common internet activity.

Teaching actual people how to fight back is seldom done. It means leaving the computer or the coffee house and hanging with unattractive people who may live in the suburbs and who don't even have a band, but who have been beaten senseless and gang-raped by The Man and the Flying Monkey Right.

Politically speaking, most people don't even know how to make a fist, let alone get down and rumble with actual neo-fascists. They're afraid of speaking up, let alone "speaking truth to power." They don't have the slightest idea of how to protect themselves from the Beltway Bullies and are easily intimidated by arrogant pseudo-intellectuals criticizing their lack of patriotism, balls, progressivism, balls, backbone, and balls.

And calling them names will help ... how?

--bkl
"I'll have eggs, sausage, balls, bacon, balls, balls, balls, and ...
Balls, Balls, Balls, Balls,
Balls, Balls, Balls, Balls,
Lovely Balls, Wonderful Balls! ..."
(The Vikings' Song)

[FDRrocks]

29. I think he meant balls, in the way some use

the woreds 'Cajones' or 'Hutzpah'. Being a synonym for weak.

[Dogmudgeon]

35. Yep -- I guessed that

I agree with the idea that people should cultivate their power and their political "fighting instinct".

But I am also dead-set against the "insult-the-wussies" approach. It's little more than strutting; it's a disreputable carry-over from the Right, but mixed with humorless pretensions of Hipster Cool; Rightists instead affect the devil-may-care pose of an Intellectual Swashbuckler.

Even drill sergeants mix their put-downs with motivation. They're making soldiers, not puffing up their own egos. R. Lee Ermey is a lot more entertaining, but he does it on screen.

Want change? People have to be taught to fight and have to be shown how to rebuild their courage. That can't be done with contempt. An arrogant leader who has contempt for the troops is usually given one final chance to strut ... all the way up to the scaffold.

--bkl

[U4ikLefty]

37. Oh, I thought he meant

like the AC/DC song:

some balls are held for charity
and some for fancy dress
but the balls that are held for pleasure
are the balls that I like best

my balls are always bouncing
to left and to the right
sometimes I wish that my big balls
could be held every night

[ulTRAX]

63. if I knew the proper spelling of cajones....

It would have been my first choice. LOL

[Desertrose]

30. but, but...we are told over & over that the EC is for our own good....

that we are too feeble to choose without the safeguard of the electoral college....and isn't it interesting that any challenge about dumping the EC from a candidate is never followed through on after the election....so there she sits for anouther 4 years.....I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact it is easier to sneak a coup past withthe EC than without it?


I agree with you ulTRAX- all the talk about a democracy and ..actually we don't have one...we do not have *one person =one vote*...it all gets filtered through...well a buch of different methods....isn't it always skewed to the rich & mighty ( who supposedly are better educated than that average free man or woman? Isn't that why the framers of the Constitution originally made it that way? talk about a democracy sounds real sweet, but we better protect things...so we'll do it "this "way....??)

Dems are lost...nobody wants to really stand up for anything...well there was one who was disappeared and marginalized....and then we ended up with...well, what exactly have we ended up with? not too sure...

and even tho I am female...even tho I don't have "balls"....I've got integrity & a spine.....

Anyhow...good post...I agree....we are so watered down we don't remember the real thing anymore....on edit- guess we never really had a "democracy" in the first place...

Peace
DR

[ulTRAX]

64. the American people buy into their own disenfranchisement

Desertrose wrote: "but, but...we are told over & over that the EC is for our own good.... that we are too feeble to choose without the safeguard of the electoral college...."

And it's incredible, in the worst sense of the word, that in this modern era... Americans will place the will of the dead over the living. There really is a secular religion built up around the Constitution. We're indoctrinated into believing it was written by men who were much more intelligent and wise than we mere mortals today. We believe it so much that we prefer the myth to morally legitimate self-government. The thought that their ideas on government are over 2 centuries old... and that many of the BEST ideas on democracy were compromised away at the Constitutional Convention.... never occurs to them. Elections like 2000 make a ripple but even the Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy... so talk of reform goes nowhere.... not that it matters since the bar to amending the Constitution is SO high it's virtually reform-proof.

[Disturbed]

34. America-Democracy?

No. America is an Oligarchy.

[ulTRAX]

71. my description

My description would be that the US is an anti-democratic republic.

[sangh0]

39. LOL! "cannot even take on the moral illegitimacy of the Electoral College"

Boy, now there's an issue "the people" are clamoring for

[ulTRAX]

42. If you buy into your own disenfranchisement....

sangh0 wrote: "LOL! "cannot even take on the moral illegitimacy of the Electoral College. Boy, now there's an issue "the people" are clamoring for."

You might think that after Election 2000 the Democrats would FINALLY begin to rethink our anti-democratic system. But most don't. I see it here. Most are locked in 1787 politics they learned in 4th grade actually believing there are legitimate reasons to overturn the Will of the People. Well if the EC is a good system for President... why not introduce it to the states? Let's get rid of the right citizens now have to expect the election winner to actually W_I_N.

If you buy into your own disenfranchisement... then you have NO ONE to blame for another Election 2000 than yourself.

[sangh0]

45. Yes, I am very evil

I think ending the destruction of our nation is more important than reforming the Electoral College.

[ulTRAX]

47. ending the destruction of our nation...

sangh0 wrote: "Yes, I am very evil. I think ending the destruction of our nation is more important than reforming the Electoral College."

You seem incapable of connecting the dots. The ONLY reason Bush is President and destroying this nation is because our election system took the candidate REJECTED by the American People and installed him as President.

I have faith that if the US was a more democratic nation... where the government was more responsive to the public... the People would respond... and that we'd be a lot more like the other advanced democracies. It's the anti-democratic nature of our system that prevents the US from being a more civilized nation.

[sangh0]

48. Silly me!

And here I thought the theft of the Election was the result of throwing people off the voter rolls, and a SCOTUS court case, and not the result of the EC.

[ulTRAX]

51. finally a breakthough!!!!!!!!

sangh0 wrote: "Silly me! And here I thought the theft of the Election was the result of throwing people off the voter rolls, and a SCOTUS court case, and not the result of the EC."

Yes... you finally got it.

Too bad we both know you're not serious.

You REALLY have a lot of thinking to do on this topic. You can have 100% voter participation and accuracy. You can be free of Kate Harris, the GOP goon squad and SCOTUS. You can give back the vote to ex-cons. You can have 100% public financing of campaigns.

But as long as the voting system itself is an anti-democratic vote weighing scheme... it can STILL make the candidate REJECTED by the voters... into the next president. As long is that's possible then a minority of the population has the power to govern as Bush is doing. The course of US history has been changed for the worst... the world's only superpower is outside the control of its own citizens. And who's to blame? Some unaccountable Star Chamber called the EC? When are you going to come to grips with this simple truth?

[sangh0]

77. You call that a breakthrough

I learned that the US is not a direct democracy about 35 years ago.

[ulTRAX]

83. red herring alert

sangh0 wrote: "I learned that the US is not a direct democracy about 35 years ago."

I'm waiting for you to utter the words that we're a republic not a democracy. But your red herring will suffice.

I'm debating from basic democratic principles... and from this perspective the US government is increasingly more reform-proof and morally illegitimate.... making a mockery of the very concept of self government. If the math of unequal repesentation and demographic trends doesn't convince you... Election 2000 should.

Obviously you choose to remain blind to these simple truths.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

102. And you obviously just want to pick fights in this thread...

...have fun.

Remember, we're laughing at you, not with you.

[redqueen]

40. But they have all those lovely perks

from their campaign contributors, lobbyists, etc.

Why develop or use courage to stand up for what's right when selling out gives you such immeidate gratification?

IGMFU, ya know?

[Lostnote03]

85. Ultrax??

......How are you?....Didn't Hillary Clinton first address the issue of the electoral college delemna after the 2000 election?....If memory serves me correctly, she spoke of the need for reform at that time......my understanding of the issue is limited however I tend to agree that the Bill Of Rights balances out the issue of "mob rule" if the 15% representing 50% voting power were to be amended to a more equatable disbursement of voter representation.....The distrust in the common mans ability to ascertain the facts I believe is the root of the issue....best wishes

[ulTRAX]

97. Are you another refugee from alt.discuss.xxxx?

Lostnote03 wrote: "Ultrax??......How are you?

Do we know each other? Are you another refugee from alt.discuss.xxxx?

"....Didn't Hillary Clinton first address the issue of the electoral college dilemma after the 2000 election?....If memory serves me correctly, she spoke of the need for reform at that time.."

Yes she did, which is why I was careful to phrase my original post:

"If MOST Democrats have such shallow convictions that they can not even take on the moral illegitimacy of the Electoral College...." Emphasis added.

I think it's clear that while the Democratic Party as a whole may have been outraged by Election 2000... they have never reached the right conclusion. They blame Kate Harris, the GOP goon squad, the Supreme Court... and never connect the dots that the ONLY reason they were factors was because of the Electoral College. Of course why would the Democrats question the moral legitimacy of the EC when I'm sure they appreciated Clinton's win in 92 with some only 40-43% of the vote.

[noiretextatique]

87. democrats don't...but women do

they are called GONADS: Paired segmental peritoneal organs producing eggs (ovaries) or sperm (testes).