Clinton bashing. Dean bashing. Kerry bashing. Gore bashing. It never

[smartvoter]

stops.

[stepnw1f]

1. I'm Getting Sick of it too

I don't see this helping us in any way.

[billbuckhead]

7. There is a severe disconnect between our leaders and the people

The two party system and the independence of the media have been utterly corrupted by the influence of big corporate money. Most of America is living in some version of the "Truman show", completely removed from reality. Once in awhile there's some shock like gas jumping a dollar a gallon or a natural disaster.

Democratic leaders are always put in the unenviable circumstance about telling the truth and people don't want to hear about national across the population sacrifices like cutting back on energy consumption or higher taxes to pay for national healthcare. We can't handle the truth and Rupert Mudoch, Time Inc, CIA-Disneyworld, ad nauseum do a great job of making sure we don't have to.

[Melodybe]

51. I'm sorry but Clinton deserves it

[DanCa]

2. questioning patriotism questioning my belief system, i am sick of it also

[Pirate Smile]

3. You can add Obama bashing and Reid bashing.

There are a lot of people here that hate Democrats - the old Nader argument - "they're all the same".

Yes, it gets really old.

Sure, we all get frustrated sometimes but there is also a different group that just hates them all.

[linazelle]

26. You forgot Hillary. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Aaaaah. Poor, wittle politicians, we all know they're humble saints.

My heart bleeds for wealthy, opportunistic, ambitious, self-serving, politicians with all the ethics and principles of the average used car saleman.

Just because they have (D) after their names doesn't give them a free pass.

[Pepperbelly]

11. You know, there are sites where EVERYONE would be pleased ...

with the Democrat bashing. How do you like being on the same side as those people?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Who says I am?

I don't trust politicians of any stripe. So, if you're referring to Republican sites, I rather doubt that they'd welcome an Anarchist there either.

Or, do you think that we should all just smile and be happy with whatever the bosses do?

[Pepperbelly]

16. I think that when you ...

live in large societies, you are never going to be entirely happy with anything.

If you truly like anarchy, I bet you would've LOVED the Katrina aftermath in New Orleans. Didn't that look like fun?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Your ignorance of Anarchism is showing.

Anarchism has nothing to do with anarchy. What we all saw in New Orleans was the result of predatory capitalism and the corruption of politicians.

[Pepperbelly]

21. whatever ...

Perhaps I am ignorant of Anarchism. I confess. So elucidate, how could a philosophy dedicated to anarchy be anything other than chaotic?

[porphyrian]

30. Not to butt into your argument or anything (though I am)...

...but I think many people inaccurately assume that anarchy means total chaos, death and destruction. This is actually a leap of logic. Anarchy is "1) Absence of any form of political authority. 2) Political disorder and confusion. 3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose," as defined by Dictionary.com. Many, maybe even most, people believe that this in turn leads to general chaos, death and destruction, but most educated anarchists do not. They believe that, in the absence of a government, things would go on much the same as they do now, but without the authoritative oppression. While power-mongers and criminals might rise up and try to oppress, so would those who would see all power-mongers and criminals removed or destroyed.

Personally, I'm not sure anarchism can work on a large scale. Much like communism, I think its effectiveness may be limited to small groups. I also believe that the transition from a governed society to an anarchistic one would likely be longer and more horrible than these anarchists predict, but then I am not really an anarchist. Anti-authoritarian and iconoclast, yes, but not an anarchist.

[Pepperbelly]

45. New Orleans in the first four days is the face of anarchy.

That is the reality. That is not theory. You saw it --do you think you would have the wherewithal to survive even 10 years of that?

Would you even want to?

No matter what "educated" arachists may think ... show me a single one of them with experience dealing with chaos if you want me to believe a single word they say. Sorry, but I view them as bullshit artists with a few takers.

[Qibing Zero]

50. Bullshit - this has been discussed numerous times

That is the breakdown of society, NOT anarchy. When their society breaks down, people react according to how they feel society has served them. Anarchy is nothing like that, nor is it chaos, no matter how much you want to equate the two. The utopian anarchy requires a level of enlightenment that the vast majority don't have in our current system. Do some simple research before you spout about your 'real world' examples, please.

[Pepperbelly]

54. Jebus ...

utopian anarchy is a myth. Why don't you prove its efficacy with a dialectic.

:eyes:

[Qibing Zero]

58. I love your 'It hasn't happened that I know of, so it can't' stance.

What is there to be afraid of in a little research?

By the way, nice dodge. Am I to assume you believe that government is the only thing keeping us from turning into savages who move only on instinct again?

[Pepperbelly]

61. pretty much ...

do you have any REAL world experience to indicate otherwise?

There are TONS of examples that disprove your position as I am certain you know. Do you have any examples where it didn't? Even something small like a bizarro Donner Party or something. Surely there is something.

[Qibing Zero]

77. Prove what position?

I have no position here, I'm just defending a possibility from your closed-minded attacks. I tell you that anarchy cannot work from a situation of society breaking down on it's own, but that there is a possibility of it working out if people are enlightened enough. You refuse to discuss that, or answer my questions, and instead just keep repeating 'anarchy cannot work, I KNOW it'.

What happens in the world today is not a result of any individual's ideals, beside those of the dictators. It's a mix and mash of many people's. There is no real world experience for the possibility of all of the exact goals layed out by the Democratic Party coming to existance either - shall we push our platform aside as well?

[Pepperbelly]

82. utopian anarchy ..

You assumed a position in favor of it above. I wold truly like to see an example or two of it working before I am converted. Of course, if I am converted, I will have to purchase more black jeans and shirts though and I don't know if I can afford it now, what with the gas prices and all.

[Qibing Zero]

89. Are you sure you're reading right?

I'm saying that it's possible, and that your attacks on it are unfounded. I already explained why your example of NO being in chaos has nothing to do with utopian anarchy.

I'm in no way in favor of abolishing government tomorrow, and I seriously doubt it will be possible in my lifetime, but I think that it's inevitable if humanity ever can reach a position of being enlightened enough (I would say a good amount of technological advancement is necessary, as there's no way we could do it with our current level). In fact, in the meantime I favor a much different approach with a strong government that focuses on education, health care, etc - surprising, huh?

[Pepperbelly]

90. yeah ...

but can you tell me where I can pick up black jeans, T's and sweatshirts cheap?

[hfojvt]

69. that's kinda hard to imagine

How much government would you get rid of? The water department, the post office, sanitation, streets and parks departments? How much of government in authoritative oppression and how much of it is services? Do you get rid of public education as well? Do you get rid of police?

I am not a big fan of the folice (fascist police) when they act to harrass or oppress people, but if some drunk is standing on his car screaming in the middle of the night or some gang of thugs is smashing lightbulbs in the alley behind my house, it is nice to have the option of calling the police instead of being forced to go threaten them with my own HK-91. Police function like UN peacekeepers keeping neighbors from going to war against each other.

Anarchism is simply not feasible until you have a society where everyone is as decent and copacetic as myself and Thoreau et. al., and that is a long ways off. At this juncture, it wouldn't be prudent.

[porphyrian]

109. I wasn't suggesting it.

I was explaining that there is a difference between anarchism and espousing chaos, death and destruction. Some people wrongly equate them in assuming a causitive progression that isn't necessarily always the case.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Try reading the works of Tolstoy, Gandhi, Bakunin.

You might even take a look at Emma Goldman, Emeliano Zapata, the First International, Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, the Spanish Civil War, The Russian Revolution, Noam Chomsky and many more before you equate Anarchism with chaos.

[Pepperbelly]

44. LOL

School boy stuff. With exactly ZERO relevance to the way things work and what has to be done to maintain the fabric of civilization.

Shit,even I know more about maintaining the social fabric than Chomsky having at least been in a situation where my decisions mattered and the rhetoric did not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. You consider Tolstoy, Gandhi, Zapata, etc "school boys"?

Yeah, the politicians did a grand job "maintaining the social fabric" in New Orleans.

Do you keep your ego in warehouse?

[Pepperbelly]

49. whatever ...

I suspect that history will never treat anarchists well because their results suck so badly. Even worse than Boy George and his gang of pirates.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

100. Really? Your knowledge of history is equal to your knowledge of Anarchism

Unless you consider the successful non-violent revolution in India led by the Anarchist Gandhi a failure.

As an exercise, tell which system of government has ever been not a failure.

[Pepperbelly]

107. India is FAR from ...

a utopian anarchy. How can you pretend to claim it as a success story for that quaint concept?

Indeed. :shrug:

[Telly Savalas]

84. "Anarchism has nothing to do with anarchy."

Rather poor choice of a name for a politcal philosphy then, eh?

[Qibing Zero]

113. The word 'anarchy' has become loaded

The original meaning has nothing to do with chaos, except that when society breaks down and people felt like their relationship with that society was abusive, the lack of a police force can turn things into chaos.

[Telly Savalas]

115. And as a consequence, the word 'anarchism' has become loaded.

[Pirate Smile]

17. Maybe there needs to be an Anarchist Underground web site.

I can certainly see how anarchy would solve all our problems.:eyes:

[U4ikLefty]

28. OMG, that was soooo clever!!!

:eyes:

[Pirate Smile]

33. I didn't claim it was - it seems perfectly obvious. I'm sorry if the

fact that we don't all hate the Democrats offends you in some way.

What a lovely attitude you have, please have a nice day. :)

[Qibing Zero]

38. Your comment had nothing to do with the OP though

You were just insulting what you thought anarchism was, with no basis whatsoever. How does that have anything to do with disliking the 'top' Dems? =P

[Pirate Smile]

56. I had no idea there were so many anarchists here. It explains a

lot about what the OP was talking about.

[Qibing Zero]

59. What's with everyone who is backing the OP refusing to answer questions?

So unwilling to even discuss, my goodness...

[drummo]

34. I tell you something:

the people are much much worse than politicians. Just think about the elections in 2004 and 2002. Think about the election of Nixon. Think about how the people made Reagan and Bush the Teflon president. Think about how the people ridiculed Gore for 4 words he never said.

You, too, are worse than either Clinton or Gore or Dean or Kerry. You are far more ignorant far weaker and far less innovative than either of these 4 men.
If you are not prove it.

[Qibing Zero]

27. Yeah, and we're told daily that if we don't like how things are going...

..in America, we should leave the country and go somewhere where they like America bashing.

How do YOU like being on the same side as THOSE people?

[Pepperbelly]

46. I'm not ...

I am pointing out to you who you are allies with. If you do not like being their ally, then perhaps you should check yourself. But your taking offense to the comparison does not make it less valid. The fattest hog always squeals the loudest when chased off the trough.

[Qibing Zero]

79. Well, it's apparent you don't take too kindly to dissent

Am I not allowed to be critical to my allies? Am I not allowed to question THEIR allegiance when they do or say something that doesn't appear to be analogous to our goals, much like you're questioning me right now?

[Pepperbelly]

86. No ...

I don't care what someone expresses. And, at the same time, I reserve the right to argue why position with which I disagree should be rejected. And that is exactly what I am doing.

And will continue to do.

on edit ... still have not addressed how it feels to be in philosophical agreement with the most egregiously right wing of the right wing ... Limbaugh, Newsmax, et al.

They, too, love to slander Democrats, make sniping attacks, and, although I do not know if YOU have done this but I do know that many do ... echo the Jerry Falwell/Richard Scaife cinspiracy ravings about BC.

[Qibing Zero]

91. Oh please

Their attacks are unfounded and trite. They make fun of people for a few words they said, or a couple things in their personal life.

If I express problems with one of the top Dems because they are not representing the people, and instead what seems like their own interests (or even those of the repubs), that's a completely different situation.

How on earth am I in philosophical agreement with the right wing? THAT kind of attack on posters here is detremental, not my stating that I don't think some politician is in the right or not.

[Pepperbelly]

94. not half as detrimental ...

as reading right wing scat from Fallwell and Scaife brought here and seriously advocated.

Look around and you will see them. As I noted, I have not claimed that you said that. In fact, I went out of my way to note that I did not accuse you of that. Instead of taking what was offered in good faith and evaluating it, you are attempting to twist it into an attack on you.

It is an attack on those who have done what I described in the first paragraph in this post. If you have done that, then the shoe fits. If it does not, then it doesn't. If it does not, then look around ... and you might find the posts to which I was referring.

In addition, I am offended by your abject refusal to clue me in on where I can purchase cheaper black clothing. And those spiffy neckerchiefs they wear. Those are pretty neat.

[11cents]

5. I'm tired in general ....

...of the kind of environment in which Democrats or people on the left are either heroes whose fitness and behavior must never be questioned (as some people now are treating Galloway) or else they SUCK and are TRAITORS who have SOLD OUT TO THE NEOCONS because SOMEBODY GOT TO THEM. (What is this, a LeCarre novel?) People and their motivations just aren't that goddamn simple, and politics aren't that simple either. Some of this has spread from the political blogs, even from the best of them. The "Wanker of the Day" mentality, where somebody is always in line for denunciation, and you're either COMPLETELY ON-TARGET or TOTALLY WRONG.

[Cocoa]

13. yes, it's excessive in both directions

I like Galloway and Chavez as much as the next guy, but some people go overboard with the heroworship.

[Lecky]

57. It's binary thinking

...apparently our side is not immune (unfortunately).

[emulatorloo]

105. thanks for your post n/t

on edit: fix typo

[nvliberal]

6. If there was that much energy funneled into

bashing Republicans instead we Democrats might actually get someplace.

I always wonder about people who constantly tear down Democrats.

[bread_and_roses]

22. Maybe if these supposed "leaders" acted more like an opposition

they would be subjected to so much criticism Just a thought. Maybe if so many didn't vote for things like the Bankruptcy Bill? eh? Maybe if nearly all of them wern't as guilty as the Rs of ignoring the plight of the inner cities and the gross racial inequities still oppressing our minority citizens? Maybe if so many hadn't, in so many ways, sold out working, low-income, poor, and minority citizens for a spot at the Corporate Trough? I'll stop now, though I could go on for a bit.

[oasis]

32. "I always wonder about people who constantly tear down Democrats". Not

only do I wonder, I'm suspicious of their real motives.

They aren't necessarily friends of the GOP either which narrows the field down to third party choices. This, of course, is a dream scenario for the GOP.

[Lecky]

62. I agree with you somewhat...

but "bashing" will get the Democrats nowhere...instead of reacting emotionally we should look for rational positive solutions.

[indepat]

8. If everything happening on W's watch had occurred on their watch,

would not RW talking-heads be exploding daily? Just imagine the coverage in the NYT or WAPO and the slew of cable channels.

[jobycom]

9. "Why aren't are Democratic leaders doing anything about X?"

I get so sick of this, too. Post anything Bush did wrong, and some supposed "liberal" will blame the Democratic leaders and conclude that "both parties are feeding at the corporate trough." Very good. Let's all just vote Republican, then. (or third party, or stay home--same thing).

We should start booting anti-Dems off the board, even if they are pretending to be Dems. It's fine to be critical, it's another to blame them for everything the Repubs do, on the pretext of blaming them for not stopping what the Republicans are doing.

And another thing: Why the HELL do so many people use phrases like "pink tutus, Nads, a pair, balls" or any other misogynist expression implying that only males have courage and anyone who lacks it must be a female? Why isn't that considered sexism?

[JNelson6563]

37. If they don't see it on CNN, Faux, et al

then it ain't happening. We've got as many morans on our side as they do on the other side.

Julie

[Armstead]

96. Wellllll....Why aren't more Democratic leaders doing anything about X?

The repubs are getting away with it because too many democrats aren't even putting up token resistance.

Every Senate Democrats should vote "No" on John Roberts, for example. His nomination will turn the clock back.

Sure, Roberts will get the job anyway. But Democrats ouvgbht to take a stand on principle, to demonstrate what our side stands for.

(PS I do not include the many Democratic leaders who DO stand up for real values and who challenge Bush and -- more important -- the entrenched power structure he represents.)

[jobycom]

112. They ALL stand up

The just don't all stand up at the same time, and most of the time the media doesn't even talk about it. I watched Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and several other Dem laters blast Bush on his slow response over Katrina, and the very next day I watched a 200 post thread of so-called liberals complaining that our "pink tutu Democrats" weren't speaking out.

As for Roberts--he's replacing a justice with his exact views. How is he turning the clock back?

[Rowdyboy]

Thank you!

If I want to read pompous, hate-filled diatribes against members of the Democratic party, I'd go to Free Republican. Imagine my surprise three years ago when I found Democratic Underground and discovered many posters here who were equally hateful toward Democrats.

Never have understood the phenomenon. Maybe its a feeling of superiority because they consider themselves above the pedestrian/bourgeois middle class Democrats. If its cool to be radical, then the more radical you are, the cooler you are.

[stillcool]

10. i wonder why they do it...

..just to be divisive? Are they antagonists...people who love confrontation from behind the safety of their keyboard. It is very much like hate-speech...but more petty. By spouting their degrading viewpoints they reveal their lack of thought. My ignore list is getting pretty long.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Right! Don't worry, be happy!

Democratic politicians always work in the best interest of the people. That's why Democratic senators and congressmen voted for the war.

[stillcool]

20. my, what a simplistic view..... n/t

[rockymountaindem]

23. Why do you post here?

[KoKo]

24. Why do you?

:shrug:

[rockymountaindem]

25. Because I like talking with other Democrats and learning about ways to win

Other people just seem to hate on Democrats, and I wonder why they would post here if that's the case. What do they get out of it?

[Qibing Zero]

40. I suggest heading on over to the politics forum then

Some of us have broader goals than 'winning', and realize that while the Democrats are far better than the alternative, two parties cannot contain the beliefs of the entirity of America. Recent events have caused even more to lose faith in some of the Dems that hold office right now. Why think inside the lines? Life isn't black and white.

[rockymountaindem]

42. Because it's the same all over DU.

One forum is the same as the next except for groups.

[Lecky]

92. Oh really?

Recent events have caused people to lose faith in the Republicans who are in power right now (in all 3 branches) and realize the Democrats are our only hope.

All the hypercritical Democrat-bashers do with their constant negativity is weaken our party...but that seems to be the goal since they hate the two-party system anyways.

I'm not addressing people with honest rational criticism who do it because of their genuine concerns...but there is a particular breed here at DU who are completely irrational ideological purists who lack common sense that do not hesitate to bash a Democrat any chance they get. Then if the Democrat does something positive...they say NOTHING or better yet still bitch about something bad they did months ago...or they simply claim it's "too late".

:grr:

[Pirate Smile]

119. That was a good summary. You pretty much covered it all.

:thumbsup:

[drummo]

39. Actually when that vote took place

those Hill Dems were indeed acting on behalf of the people because back then the people (most of them) wanted a war with Iraq.

I told you that the problem is always with the people, the stupid sheeple, and not with a few individuals in the government. They are just robotic followers of the masses.

[Lecky]

80. News flash

There are some politicians who have good intentions and want to do what's best for the people and the country. They are not all evil or corrupt...they are HUMAN!

Working in the best interest of the people is HARD because everyone has different interests, I believe they do the best they can in most situations. You will NEVER find a politician that you agree with 100% got that?

I disagree with the war as well, but I know for a fact that it would have never happened if we had a Democratic president.

[Lecky]

64. That's a good question n/t

[DanCa]

15. Clealand bashing, they bashed a triple amputee god damnit

One of the bravest human beings on the planet and they said he was unpatriotic. Do they even realize what the sweet man has to go thru on a daily basis? And they call themselves christians.

[zbdent]

19. Get a bumpert sticker made:

GOP says: "___________ is more liberal than Ted Kennedy"

[seabeyond]

29. with you all. just posted the same this morning. n/t

[emulatorloo]

31. For some it is more fun to bash Democrats than to bash Republicans

Some are well meaning. I used to think that Dems and Repugs were the same too, then Reagan got elected.

Some find that it sounds cool. My your political analysis is astute and sophisticated . . . can I buy you another drink?

Some find that it pays better. If you are being paid by the post don't forget to report it to the IRS. (thanks NSMA)

PS weekends are always crazier on DU for Dem bashing.

[dogday]

36. Where are they? It is like they have been told

not to appear in front of the camera or something. All I see is Republicans, day and night. Where are our leaders?

[KittyWampus]

101. just last week they were investigating corruption in Iraq. So question is,

where were YOU?

Dorgan and Levin were holding hearings and listening to Bunnatine Greenhouse and others detailing the corruption.

They also began expanding the scope into NOLA contracts.

I saw it on CSpan and posted about it.

[dogday]

103. Who was and when.

I have talked to a lot of people and they say the same thing. Our leaders have been very silent of late. Where was I? Where are they?

[Individualist]

41. Scolding others for their opinions. It never

stops.

[ninkasi]

43. I think some of it is frustration

Sometimes, we see issues that are so obviously harmful to the current administration, we feel that even a clever 11 year old could demolish their arguments, we can remember things they said, and point out the difference regarding to what they actually did...and we don't hear any of our politicians even mentioning it.

I'm not talking now about any particular issue, but there are many. We feel that if we are just ordinary citizens, getting our news from every channel available to us, and we can see openings where we could turn issues around, and come out with a win on the democratic side, if we can see that, why can't our politicians?

One of the issues that bothers me a lot is Bush's overturning of the Davis-Bacon Act, which will allow the wealthy corporations given the reconstruction contracts (another rich subject for our side to address) to pay their workers less than prevailing wage. Have any of our politicians, or better still, many of them, asked Chimp how that is consistent with eliminating poverty? Can he prove that this will save taxpayers money, instead of just allowing Halliburton and the others to increase profits?

I don't know. I wish our side were much more vocal, and much less timid in their responses. The American public now supports our views more than the conservative views, so it's frustrating not to see our politicians taking advantage of this opening.
I think some of the bashing is done out of a sense of betrayal, in that we are ready to support them, if they would only use the openings that have been given them.

[GreenArrow]

47. not so much "dem bashing"

as it is Corporatist bashing.

[Lecky]

52. I get sick of it as well

...and when I hear people say that Democrats are the same as Republicans...that just makes my blood boil, BECAUSE ITS BULLSHIT!



Just had to get that off my chest...thanks :)

[Iktomiwicasa]

Boil some more......

Because from the standpoint of my people, there is no difference between the two parties. They have both lied to us and screwed us over. Even Clinton.

Your system (American style democracy) doesn't work for us. The Democratic party has zero interest in honoring treaties, restoring valid land claims, and freeing our political prisoners. To do so would piss off their voters too much. The aren't about to risk that, because they value political power more than they value doing what is right.

[Lecky]

110. Could you do me a favor...

...and state just how the Democratic party is guilty of all the things you claim above? You make them sound like neocons, you are entitled to your own opinion of course but I just want to know why exactly.

The logic you use is quite interesting, you say that the system doesn't work for us yet our party leaders don't do anything to piss off the voters. Which is it? I hear they don't listen to the people and then I hear they care too much about what their voters think...WTF?

Can you think of a government that is free of corruption and liars? Not that I am excusing it or think we should ignore it but I also realize that it's made up of imperfect human beings. What is your brilliant solution? You think your way will be free of corruption and imperfection? Clinton had a lot of flaws but one thing I liked about him (that he gets a lot of shit for) is that he truly wanted what is best for this country and was able to put partisan politics aside. He was always positive and even when his opposition was relentlessly on his ass for whatever idiotic reason, he never cracked and he never lowered himself to their despicable levels. He would have never gone to war with Iraq...the neocons constantly begged the man. He respected the U.N. as well as international law. I think we all have our own personal lists of the things Clinton should have done/shouldn't have done. Another thing, while our country has never been loved by all we were most certainly respected and trusted by the majority of the world. Can we say the same thing now? Would it be the same if Gore was elected or Kerry? NO!

If someone's intent is just to come on DU to bash Democrats and ignore any progress they make and continue to vote Green or Libertarian no matter what, I just see you as neocon enablers. Your efforts just weaken the only chance we have at taking these criminals out of power. Why I so desperately want the neocons out of power has nothing to do with "winning" more to do with the fact that they endanger all of our lives (as well as those overseas) with their death, destruction and lies. They could care less that there is an opposition party, our voices don't count! Democrats never pulled that shit while in office and that should be respected not condemned.

Why can't people see the difference between the Republican fundie fascist death cult that's in power compared to when the Democrats were in power? It's really not hard...

[Iktomiwicasa]

114. By "us" I'm not refering to Americans....

...I'm refering to my people. I'm not American, I'm Lakota, from the Pine Ridge reservation in S. Dakota.

Yes, restoring treaty and land claims would piss off american voters, even though it is only the absolute right thing to do. Can you tell me why no Democratic administration has done what is right in this regard?

We don't want your system, and we don't expect you to use our syatem. We just want to be free to live our own way, free from your cultures interference.

Don't forget, you live on INDIAN land.

[Lecky]

116. To be honest...no I cannot tell you why

I also admit to being very ignorant on this particular topic...but I do see why you would hold both Republicans and Democrats in the same regard...

[cry baby]

53. I like all the Dems you mentioned, but I think DUers should be able

to express their opinions freely on this board, just as you did in your post.

I get mad at Dems, too. Most of them are bought and paid for just like the repubs. That they (Dems and repubs) are so corporate minded is not good for a lot of Americans who have no lobby in DC.

There are very few posters (out of the 70,000+ members) that write "_____ sucks" posts when talking about those Dems you mentioned. There are disagreements here, just as the Dem party has always had.

[Pepperbelly]

55. I don't think anyone is ...

arguing that they should be purged, banned or killed. But it is just as much MY right to say when I think they are full of shit, counter productive and that their positions should be firmly rejected by thinking Democrats.

[cry baby]

65. Agree totally, it is your right to point those things out.

But IMHO, it is also counter productive not to point out that there are Dems that might as well be repubs. It is in the best interest of the Democrat party to purge itself of these people. If there are Dem candidates running against them in primaries, why shouldn't we be tough on corporate Dems and perhaps, elect another Dem? They are due the criticism they get.

[Pepperbelly]

68. That's where you are wrong ...

You have no more right to purge them than they do to purge you.

Who put you in charge?

[cry baby]

75. I wasn't clear, I'm sorry...

I meant the purging of the Democrat politicians that are bought and paid for. I can make the attempt to purge them with my vote.

[Pepperbelly]

78. Exactly and

more power to you when you do.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. If you want Truth, bash it out of each other. If you want power ...

If you want Truth, bash it out of each other. If you want power, and you should to get the Republicans out in 2006 and out again in 2008, then stop bashing each other over the head and unite.

Let Bush keep ONE promise. Let him unite the opposition.

[ulysses]

63. vs. 20 years of liberal bashing by certain conservatives in the party.

To paraphrase trumad:

[Pepperbelly]

67. tit for tat?

Is that the way that mature lad in your pic would handle it?

[ulysses]

70. more survival.

It doesn't speak well of party conservatives to pick a fight then cry "foul" and try to claim the "unity" high ground when the target starts swinging back. That's bullshit.

[Pepperbelly]

72. who did that?

I have not seen any of the people listed in the OP trying to purge anyone. No, it is others who seek to purge. Oddly enough, that is a pretty common occurance in left wing movements. It usually happens right before the left leaning movement consolidates power and becomes authoritarian.

But you're a teacher, you knew that.

[ulysses]

74. I'm not talking about purging.

Maybe others are - I haven't read the entire thread. I'm talking about bashing.

It usually happens right before the left leaning movement consolidates power and becomes authoritarian.

Something tells me that the threat of an authoritarian left in the United States is at an all-time low at this pass.

[Pepperbelly]

76. you are probably exactly correct in your surmise ...

but why do so many feel that the way to power is to purge?

It is really odd in an arithmatic way.

[ulysses]

85. I hate to say "they started it"

but, in fact, they did. Cynthia McKinney in 2002 was only the most bald example.

Indeed, purging doesn't make sense if one is interested in building a coalition and believes that that can happen. I've finally realized that party conservatives aren't interested in that, and I'm tired of tilting against that particular windmill.

[Pepperbelly]

88. ok ...

near as I can tell, hardly anyone is so inclined. Kinda depressing actually.

[ulysses]

93. yes, it is.

[ulysses]

102. wanted to make sure you saw this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4813102

[neverforget]

66. Everyone is looking for perfection but are coming up short. I wonder

why? :shrug:

[ulysses]

71. not perfection.

Just decent policy.

[Pepperbelly]

73. what does ...

"decent" policy mean to you?

[ulysses]

81. protection for the most vulnerable in society.

Economic justice.
An attempt to balance economic and human needs.

That kind of thing.

[Pepperbelly]

83. Those are pretty broad stroke sorts of things ...

I would advocate allowing the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts or even the repeal of them this year. I would also advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

I would also advocate the investigation of the domestic oil industry for price gouging and the raising of cafe standards for automobiles sold in the United States. I would also advocate a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

I would also advocate the promotion of corporate responsibility by requiring criminal culpability for the boards of directors of corporations who violate teh law.

I would also end the drug war, disband the Drug Czar's office and defund the DEA.

That's for starters.

How does that stack up against your broad outlines.

[ulysses]

95. that's all fine by me.

I would also repeal the 5-year limit on welfare benefits, proactively work toward a law against public monies ever being paid to private schools and renegotiate all trade agreements to include worker, environmental and social protections for all affected nations.

But this is all cart when there is no horse. The Dem center doesn't want a coalition.

[Pepperbelly]

97. I could live with that as well ...

hell, I would've added it if I had thought of it but you understand, that was top of the head stuff.

And the Democratic center of the party, I submit, does not intend to purge anyone. At least, none of the elected officials would. Some of those staff pukes at the DLC are arrogant and stupid in their words although, as I read many of their positions, they are not that different from yours or mine.

It's kinda fucked up. The people on the left and the people on the right of the party do not even seem to want to seek common ground. As someone in the center, I am disappointed.

[ulysses]

99. oh, I know.

hell, I would've added it if I had thought of it but you understand, that was top of the head stuff.

I know. You may consider yourself a centrist, Pepper, but what I've read of your positions tells me that you're as much a wild-eyed progressive as I am. ;-)

And the Democratic center of the party, I submit, does not intend to purge anyone. At least, none of the elected officials would.

Oh, they certainly want the votes. Progressive officeholders? A different issue.

as I read many of their positions, they are not that different from yours or mine.

On some issues, perhaps not. On others...let's just say that I don't recognize them.

Beware, also, of smooth language. There are a variety of ways to "end welfare as we know it", by way of example.

It's kinda fucked up.

Well, yes. :)

The people on the left and the people on the right of the party do not even seem to want to seek common ground. As someone in the center, I am disappointed.

I suppose it depends on who you're talking to. I don't want to pretend that the left is angelic in this regard and will readily admit to a degree of bias in my point of view, but I've seen a number of progressive folks on DU (yes, an echo chamber, but still) besides myself make that attempt only to be met with the sound of crickets from the other side.

I'm probably not the guy to make those overtures here from the left - I have a combative history. Maybe you could team up with folks like (for example) salin, LydiaLeftcoast, Nederland, etc and put forward something that might attract the DU center and left alike.

Just a thought.

[Pepperbelly]

106. I am a Reformed FDR Democrat ...

with an affinity for the results gained from BC's economic policies of the 90s which really did make a lot of poor people I know of live with more economic security and prosperity than they had since RR took over in '81.

on edit, Reformed FDR Democrat, Arkansas Synod. :D

[ulysses]

111. :snarf:

"Arkansas Synod" :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4813102&mesg_id=4813102

[Guaranteed]

87. You know what? You're right. At this point, the Democrats,

while not doing EVERYTHING they can, I believe are doing close to the best that they can without crossing way over the line.

They could come out harder against the Iraq occupation. That's my one criticism.

But, past that, I think they're doing a damned good job.

They DO need to be thinking much longer-term, though. Part of showing leadership is letting people know what you stand for. And they need to do a better job of that, while it's easy to lose sight of it when you're playing the underdog role.

Anyway, I agree. I'm getting sick of the bashing. Since the election, the Democrats, at the very LEAST, have been doing 10 times better than they had been. I think that they- MOST of them- realize the leadership vacuum that is dogging them. We're still seeing some spinelessness from the Liebermans, Feinsteins, and Bayhs, but they're most definitely in the minority, and, truly, **** AT THIS POINT IT'S NO WORSE THAN THE REPUBLICANS ARE DEALING WITH ****.

[Lecky]

98. I completely agree n/t

[Connie_Corleone]

104. It sure doesn't.

I come here to update myself on what's going on politically and I keep running into "F*** (insert Democrat here)!" or "(insert Democrat here) Sucks!" threads.

I find myself not spending as much time here as I used to. Democrats get enough bashing at that freak site. It's a shame I come here and find the same thing.

[TheStates]

108. I don't bash Kerry anymore.

I understand why Kerry is underground doing his work....these thugs are dangerous.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001842.htm

[Q]

117. It seems that....

...more than a few on this thread would love the Democratic party to become like the GOP...intolerant towards dissent or difference of opinion. There are even posters suggesting that those who dare criticize the Democratic leadership shouldn't be allowed to post on DU.

Many that are now critical of the Dem leadership have been proud Democrats most of their life. Most of us defended Clinton, Gore and Kerry against the RWing Smear Machine. We've watched our 'leadership' get beaten to a pulp since 2000 and it's frustrating that they won't fight back.

Even worse...the Bushie Republicans have achieved everything they've ever wanted...including making the Democratic party irrelevant and gutting every social program they could get their hands on.

We need to fight the Bushies. Not just because we want to put Democrats back in the majority...but because it's the right thing to do. We can no longer afford the 'politics as usual' approach towards the most criminal and corrupt White House in this nation's history. We have Dems actually defending Bush and working with him instead of calling for hearings, investigations and impeachment. Those Democrats working with Bush are betraying party and country. We have no choice but to call them on their complicity.

[smartvoter]

118. No. Thinking in absolutes which is to bash everyone you don't like

at every turn is like the other side. Criticism is one thing. Writing F**K HIM or F**K HER every time someone posts something an "out-of-favor-with-me" politician has done is ridiculous and tiresome.

Edit: clarity.