A thread for DU moderates and centrists.

[Blue_Chill]

Is anyone else sick of the baseless conspiracy theories and the “Bush has lied before” logic used to justify every oddball suggestion? Perhaps some of you are growing tired of the “it’s Americas fault” being the default value for all conflicts in history to some posters?

I think this kind of stuff is going to cost us more and more votes. I don’t see any of this appealing to moderates at all; I certainly don’t see it getting any swing voters. Do you agree that the party has shifted right? Do you think the anti-war rhetoric will harm the party or help the party?

I ask because sometimes moderates and level headed democrats feel a little out numbered on Democratic Underground and I would like to see how many of you are out there, if any. If there seems to be a good number of moderates I was thinking of setting up an IRC channel, it’s a sort of low budget chat room any computer can handle and it’s free. Perhaps we could get together and discuss certain things without the "YOU ARE A SHEEP" posts getting in the way.

[Racenut20]

1. Do you mean a voice of reason ???? wow. I like that.

[Zuni]

2. moderate here

I am weary of some of the tinfoil hatters and neo-communists here. I have to say, I mostly frequent the lounge now because it is easier than being attacked for having moderate views.

[Sagan]

3. I kind of see what you mean

There have been some posts here that, to me, have smacked of cheering for people in Iraq killing our troops. I don't like that.

But, you can never tell about the posters. If I was a freeper, I'd be over here posting "Go Iraqis! Kill U.S. troops that are enslaving you!" and crap like that.

[Padraig18]

4. Can we populists be part of this, too?

I grow very weary of the 'anything and everything is a "BFEE/PNAC/fill-in-the-blank" conspiracy' garbage, and the "America did it with a Bush/Republican in the WH, so it must be wrong" attitude/mindset, too. Hell's bells, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

:yourock:

[Blue_Chill]

9. Of course!

I don't mean to be a jerk but to be nasty I just need a place to discuss politics without the constant conspiracy theories. All that agree with that are welcome.

[Padraig18]

Great!

I have IRC, so let me know what the server and room name are, if you would be so kind. :)

[goobergunch]

91. Check out post #88 (n/t)

[Zuni]

32. mail me with the webpage

I would love to talk politics with out conspiracy theories or dogmatic politics.

[Zuni]

29. I am so weary

of seeing BFEE and PNAC or even the word corporate. So many of the posts on the GD boar have become political circle jerks, with each poster trying to outflank the other to the left.

Here is a typical 'circle jerk' nowadays.

Poster 1--- well I am all for totally universal healthcare.
Poster 2--- well I think every pet owner should have universal veterinary care as well.
Poster 1--- that might be going a bit far
Poster 3--- I wrote a letter to my representatives requesting a bill to have the US pay for Universal healthcare in Mexico.
Poster 1--- I will piss on GWB's grave
Poster 4--- I sat for 3 weeks last winter in a square in D.C. barely eating to protest the invasion of Iraq.
Poster 3--- Well I went to Cuba and it is the freest, happiest country on earth. Their healthcare system is magnificent!
Poster 5--- Did you go to the doctor in Cuba?
Poster 3--- no, but all of the Cuban papers were blaming the only faults with Cuban healthcare on the US's embargo. It is cruel and evil beyong belief.
Poster 2--- The people of Cuba are soooo much better off than we Americans. Castro is a true leader.
Poster 3--- You will never hear that in our BFEE-PNAC run media that is just a corporate whore propaganda fest.
Poster 6 (either a real loony lefty or a Freeper plant)--- I am sending money to help defend the BFEE political prisoner, Saddam Hussein. He has been drugged and tortured.

[Padraig18]

35. LOL!

I thought I was the only one who felt that way about those threads! :P

[salin]

66. I don't know

Not a tinfoiler... a liberal, yes.... Sometimes find some of the positions found here far to the left of mine... but also find a good deal of support for some long held rightwing beliefs as well. Such is the mix of such a board.

However a few of your statements - I assume written with sarcasm... are far from ANYTHING I have ever read here. Sorta leaves the proposal (further down the thread) being accused of intending to mock others... rather open for that accusation.

Never seen a plea for the US to pay for healthcare in Mexico (heck we can't even do anything - including using market power (via purchasing power) to exert competitve prices on prescriptions... )

Never seen a claim of some sort of 3-week fasting episode to protest the invasion of Iraq (or is this just a basic slam for anyone expressing their first amendment rights to protest any government action?)

Never seen a drive for universal vetrinary care.

-----------------------------

Sorta find this - even written in sarcasm - to be just as over the top as those comments which are being derided. :shrug:

[Zuni]

75. it is a satire

I have seen some really far out posters before, but the claims (other than Saddam and the Cuba ones) I have never seen here. The Saddam one was possibly posted by a freeper.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

5. That's right Blue_Chill, you lure them in here, I'll get the truck started

and we'll get them off to the prison camps as soon as possible. Bloody moderates, so reasonable and open-minded. Makes me sick! Moderates are all a part of the BFEE evil plan for World Domination, don't you know.

[Zuni]

8. Rove plants, the whole lot of them!

I hate people who are pragmatic instead of dogmatic. I'll bring the tar, you get the feathers.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

16. There's gonna be some head-shaving tonight! n/t

[Blue_Chill]

20. lol

great post! haha

[HFishbine]

6. "Bush lied before"

One word: credibility.

Previous lies are not evidence of current lies, however, when you combine a lack of credibility with secrecy and a lack of evidence showing what the truth really is, it's not unreasonable to ask questsions like what Bush knew before 9.11 -- in fact, I'd say it damn responsible to do so.

[KG]

7. so, you're gonna set up an IRC

and mock those 'tinfoil hatters' DUers from there? how cute!

[jonnyblitz]

11. I would never want to be part of a discussion group that is set up

mainly to trash other DUers that one doesnt agree with behind their backs. Pretty damn catty if you ask me.

[Blue_Chill]

14. Neither would I

and I don't like people who assume otherwise when they could just ask me. It's really not that hard you know.

[Blue_Chill]

12. It's not about mocking anyone

It's to discuss things free from "YOU ARE DAMN SHEEP WAKE UP!!!" replies.

[Zuni]

33. YES

I cannot stand to see anyone called 'sheeple' anymore.

[TankLV]

125. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

It's a duck!

Stupid amerikkkan sheeple.

YES SHEEPLE!

Who ya gonna believe, bunkerboy and the heads in the sand crowd, or your own eyes and ears?!

Sorry, nice try.

Won't wash here.

[qanda]

15. Sounds charming

A forum to bash the forum that bashes the present political forum. I love this kind of stuff.

[KG]

22. me, too!

how ya doing? :hi:

[qanda]

30. I'm doing great!

How have you been? :hi:

[KG]

47. been doing great

love that sig, dahling.... :)

[Cheswick2.0]

10. speaking as a level headed liberal

I don't see how this is anymore helpful than the constant screaming from the lefties about the mushy middle.
You don't have to agree with everything people say to respect that they feel differently than you.
I think Bush is capable of anything and I don't think that opinion hurts "our chances" at all. Everyone fights in their own way and picks their own battles. We are all on the same side.

[Blue_Chill]

17. Yes this thread is not helpful

nor is it meant to be. It's meant for me to see how many moderates are out there. I'm sorry but no matter how I ask I end up angering some. I meant no insult but I am looking for a specific group here.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. you are not angering me BC

I am just wondering why you would feel a need to try to put people in boxes and continue the divisiveness.

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. maybe because some of us ae tired of being called freeps?

being a regular dem isn't good enough around here. stand up to the group think or admit that you still have pubbie friends or relatives that you haven't disowed and you are pretty much shit outta luck if you are looking for kinship or even honest dialog.

it used to bug me until i decided i was here for a purpose and while i wouldn't have minded some comraderie, i can live without it.

[cirej2000]

56. If you don't feel the kinship to keep in the mainstream of this board

then why are you even trying to stay here?

Just wondering? Why segregate yourself from the rest of the folks? Would you vote democrat if Dean was the candidate? I think most folks here would be willing to let go of their candidate (Clark, Kerry, Lieberman, etc.) in order to keep Bush out.

I'm not trying to flame you or anything. But it just sort isolates you from what is a forum for all ideas democratic.

-kev

[cirej2000]

80. Hmmmm...then again...

sometimes there are quite a few empty Reynolds Wrap boxes laying around here!

[papau]

13. fiscal moderate/liberal social - but I do agree that the GE will not be

decided by conspiracy theories (baseless or otherwise).

But I do insist there is power in “Bush has lied before”.

Again I agree "It’s Americas fault” is a sure loser - indeed pointless - and 99% of the time not true - IMHO the US has a rather great record in advancing (perhaps at too slow a speed) the rights of man.

The anti-war rhetoric will neither harm the party or help the party, as long as Clarks "We would still have ended Saddam - but without a war - with intrusive inspections - and without telling lies" is the mantra. What will help is a going forward that explains - and is believed - the plan that minimizes the pain for the folks in the US.

[qanda]

21. Yes, they sure have advanced my rights as a Black person

"Thank ya massau!" I really think that 99% of the time is just a bit high.

[Zuni]

36. you have far more rights

than my family did in the USSR. You have more rights than the 1 billion Chinese. You have more rights than a Syrian. You have far more rights in this country than you did 40 years ago, thanks to a moderate liberal named Lyndon Johnson.

[qanda]

111. I'm so sorry

What was I thinking. I am grateful for all that America has done for me and my people.

[bearfartinthewoods]

82. are you for sale?

what was the first and last countries to outlaw slavery and where does the US fall in the interim?

[Zuni]

89. I think the last was Saudi Arabia (1962?)

but forms of slavery still exist in Sudan, Mauritania and in much smaller in numbers in several African countries.
The US outlawed slavery in 1865 (effective Jan. 1, 1866) I think Russia abolished slavery slightly before that, in 1861. The British Empire outlawed it in 1834.
The only country in Africa that was not ruled by European powers, except for shortly by Mussolini, Ethiopia, did not abolish slavery until 1934.
The last in the Western hemisphere was Brazil, in the 1880s. Cuba in the 1870s.
Several major countries, like the USSR, Nazi Germany and Japan, used slave labor in vast numbers during the 30s and 40s, and in the case of USSR for several decades.

[barbaraann]

18. Could you please list the "baseless conspiracy theories"

you are talking about? I for one, don't believe in baseless conspiracy theories, but I DO believe in conspiracy theories which have some basis in reality. For example, the blackboxvoting "conspiracy theory" seems to be VERY MUCH based on reality.

Have you ever heard of "gaslighting?"

[Blue_Chill]

24. No I won't list them

I didn't make this thread for that reason. Thanks.

[barbaraann]

37. Could you name just one?

Perhaps the one you think is most "baseless." Thanks.

[Blue_Chill]

40. No.

If I go into the different conspiracy theories and who posts what this will take the thread I a direction I don't want it to go. So again, sorry but no.

[barbaraann]

44. You know, I lived in Germany for a long time

and the reality of what Hitler did to the Jews is seared in my brain from being in certain places and meeting certain people. I'm sure that many, many Jews were ridiculed for believing in "baseless" conspiracy theories. Once you have met an ordinary human being who escorted Jews to their deaths during the war you don't ever have the same outlook on "conspiracy theories."

[cirej2000]

53. There wasn't too much for the Jews to conspire about

Things got pretty hot and heavy fast in Germany...the rest of the world just didn't seem to want to deal with it.

[piece sine]

67. baslessness

it is baseless to claim Bush secretly captured bin laden.... even mroe baseless to claim bin laden had nothing to do with 9-11 (when he bragged about it on camera THREE TIMES!!! It is baseless to claim Karl Rove (for all his many, many faults) peronally plotted the "murder" of poor Paul Wellstone. It is baseless to accuse Bush of current coke-snorting. It is baseless to presume crazy DU threads are not monitored by bigger media outlets for the purposes of eroding roding the Democratic Party's credibility because we call ourselves are "Democratic Underground."

And that's just off the stop of head, writing on the fly between bites of a salad at lunch, with my office door closed. If only I didn't have a real life, I'd take the time to research the many tin-foil theories on DU and completely kick the shit out of those people who pretend the crack-pot crap espoused by some on DU doesn't hurt us more than help us.

[barbaraann]

120. Of course our ideas of what the Bushies are up to run the gamut

from probably true to probably not true. They are evil and all we can do is guess at the depth of the evil because they ARE the most secretive administration in history.

We are just guessing at what goes on behind the scenes but what we can see is radical and breathtaking.

I lived through Richard Nixon's administration and MANY of the crackpot theories people had about that time were indeed true.

[Don Claybrook]

19. The inference seems to be

that it's only OK to talk of things that would appeal to moderates and further the cause of "electability". Is it still acceptable to search for the truth, no matter what uncomfortable direction that search may take us, and no matter how unpopular that sort of thought may be?

I think I'll stick with the freedom of thought contingent, thanks.

[Blue_Chill]

25. It's OK to talk about anything

I'm not saying it isn't. But is it not ok for me to look for like minded people or is that not ok with you?

[Don Claybrook]

43. S'alright with me

But would it matter to you if it wasn't ok with me? Didn't think so.

[Blue_Chill]

46. Should it matter to me?

Think about that.

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. there are maybe half a doxen DU subgroups on YAHOO

if the IIRC doesn't work out.

[Blue_Chill]

27. Thanks for the heads up

:D

[wryter2000]

26. I'm sorry

I don't see where being pro-war (in Iraq) is the same thing as being level-headed. The rest of your post has some merit.

[Blue_Chill]

28. that is why I asked!

I WANT OPINIONS ON THAT!!! I did not say being pro-war was level headed I asked for opinions!!!

[Enjolras]

31. Moderates and centrists? That's me!!

And yes, I do get a tired of all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

Do I think all the anti-war rhetoric will hurt? I'm trying to think long-term, not just up until election day. I think Democrats would want to preserve their reputation as the party of peace, unless maybe they're DLC types. The anti-war stance may prove costly in the short-term, but inconsistency and abandoning principle will prove fatal over the long haul. If the occupation goes poorly between now and November, which is still quite possible, the anti-war rhetoric will prove very beneficial.

And here's a thought certain to earn me a few flames in this place: I was thinking this morning that, while I agree that we never should have waged this war in the first place, Bush is right to delay holding free elections Iraq for the present. That could only result in an Iranian-style theocratic state. And yes, that would be a very bad thing.

[tarheel]

34. Blue have you

found that the ignore feature does not meet your requirements of not having to endure all of the "YOUR A DAMN SHEEP" replies ? Not trying to be a smart-ass here, but it seems to me its easy enough to just not pay attention to the people you find annoying.

None of us are ever going to agree on everything. I can completely see what you are talking about with some posters and their constant conspriracy theories. But I think we do need to stick together and present a unified front if we are ever going to remove the bastards in the White House that are destroying this country.

[Blue_Chill]

38. I agree with what you are saying

I'm just throwing an idea out there to see if there is any interest.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Spoonman]

41. Centrist here.....

Bush lied, so did Clinton.
But when people start sreaming for a Bush impeachment, it made me wonder just how much people here knew about goverment and law, and how many were off on an emotional rant.
I was unhappy when Clinton got caught, and those who will scream in his defense need to realize that regardless of the subject matter, he committed perjury. He was disbarred by the Arkansas Supreme Court, and he can never practice law again.
We allowed our party loyalty spawn a lack of integrity during that period, and we will suffer for it for many years.

We as a party need to demonstrate the same integrity that the Republican Senators demonstrated during the impeachment proceedings for Nixon.

Those Senators knew he had done wrong, and that party loyalty was not an excuse to defend him. They stated clearly that they would vote for impeachment!

There are so many issues that if we, as a group, could come to terms with them, we would be regain every seat in politics.

My granfather (lifelong democrat 1900 - 1999) before he died told me something that try to live by today.

Every issue that greatly divide a country or relationship has a middle ground that can make both sides happy. It's sort of like crossing a tall barbed wire fence, if you stand to firmly on one side or the other, one of your nuts is gonna get poked!

[library_max]

63. First, Clinton did not commit perjury.

To prove perjury, you have to prove four things. First, you have to prove that the accused made the statement under oath. No problem there. Second, you have to prove that the statement is contrary to fact. Here we have a problem. Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. There are many definitions of the term "sexual relations" which exclude oral sex. The one in Maryland state law (Clinton was questioned in Maryland) refers to touching genitalia to induce pleasure. By that definition, Monica engaged in sexual relations, but Clinton didn't. This issue is murky at best.

Third, you have to prove that the accused knew that the statement was contrary to fact. Clinton is on record long before he ever met Monica Lewinsky as saying that he doesn't believe oral sex is real sex. To prove perjury on that point, you'd have to get inside Clinton's mind. That's why charges of perjury are always about obvious and incontrovertible matters of fact and not matters of opinion and definition - because any doubt favors the accused.

Finally, you have to prove that the statement was relevant to the proceedings. The standard for relevance has always been the same - whether or not the judge allowed the testimony to enter into evidence. She didn't - she ruled it irrelevant and inadmissable. Case closed - no perjury.

Also, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that perjury in a civil case over a personal matter is an impeachable offense. Nixon, on the other hand, lied to Congress to cut them out of their Constitutional role in military oversight. He used the FBI and other law-enforcement powers to persecute personal and political enemies, and he rigged the 1972 presidential election in his own favor by "dirty tricks" which he knew about and solicited. These are all grave threats to the Constitution, not silly trumpery offenses.

There has never in the history of the U.S. been a charge of perjury against an individual defending himself in a civil case against charges of sexual misconduct, and there's a reason for that. If you know anything about divorce or child custody law, for example, you know that the principals perjure themselves all the time and nothing is done about it - it's chalked up to he said/she said.

Bush lied us into a war. It's not the comprehensive insult to the Constitution that Nixon's actions were, but it's completely in a different category of seriousness than Clinton's little white lie.

[Spoonman]

71. I guess you know more than the sitting judges

of the supreme court in Arkansas that disbarred him for his conduct.

"here are many definitions of the term "sexual relations""

Word games and total B.S - If your daughter gave her boyfriend a blow job, you would consider it a sexual act, and don't deny it.

"The one in Maryland state law (Clinton was questioned in Maryland)"

Federal proceeding, so the state in which it questioning occured matters not!

This is the exact type of blind party loyalty that is going to ruin the Democratic party!

If a person lies, it does not matter what political party they belong to, they lied! How on earth can people not see this?

Without integrity, what good is loyalty?

[library_max]

83. "Perjury" is a legal charge. Hence, the legalities do matter.

If you want to say "Clinton lied," be my guest. But if you want to say Clinton committed perjury, you're mistaken, as a matter of law. It's the same thing as accusing Bush of murder because he sent troops to war, resulting in deaths. If you want to call him a killer, fine, but he's not a murderer as a matter of law.

As for the Arkansas Supreme Court, that was purely political payback for a guy they never liked when he was governor. Like the House of Representatives, they never had to justify their decision as a matter of law. They had the power so they just did it. That doesn't make it right.

If you really think there was a case for perjury, why didn't Starr pursue it? Kindness?

And the alleged perjury was in the Paula Jones lawsuit, not any kind of federal proceeding.

Respect for the law and the facts is not blind party loyalty.

[Spoonman]

85. So your saying

He wasn't under oath when questioned by the FEDERAL Grand Jury?
So your saying that him lying about the encounter during that sworn deposition was not perjury?

I happen to hang out with several lawyers, seeing as my sister and my best friend are married to them, and my brother in law is a professor of law at South Texas College of Law.

And, it's funny how they all seem to agree with me, and not you.

"As for the Arkansas Supreme Court, that was purely political payback for a guy they never liked when he was governor."

Yea, like that would hold up in a higher court, wonder why Clinton didn't pursue that?

You don't get disbarred because someone dislikes you!

"Respect for the law and the facts is not blind party loyalty."

That is true, only respect for the law and the facts is not what many Democrats had when they backed him blindly!

[library_max]

93. Check your facts.

Clinton didn't say anything that wasn't true to a federal grand jury. All the perjury accusations have come from a deposition in the Paula Jones case.

Disbarment is not a legal proceeding. It cannot be appealed to a higher court.

That you have a lot of Clinton-hating friends who happen to be lawyers proves nothing. I have yet to see you address any of the points raised in the original post. How can it be perjury, legally, if the statement was true by legal definition, if it was true in the mind of the respondent, and if the testimony was ruled irrelevant anyway?

Lawyerisms aren't perjury, as I'm sure all the attorneys of your acquaintance will tell you.

[ProfessorGAC]

128. If They Agree With You, They Shouldn't

Perjury requires materiality, provable in court. Such was never proven and the materiality of a consensual affair in the civil rights case, and subsequent questioning about that case in a grand jury is highly questionable.

You should note that he was NOT convicted of perjury, nor was he sanctioned by the bar for PERJURY. He was sanctioned for lying under oath, which a lawyer cannot do. But, there is a difference between a breach of legal ethics and perjury. A simple review of any first year law book would suffice to understand the difference.

Tell your law professor brother to go brush up on the basics.
The Professor

[salin]

69. Regarding your last statement... that was the DC I worked in

back in the eighties. There were a number of moderate legislators - who would work with the stronger members (eg more liberal and more conservative)... to find not just the middle ground, but also to find the sticking points - and try to find ways around those. There was much more compromise, much more finding answers. And in those answers there were some unhappy (not perfect answers) but many found progress on both sides.

Then emerged Newt Gingrich, who found great success with a battle mentality on the hill. Every issue was a war. Compromise was not allowed. Slowly but surely - with the emergence of his strong allies Dick Armey and (more forboding) Tom DeLay, this became the face of the Hill. They wielded power over their own party first (threatening retribution if members did not vote the determined line) and lived up to some of those threats with threats of primary challenges (we saw this tactic very publically used against a retiring R. Congressman in Michigan in the Medicare vote.) As they were able to solidify their block (with some moderates in safer positions, sometimes veering), they changed the culture of long work to find legislative compromises - to up/down powerplays - only bring the most 'desirable' (to them) form of the legislation to the floor - disallow bipartisan efforts (example: bipartisan work on Patience Bill of Rights was hammered out and ready to go... led by a doctor in the House... was ordered SCRAPPED after Bush won - so that they could push a "BUSH" version that wasn't bipartisan) - make everything a major partisan battle.

Sadly in this new era what you describe as the way to go ... appears (at least for now) a relic of the past in DC.

I really do not know how to regain that in the short or long term.

[tom_paine]

45. Radicalized moderate here...

But clearly, "It's America's Fault" is not the smartest reply to every question.

However, given the grotesque lying and the Orwellian double-standards and the fact that the Amerikan media is NOT the "protector of the people from the powerful" and in fact has been looking (but not yet toatlly) like media of some Totalitarian Nations of times past...these things are making many people feel insecure and troubled, clouding their judgement.

In many ways, it is like performing trapeeze with a net and then one discovering that, instead of a net, there is a boiling pit of acid beneath you.

We know from history that even during the Hieght of the Old American Republic, terrible conspiracies were hatched that we know of. From the "Smedley Butler" Coup of 1934-6 (thwarted) against FDR to Tuskegee Experiments to Operation Northwoods to Wategate and Iran-Contra. We learned about these things, even in the case of the 64 year-sealed (showing people can suppress big information for a LONG TIME)"Smedley Butler" Coup of 1934-6, through the checks and balances of a FRee Society, aided by a Free and Independant Press.

Now that the checks and balances are eroding, and the Free and Independant Press a relic of the past (hoepfully to be restored one day in the future), I think it's quite understandable for people to more readily embrace "conspiracy theories" because the macvhinery that once occasionally caught or revealed is broken down!

So, in your knee-jerk dismissals of "conspiracy theorists" (particularly given the situation outlined above) you are not only ignoring just about all of human history rife with collusionary activity to the detriment of the populace (more sneeringly called "conspiracy theories"), in many ways are mirroring conspiracy theorists 100% convinced they are right.

(and I'd be lying if I didn't fall into that trap from time to time...it's only human to do so...and sometimes it's right in the end as it was with Wategate, Iran-Contra, etc., and statistics suggest that yes, many conspiracies small and large go uncovered for a long time, as in the FDR Coup or the Enron Energy Theft of California, which went undiscovered for 4-6 years during which time it stole billions through inflated prices and service denials, and is STILL largely unpunished)

The bottom line is that events labelled "conspiracies" have been going on since the beginning of human history and we would be naive to assume that 100% of them have been busted. It would be equally naive to assume that 100% of conspiracy theories were true.

But to denigrate people for legitimate concerns in a time of terrible deceit and weakened protections is also wrong.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

50. I'm lost. I consider myself a moderate, but many consider me a radical

So I have no idea if I should post in this thread or not. What is considered a moderate these days?

[SahaleArm]

73. Maybe in Canada moderates are radical ;)? n/t

[Screaming Lord Byron]

74. Or Canadian moderates are radical in the US. Or the definition changed

when the goal posts got moved way to the right.

[bearfartinthewoods]

78. lol...it does get tricky

i used to think i was a pretty left liberal. people around here kiddinly call me "red" and i do not have red hair. when i joined here i got a hellova shock to be perceived as a centerist. i guess i was niave because i didn't realize how radically left the left still was.

[Crunchy Frog]

105. I'm with you tom_paine

I'm a fairly moderate liberal, I don't consider myself to be leftist at all, but their is nothing moderate in my feelings about the Bush administration and what's been happening to this country under them. I too see the checks and balances eroding and feel a sense of creeping totalitarianism. I can barely even stand to watch TV anymore because it makes me feel so creeped out. I also believe that there is nothing that this regime would not stoop to if they think they can get away with it, and there is precious little anymore that does stand in their way. PNAC is very real and their agenda scares the crap out of me. So although my moderate world view hasn't changed, I too have become radicalized by what I see happening, and I never felt this way about any previous Republican administration, as much as I may have despised them.

Thank you for articulating so well what I've been feeling.

[Armstead]

48. Moderate is really hard to define

I don't have any opinion about your IRC idea. But I do think you're being a bit arbitrary with your definitions. And also, frankly, you do tend to arouse antagonistic responses with the way you talk to people here.

I consider myself a moderate liberal in a society that has become extreme. So that makes me a crazy leftist according to some definitions. And it is frustrating when people who who believe Democrats should address it are told that we're naive and unrealistic.

I don't believe in most of the conspiracy theories like "Bush knew" about 9-11. But I can believe that the interests of he and his backers created conditions that made 9-11 more likely.

There are interconnections that require questioning. I don't believe it's appropriate to assume the worst, but I also don't believe we should paper over everything either.

[cryofan]

49. i have a good website for centrists and moderates

www.freerepublic.com


tee hee

[Padraig18]

51. *ssssssssslap*

Smart-ass! :P :hug:

[evil_orange_cat]

52. "What do moderates and dead skunks have in common?"

They are both middle of the road-kill... :lol:

--John Ashcroft

BTW, you can still be a "moderate" and hate Bush. Hell, I'd go so far to say if someone doesn't hate Bush they are insane... but that's just me ;)

[nolabels]

70. You don't have to be bonkers to despise everything that * respresents

But if I am what would it matter? I like come here to read what others have found, think or feel, that is not crime. For these people that think all conspiracies are untrue, you are obviously too brain washed to converse with, but if even the thought that there was even one person that thought otherwise I would still hang out here.

The world is full of deceit and contempt along with a lot of other things. Thinking for one minute that anybody reading this never had one of them types of instinctive (but many times irrational) thoughts I would also believe they would also lying to themselves.

Thinking in the realm of crazy things is how humans get from point A to B many times. It is just one of processes that is required and or used but not acted upon by cognitive people in dealing with stressful circumstances that seem out their control.

Just like anything else, crazy things never happen in vacuum, they require crazy circumstances. Think about what might have caused it before putting it up against other people who just might be out of control victims their selves

As for the other side coin I post this link and snip

http://post.queensu.ca/~smithgs/275.html


(snip)
As playwright David Mamet observed in 1995, "it is in our nature to credit the ridiculous for the sake of the momentary enjoyment it affords," often "through the creation of a villain, whose presence stands between us and a Perfect World: this pornographer, this purveyor of filth, this destroyer of the family is he or she who used to be known by the name of communist, fellow traveler, labour agitator. Other historical names include nigger lover, papist, Yellow Peril, faggot, and Jew." In the culture wars of the very recent past, political discourse in the United States seems to find most effective expression in "us-against-them" terms (the title of one of the course texts). This should not be surprising. For political discourse–a discourse related to questions of power in society, intersecting all levels of culture–reflects American experience on all levels. A key hypothesis of History 275 holds that construction of internal and external enemies (and the connecting of the internal with the external–"The Other") have played important, sometime crucial roles in the history of the Republic.

By suggesting ways in which dissent in American life has both manifested and generated fears of conspiracy and subversion, History 275 seeks to accomplish several things. First, students should be aware that the course approaches the American past in a manner somewhat different than usual. Where "consensus" and neoconservative historians emphasize the manner in which Americans have been knit together by shared values and aspirations, History 275 argues that although these things are important in evaluating the Republic’s history, one also confronts in that saga remarkable diversities, conflicts, polarities, and disagreements. Consequently, in describing and analyzing the exaggerated ways in which American fringe groups, cults, demagogues, reformers, kooks (be careful with this one!), and mainstream politicians (and two former presidents, in particular), have perceived reality, the instructor hopes to illuminate the phenomenon the late historian Richard Hofstadter termed "the paranoid style" in American political and social life. In addition, by considering the nature and limits of protest during war and periods of domestic crisis, we shall point up a central problem faced by dissenting Americans since the arrival of the Puritans early in the seventeenth century–that of being labeled threats to the country’s security and welfare.

In order to appreciate the complex dimensions of conspiratorial world views and the various uses to which alleged conspiracies have been put both by dissenting Americans and by citizens (and government bodies) reacting against them, the student will also consider the ways in which race and ethnicity, economic and class conflict, gender and sexuality, and politics (key determinants of "power") have intersected in the twentieth century. The course is based on the assumption that the persistent tendency of Americans to blame assorted devils for real and imagined domestic and foreign policy problems suggests a great deal about the American national character, regional characteristics, the evolving values and goals of dominant and contending cultural groups, and–perhaps most important–the kinds of political, social, and cultural fissures that have characterized U.S. society. Thus an analysis of the interplay between dissent and the fear of subversion in American history helps illuminate the complicated relationship between individual and group behaviour, social and economic conditions, intellectual attitudes, and politics and diplomacy.
(snip)

[mmonk]

54. I don't buy into

extremists from either position (right or left). I will say I detest the PNAC though and see them as a threat.

[Zomby Woof]

55. I didn't know the definition of centrist was...

...being an apologist for American abuses of power. As foar as alienating the "electorate", screw 'em. They alienated the rest of us long ago, with their willful ignorance. They now have the leaders they deserve in the White House.

Some questions for centrists:

1. Do you think terrorists "hate us for our freedoms"? Or do you think it's a just a bit more complex than that?

2. Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in 1987 and 1988. Who supplied him with these destructive weapons? Hint: It wasn't the USSR.

3. Supply-side economics doesn't work in the long-term. Plus, the GOP's traditional tenant of fiscal responsibility, now abandoned by them in favor of Keynesian deficit spending as a result of supply-side taxation, has created an increasingly lopsided control of wealth (and therefore, power, which is undemocratic). Do centrists favor a continuation of polarizing the wealth in this country until the middle class is squeezed beyond repair? Do you favor continuing a regressive tax structure and a coddling of the CEO culture? Or are you afraid anything less will "alienate" the masses who get screwed over by the CEO culture every day?

4. Can you tell me why the middle class/working class "centrists" and the Right insist on voting against their own interests?

Remember kids, there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.


You all RUN the country, and look what a mess you made with it.

[RandomUser]

57. Count me in

Sometimes, the tinfoil hat theories really annoy me. I can't believe people think that Bush had Saddam in captivity months ago and only recently trotted him out. Nonsense.

[Silverhair]

58. Count me in.

I would love to have a place where thoughtful reasoned posts are the order of the day.

[Gringo]

59. Be more specific

There are some very compelling "conspiracy theories" about Bush, amde all the more compelling by his shiftiness and refusal to cooperate with (or properly fund & staff) the 9-11 investigation.

Sure, theories like "It was really a missile that hit the pentagon" or "Saddam's capture was timed" are baseless and ridiculous.

However, Bush's constant lies, shady business contacts, and bizarre behavior on 9-11 do raise legit questions that have not been adequately answered.

I realize that raising such questions may not be a winning campaign strategy. That does NOT, however, make them all crackpot.

[Gringo]

62. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as an "extremist" democrat

Our party is by nature moderate. Unlike the GOP, which harbors all manner of fascists and racists (under false banners of compassionate conservative) we are home to people who want to work within the law to protect workers and the environment, without doing UNDUE harm to business. Extremist elements are drawn to the socialist/anarchist side. I won't call the Greens extremist, but rather purist. They are not willing to accept the compromises to corporate power our party makes.

Many people who theorize about JFK or 9-11 are actually very mainstream in their political values. In fact, its episodes like those that have rocked their faith in the system. The real extremists never had faith in the system to begin with.

If you are unable to debunk any "tinfoil hat" theories, you should stop smearing those who promulgate them. They are merely reaching, trying to understand what happened, because our government's, and our media's answers have been woefully inadequate.

[library_max]

102. Nobody can prove a negative.

Nobody can prove that something didn't happen. That's why we always need to remember that the null hypothesis stands until we can prove otherwise, not merely until we suspect otherwise. And "I think he/they are capable of doing such a thing" isn't proof. Nor is it necessary to argue that he or they aren't capable of doing such a thing. Where is the proof? That's the only question.

The nation laughed at Hillary Clinton's "vast conspiracy" line. Since then, the conspiracy (vast or otherwise) has been documented. But without the evidence, she just looked foolish and desperate, and made Clinton's other defenders look likewise foolish and desperate. How this stuff "plays out" in the media is important politically. This isn't the election for shooting ourselves in the foot.

[thebigidea]

107. not strictly true. I can prove that I'm not able to fly pretty easily.

I can prove that you aren't my neighbor, because he's outside obsessing over his lawn.

[library_max]

112. "Nobody can prove that something didn't happen."

Try reading the post and not just the subject line.

[thebigidea]

113. sure, I can conclusively prove that I didn't kill Hitler

"nobody can prove a negative" sounds good, but its a pretty meaningless statement.

[library_max]

114. No you can't. Try it.

[thebigidea]

117. I was born in 1976. Hitler was presumed dead decades ago.

Time travel is impossible, except in Irwin Allen television series.

[library_max]

127. Ah, but no.

Nothing is impossible for the conspiracy theorist. The fact that nobody has ever demonstrated time travel publicly is proof that time travel exists, because only a time traveler could dispose of the evidence so efficiently. And surely you know that the body found in Berlin in 1945 was a body double - the real Adolf Hitler escaped to Brazil. Where YOU KILLED HIM! BWAHAHAHA!

See how it works?

[Gulf Coast J]

60. I don't think it's just moderates

I consider myself moderate, but am happy to read the ideas of socialists or pacifists on this board. One can be on the 'extreme' without resorting to the tiresome BFEE/MIHOP rhetoric that grows old so fast here.

[BiggJawn]

61. Guess I'm not a "Moderate"...

Because:
1. I wear the "Tinfoil Hat" myself sometimes.
And
2. I could care LESS about the flighty mythical "Swing Voter". Energise The Base and the Soccer Moms will follow.

I understand your intent, I think. I dislike the never-ending shit slinging contest going on between the supporters of "The Eight" too.

[Blue_Chill]

79. Perhaps I should be searching for DUers that are level headed

and leave the moderate out. I don't really have a problem with radicals, but I do get annoyed when I'm called a sheep for not using some obscure semi-communist website as my main source for "real news"

It really makes having a discussion damn near impossible.

[Zuni]

90. I agree

I am really sick of being flamed for not questioning the reliability and agenda of neo-communist sources. As far as I am concerned, thge communist press has always lived in a fantasy world and are less reliable than even that paragon of bias, Fox News.

[thebigidea]

98. it must be great having a monopoly on level-headedness

[Poiuyt]

64. Philosphically speaking, I'm moderate

But I still think that Bush is so far off the charts that he's dangerous to the US and the world.

[library_max]

65. There's a distinction between belief and emphasis.

On the war, for example, I think it was wrong. I spent a whole day in March on the campus quadrangle with a microphone in my hand arguing with everyone who wanted to engage that the war in Iraq was illegal and immoral. But if we run on the war and nothing but the war, I think we're going to lose. Most Americans supported the war when it began and they confuse supporting the troops with supporting their leaders now. And cognitive dissonance won't let them be convinced otherwise.

It's like that with a lot of issues. We can agree on a progressive course needed for the country, but we have to be careful to pick and choose only what we can sell to the general electorate. This time around, "I'd rather be right than President" is a fool's cry, given who's President right now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Wow let's just silence everyone who disagrees.

Frankly, when an administration lies as much as this one has, they deserve every last bit of scrutiny they come under. I just read a thread where Madeleine Albright was accused of being a conspiracy theorist for saying that which is more likely than not true..that this admin timed the Saddam issue for political game ...WOW THEORY OF THEORIES!!! WHO KNEW????

The BLAME THOSE WHO BLAME AMERICA FIRSTERS simply like to assume the ostrich position when it comes to a no-nonsense look at our trade and other policies and the manner in which they subvert democracies and create ire in others. I think there is room for rational talk and disagreement.

I think that a conversation as to WHEN it is appropriate to go to war and when it isn't is appropriate for a political web site. Furthermore, I think this war was very inappropriate even if some good ACCIDENTALLY comes out of it.

Finally, as one who often defends PETA, how on earth can you accuse anyone else of being fringe?

[thebigidea]

84. i already have the duct tape over my mouth

[rucky]

72. Who's going to say they're not level-headed?

"conspiracy nuts" are truth seekers. judge them on the merits of the facts & understand this is what can happen when a leader creates a credibility gap as huge as * has.

Sorry if you think it hurts your image as a "centrist democrat" (whatever that means anymore), but there are plenty of people here who are working hard to expose the truth.

Having said that, in every group there are a few stray kooks just trying to get some attention, but they are in no way a majority here.

Maybe if you address something specific, we could gauge how "level-headed" your assessment of DU really is.

[Gman]

76. I'm somewhat moderate, liberal and conservative

I'm socially liberal on just about everything. I'm moderate on national defense, but definitely not naive about what's going on in DC. I am also a fiscal conservative. I'm beside myself over this deficit.

That being said, I form most of my opinions about Bush and explain the stupid crap he does from the perspective of what I read in "Fortunate Son", the tell all book that was banned in 2000. I put a lot of weight on previous behavior and history. I also remember much of what Daddy was like and what he did when he was a real president.

From this view of "history", I don't at all dismiss a lot of the conspiracy theories. After all, the bunch in the WH right now outright stole a United States of America presidential election. There is no disputing that. I can think of absolutely no other crime committed against the American people that could be bigger or more grave. Therefore, Bush and the rest of the right wing are capable of literally anything.

Has Bush lied to us? Undoubtedly. Has Bush lied before? Its been proven many times that he has. I also feel we are dealing with a drug addict and alcoholic that was never properly rehabilitated and therefore none of the behavior has changed The worst of the behavior by far is the lying. Lying defines an alcoholic or drug addict. I think his messianic complex is also rooted in these disorders.

I also believe that because Bush is an alcoholic and drug addict, he abused Laura. No one can argue with a straight face that he didn't without saying "you have no proof". Most domestic violence, surely just as Laura's experienced violence, goes unreported. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I probably am immensely more sympathetic to Laura for this reason than most anyone here on this board. I've never seen anyone post anything like this here.

So when we're talking about Bush, we're talking about an incredibly morally corrupt person. I will look at every conspiracy theory in this light before I dismiss it. Because of who and what we're dealing with, I don't dismiss very much.

[bpilgrim]

81. any moderates and centrists sick of being labled a 'conspiracy theoriest'

in order to shut down discussion by knee-jerk sloganeers pedling in propaganda frequently used on the right?

hand raised

are there moderates out there who feel threatend to tow the party line or else being labled a 'CT'?

well, don't fear. we have an open forum here to speak our minds and document our OPINIONS in writing so folks can read another side of the discussion without being distracted by vrwc soundbytes that they usually shout over you so you can't be heard and the discussion devoles to a shouting match on a strawman.

as a moderate, father of 3 honor students, husband, business owner and U.S. vet, who cares a great deal about democracy and my homeland all i got to say is...

thank gore he 'invented' the internet :bounce:

peace

[tlcandie]

86. I'm sure I'm considered to be among one of the ones you want to

be removed from for purity/clarity. I do apologize if I've offended any of you because that is never my intent.

Evidently, I use a different means to an end. Does this mean that conspiracy is all I think about or stick on? No. Does it mean I do not listen to everyone's point of view? No. Does it mean I'm a crackpot? Those who know me do not think so, but I guess within this label I am considered a crackpot.

I am sad that you would feel the need to distance yourself from those of us who are different than you. Unfortunately, there wasn't 'A' mold that we all came from...each of us has our own oddities. No one is perfect.

I think that if you all withdrew from DU then it makes it a duller place missing, as you state it, your rational/level-headed discussions; hence, you would be missed.

DU is what it is...I have no expectations. I read threads and sometimes only make comments. Sometimes I provide links. It all depends on my mood or how tired I am any given day.

Personally, I encourage 'DIFFERENT' ideas/opinions even when radically different than my own because it causes me to think out of my box and to go beyond what is comfortable to me.

At any rate, intelligent or crackpot, that is my two cents worth from my heart. I repeat that if you all do decide to IRC or Yahoo it then your input will be sorely missed.

Happy Holidays whatever you choice and of all things.. peace within as well as out.


EDIT: Might add one more thing. Since this regime has come to office it seems nothing is sacred anymore...everything has changed and their are so many outright lies that aren't even bothered to be covered anymore. Personally, because life on this planet nowdays is way out there, I've taken what one might consider a CT attitude awaiting it to be disproved because as many have stated just when you think nothing can shock you anymore you get hit with something else. Maybe when those who are seen as CTs have reached their comfort level with the surreal then they resort to this as a way to deal with it until they can find the reason or until it is presented. Makes it rather laughable...laughing is always good.

:shrug:

[Blue_Chill]

94. Withdrew from DU?

Are you crazy! The last thing I would want is anyone to leave DU. I was thinking more of a chat room side bar type deal. But I'm thinking that perhaps there are not enough moderates to make it as interesting as it could be. So I'm now leaning towards making it open to everyone and simpley having stricter rules about name calling and PNAC BFEE blah blah blah.

I don't mind the occasional point to consider but I think many have grown tired of it. It's just become too common. I don't mean to insult anyone that was never my intent.

[thebigidea]

99. what is so conspiratorial about PNAC? Why NOT mention it?

it isn't a conspiracy theory, they are right out in the open. Its the ideology that's driving this administration right off the cliff. I'm very confused by your branding PNAC as "tinfoil."

Explain!

[tlcandie]

103. NOW that sounds like a great idea Blue_Chill!!!!

I wasn't insulted by your thread in the least. But it did sadden me to think of you all not being here and contributing in your unique ways!

:bounce: Grat news! Good luck and have fun will see you in DU then :+

[Q]

108. I would be interested in knowing if you've ever read...

...some of the stuff you're debunking in this thread? Have you actually READ the PNAC project for a new American century document? If so...did you notice the Bush* admin. is following the exact same agenda outlined in that document?

- Or is ignorance bliss and winning everything?

[thebigidea]

109. yeah, this is the one that puzzles me

how are they a conspiracy? Its right out in the open and their henchmen fill the airwaves.

[IronLionZion]

87. moderate checking in

You can't appeal to everybody, but we need to rally and expand the Dem base to win this thing

[goobergunch]

88. Not really a moderate, but there is a DU IRC channel on Espernet

#democraticunderground at irc.esper.net, namely. I'm the chanops.

[mdguss]

92. The Question Is:

Do we want to yell, and talk about Saudi conspiracies, and get our asses handed to us, or do we want to nominate a moderate person that can appeal to disaffected Republicans, independent and keep the base home.

I'm sick of liberals having litmus tests for their candidates. I'm sick of people being idealists, and wishing for a dream president without looking at reality and seeing if that person can actually get elected.

Bush must be defeated. But he will only be defeated if we nominate a moderate person.

[tlcandie]

96. I'm not disputing you or arguing mdguss, but when I read your post

this is what came to mind...

If Martin Luther King had not dreamed or followed his ideal dream where would we be today? Those times were some of the worst of times as well.

New Zealand's conservatives never would have dreamed that their manufacturing/industrial complex could come to share a sustainable future with the residential and environmentalists, but they have thanks to the dream of one idealist who pushed the envelope. Now the whole country is happy and they are leading the world in sustainability living.

:shrug:

[Gringo]

97. moderate vs. liberal and conspiracy theories are two very different issues

They have nothing to do with one another. Many moderates are very intrigued by conspiracy theories, and many far-left liberals accept the simplistic explanations offered by the corporate media.

You also make no distinction between conspiracy theories which are based on real questions by huge numbers of people (Bush's foreknowledge of the Sept, 11 attacks) and the fringe theories with only the flimsiest evidence offered by dubious websites (The pentagon was hit by a missle, not a plane).

The serious conspiracy theories arise from serious unanswered questions (or in the case of 9-11, covered-up), and should be fully investigated. The ludicrous ones at least deserve an official debunking, too.

While I agree that conspiracy theories are not a basis for a successful campaign, they have nothing to do with extremism or moderation.

Also, if the "president" is withholding information, blocking and underfunding investigations (Bush RE 9-11) it is NOT necessarily a bad thing to call him on it and insist that he be forthright.

Dean is right in saying that Bush's non-cooperation with the 9-11 investigation is helping to fuel the conspiracy mill. If Bush has nothing to hide, he should make all the relevant documents public.

His response the the reporter's question RE Dean's comments on Monday made me more convinced than ever that he is hiding SOMETHING. What it is I don't know, but his body language and answers were WIERD.

[Q]

106. Or should the question be:

...Should we as a 'free' people be concerned that the leader of this country has business and personal connections with the leaders of a country where most of the hijackers AND bin Laden originated?

- And I agree with other posters who have pointed out that interest in 'theories' about government malfeasance has little to do with ideology or extremism.

- What the thread author is suggesting is that winning is more important than the truth. This type of thinking gives you 'leaders' like Bush* and the corrupt type of government he brought with him.

- Freedom is indeed not free. You have to work for it.

[rucky]

115. Are you sick of Dems having no backbone?

Because backbone is what those damn liberals are displaying

[Blue_Chill]

95. I'll stop in for a chat

thanks for the heads up.

[VT70]

100. Hey

:hi: Moderate Democrat right here. I would love for you to make an IRC channel, I am quite experienced in IRC and that would just be great.

[welshTerrier2]

101. here we go again with the Labels thingie ...

it's not that i don't hear and respect your message ... i do ...

but i'm always concerned with posts like this ...

the fact that many here on DU think bush lies frequently to justify his positions should not make these people "lefties" ... why wouldn't it be possible for an extreme right-winger to doubt bush's credibility ?? it seems to me the issue of trusting or not trusting what bush tells you should have very little to do with left and right ... it's certainly clear that he played games with the evidence used to justify his invasion of Iraq ...

you talk about "baseless conspiracy theories" ... again, why should this define left, moderate and right ... it seems to me that until there is conclusive proof on these theories, one way or the other, the jury is still out ... are you a moderate and not a leftie because you don't believe bush LIHOP'ed or MIHOP'ed ... believe anything you want to but the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other regardless of where you see yourself sitting on the political spectrum ...

now, as to your point regarding the politics of many issues that get discussed on DU ... that's different ... it is certainly valid to consider the political implications of topics that the party presents to voters ... but again, if you believe certain topics will not go over well with the voters,, for example bush's lies about WMD's in Iraq, that doesn't make you a moderate ... if you're correct about how voters would react to this position, it makes you a pragmatist ... of course, you may not be correct ... i think a majority of voters believe bush lied to sell the war ...

i see your post, though perhaps well intentioned, as divisive ... i see nothing wrong with pointing out that certain positions that receive attention on DU may not be politically practical ... your post fails to differentiate between what some of us believe or feel free to discuss among the DU community and what we believe would be the most effective way to get our candidates elected ...

we're all on the same team here ... i see little value in tossing around labels and calling for people to abandon a community so steadfastly committed to ousting bush ...

[windansea]

104. count me in

post your own threads like this one...don't waste time responding to the wack jobs...just as you did in this thread

[tlcandie]

110. As the jockey in 'Seabiscuit' quoted ..

"And this, the unkindest cut of all."

I love the windansea and I still like you, but it hurts to be called names even though I am an adult.

As I stated above, I wish you all the best and still look forward to your level-headed input in the future!

:hi:

[windansea]

119. hey there

I was speaking in general..not about you!

:toast:

[Blue_Chill]

116. EVERYONE PLEASE READ

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=932763

[Shanty Oilish]

124. Hey there

I haven't been around much lately. Partly because of moving and setting up new home, partly because I'm a moderate with strong opinions and no desire to upset anyone here.
Guess I'll just shop around this thread and agree to things :)

[Catt03]

118. I somewhat agree with you

I like the opinions of some,even when they are different than mine. However, some of the posts sound like young children.

This board has taken a dive into nonsense and attacks. I, too, am looking some intelligence and rational debate.

[alwynsw]

121. Amen!

'nuff said. I love the kids and realize that we must look to them for the future, but I'm tempted to go the "best seen and not heard" route on some threads. That extends to the chronologically qualified "adults" who have yet to grow up.

[Blue_Chill]

123. Please join us on IRC

it is a simple chat program we can all enjoy when we wish to discuss something.

I posted the info somewhere....

[wabeewoman]

122. Not sure if I'm moderate....

I know I used to be but the bush administration has somewhat radicalized me. I do understand what you are saying though. I think people get a little hot because they feel so strongly about bush and anything that isn't bashing him seems like appologizing for him. I think the real solution is a little more respect for varied opinions(I plead guilty-I just got a post deleted! Yikes.) Personally I would NEVER have believed some of the stuff I now believe because of DU-and articles that backed up the information. I noticed things getting out of hand on the candidate threads too but when a democrat runs the Osama/Dean ad, it seems that DU is just a reflection of what is happening out in the world. Personally, I like the diversity of opinion on the threads and if it gets too wild for me, I just don't visit that thread.

[economic justice]

126. Radical Center here

I am a black, moderate Democrat who believes that Harold Ford is the future......NOT Al Sharpton.