Does DU need a VENTING ROOM? Posts are really getting out of hand

[Nothing Without Hope]

Yes, this suggestion is mostly tongue in cheek--no doubt the corporate media would find such a site fertile cherry-picking territory to "prove" how deranged we really are.

But I mean REALLY, people! Clinton and Leahy and Obama are not now demons incarnate because they voted for Rice! We are angry and disappointed with their vote, but the fact is, we have to work with these people as well as we can to save this country. This is not black vs white territory, it's gray and we would be naive fools to think otherwise. This is one vote. The Gonzales vote and so much else is still ahead. There is work to do.

IMO the many shrill posts today are making it more difficult to plan positively for followups and the future. And frankly, I find them depressing as well. It's hard enough to keep one's spirit up in the face of everything that is happening in this sad, frightened country, and finding mutual support is one of the reasons I sign in to DU.

We are at the beginning of a HUGE fight with the highest stakes -- taking back democracy in this country and working for a better world. Screaming insults and obscenities at people who are not entirely doing what we want them to do but are still at least partial supporters of the larger cause is not helpful. It can even be counterproductive. Would YOU be likely to listen twice to someone who emailed you accusations of evil and corruption?

In the hypothetical DU venting room, people could go off from the boards, where thoughtful, adult-level discussions are going on, and scream and curse their heads off in the enthusiastic company of others doing the same. Probably therapeutic, but it DOES NOT HELP when it disrupts what needs to be constructive discussion.

Like Pat Schroeder said,
"You can't wring your hands and roll up your sleeves at the same time."

[htuttle]

1. What the hell do you mean by that!?!?!!

:evilgrin:

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. LOL - I see you get the point! n/t

[fooj]

3. LMAO..."fertile cherry-picking territory"- You've made a valid point!

It is imperative that we support each other. These have been trying times, indeed. Maybe a DU Ranters Room isn't such a bad idea...Hmmmm!
A place for members to post when they find themselves unraveling...

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. OT to Fooj - making sure you saw what Raul posted for you

here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x304844
I assume he also PMed you, but just in case he didn't...

[fooj]

13. Many thanks...got it!

:pals:

[DrGonzoLives]

4. Oh, for the good ol' days

When we had the "Counter-Productive Infighting Forum" for the Nader vs. Gore debates...God, those were fun.

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. "Counter-Productive Infighting Forum"?! I love it!!

I can see I've missed a lot by coming so late to DU!

Nowadays there are a LOT of counter-productive infighting threads, but they don't have such accurate and funny titles.

[KittyWampus]

23. Heh, Someone Needs To Start A Nader Bashing Thread

sidenote: imitating the whiners and Democrat bashers is REALLY easy for disruptors.

[Nothing Without Hope]

34. Yes, that's true, especially with passions running so high.

We're easy pickings.

[Lexingtonian]

57. Hysterical Selfdefeating Idiocy & Infighting Forum

Perpetually Reliving The 2004 Primaries Ridiculous Idiocy Forum

Ourrr-ha Catfight & Monkeys Throwing Guacamole-Colored Poop Forum

The Time-Out Room For Our Youngsters

The Ralph Nader Memorial Selfmutilation Arena

The Screaming For Attention and Whiny Know-It-All Snakepit

[jswordy]

5. Naaaah...the whole damn place is one big vent...

...and it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. Amusing, tho. Passes the time. At sporadic times, informative. That's about it.

Please don't take it too seriously.

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. Oh, I disagree. I think we need to take DU seriously.

It and the other internet-based activist communities have already accomplished important things and are, in my view, potentially vital players in the work ahead. We can't trust the corporate media, so who else is left to get the word out?

Germany in the time of Hitler didn't have an internet, and it went under to the fascists and the controlled press. I'm hoping that the fact that we DO have an internet (though I am sure it will be attacked) can be made to count big-time in the years ahead.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Alot of my venting today has to do with the fact that I believe many of

the Dems that voted for Rice's confirmation are leading us towards that fascism along with with the ** gang. I don't trust them, and I wish people will wake up to the fact that our government isn't our own anymore. Once that realization sinks in, then we can problem solve.

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. I think we should problem-solve about how to wake people up

Including the ones that don't use the internet. Since the corporate media are largely compliant to the blivet**, I believe internet-based progressive activists like us should try to find ways to get the word out more effectively.

Because I agree -- until the "people" wake up and bring pressure, members of Congress are going to be less likely to fight even if they see the precipice ahead.

By the way, the judicary committee narrowly passed Gonzales along party lines. Many of the Dems that voted FOR Rice are going to vote AGAINST Gonzales.

[Demit]

8. I don't see any problem with the ranting. I can ignore it if I like.

Besides, why shouldn't the various rantees see what effect their actions have on the rank-and-file? Why should we hold it in? Elected Dems--as well as the rest of us in the peanut gallery--should observe what elicits strong emotion, what people are passionate about. It might help inform their agenda.

We have to work with these people? Of course we do. And we will, and we are. Partly by getting them to hear what we're saying here.

I have every expectation that the folks who are ranting in this venue would have a different tone if they were in the same room as Clinton and Leahy and Obama. Because that would be a different kind of venue. I don't think DU has to have the same tone as a think tank boardroom. JMO.

[orthogonal]

9. "Shut up and support the party"

"Shut up and support the party" is not what democracy is about.

[JoshK]

12. You can't "work with these people to save this country" if the

very people you are talking about are sellouts who roll over repeatedly for immoral wars, lying torture-proponents as AG, and lying fear-mongerers as SofS.

There is a time when being shrill about sellouts and cowards is the only justifiable position to take. That time has come.

[Bluebear]

14. JoshK welcome to DU

Good to have your voice here.

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. Obama is going to be in the senate for six years

I am angry that he voted for Rice, but I am not going to send him an email that calls him names. I WILL send him an email that lists the reasons why I believe his vote was wrong. I do not plan to shut up, but I don't think shrillness is a convincing approach to persuasion. For the next six years, he will need to be persuaded to vote the right ways.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Your blandishments

are totally unconvincing. Don't you realise the die-hards here expect you to throw them a few bones, before you try and subvert the cause. It's so transparent.

"For the next six years, he will need to be persuaded to vote the right ways".

Someone once described "appeasement" as negotiating from a position of weakness. A wonderful strategy!

Personally, I'm still a little inclined to give the likes of Barak and others the benefit of the doubt, provided they make trouble all the time. This, on the grounds that when the election lawsuits start making the news and things keep going "the way of the pear" at home and broad, (our financial people are scared *less that a dramatic fall of the dollar will mean a major crisis for the world); when these things come down the pike (love that word of yours ), I would expect them to really put the boot in then.

[Nothing Without Hope]

33. It's not "transparent" to me. How am I "subverting the cause"?

Your blandishments are totally unconvincing. Don't you realise the die-hards here expect you to throw them a few bones, before you try and subvert the cause. It's so transparent.

I'm not sure of what you're accusing me of, or if you're accusing me of nothing and I've misunderstood you. I'd appreciate some clarification.

[MoonRiver]

15. I don't think Clinton and Leahy and Obama are demons.

I just believe they are unacceptable leaders for the New Progressive Democratic Party. No DINOs allowed.

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. They will probably vote against Gonzales

The Senate judiciary committee just passed him with a narrow vote along party lines. The full vote will be closer than it was for Rice, though the Repub majority may well prevail.

It's not black and white. Obama is going to be there for six years. I'm all for more progressive people in the Congress, but we also have to work at keeping the pressure on the ones that are there now. That includes continuing to send them information and evidence and clearly stating the case for what we want him to do. Also thanking for a "good" vote, publicizing, everything we can think of. I don't think insults are helpful.

[MoonRiver]

20. I hope they do vote against him.

That will definitely improve my impressions of them. But, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I plan to call it a duck. If they prove me wrong I'll be quite happy to retract my statement.

[Nothing Without Hope]

22. Here's a report of the committee Gonzales vote. It was 10-8.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=1278&e=6&u=/nm/20050126/pl_nm/congress_gonzales_dc

If this translates to the full Senate vote, there will be a LOT more "nay" votes to Gonzales than there were to Rice.

[KittyWampus]

24. How About You Find An Island Somewheres Where Your Ideal Party

can rule without any opposition. There'll be rainbows and unicorns and ice cream 24 hours a day.

[MoonRiver]

27. I'll settle for a party that can win. The DLCers apparently CANNOT.

[cali]

53. This is making me crazy

If not Pat Leahy, who? Voted against IWR- and made an incredibly powerful and damning speech comparing it to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Voted against Ashcroft and yesterday voted against Gonzales. Led and continues to lead the fight to ban land mines. Filibustered bushco's right wingnut judicial nominations. Consistently, over his 30 year tenure in the Senate, rated as one of the most liberal Senators. He's far, far more progressive than my other Senator, Jeffords, who voted against Rice.

[John_H]

17. It would save the RNC and the MSM some work.

The whores could moreeasily find the posts of the RNC operatives over here to generate those (Dem Internet Activists Lose Faith in Party stories that will start popping up soon.

[KissMeKate]

21. message: dont EVER get angry

Dont ever get angry at a democrat, no matter how much they dissappoint you, no matter how much they sell out, no matter that the vote they just made was completely and fundamentally without honor.

Be Sweet, accept the bad behavior, all for the sake of not upsetting other people who dont actually have to read your posts, if they really dont want to.

Above all, Dont hold sellouts accountable!

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. That isn't the message I intend. OF COURSE we get angry

What I am trying to say is that venting rage in some venues above some level can become counterproductive. I had a sense that for me, that level was exceeded today on the DU board and I decided to post my opinion about this. I'm not invoking the thought police here, let alone telling people that they shouldn't be angry about the Rice vote--I am furious myself. I did see a number of posts today from people who were saying things like "where do the adults post?" There were signs of people being turned off by the tone and content of the boards. And I realized that I was being turned off too by all the name calling and extreme language.

Consider: Obama is going to be a Senator for at least 6 more years. I don't believe he is a bad man. We need to apply pressure (in the form of reasoned arguments, evidence, and clearly --but professionally -- worded letters/emails) and praise when it is appropriate to push him to vote the way we think is right. I don't think sending him hate-filled emails is going to make him listen.

Today the Judiciary Committee narrowly passed Gonzales 10-8, a lot closer than it was for Rice. The vote was along party lines. If the full Senate does the same, then a lot of the Dems we are excoriating for voting for Rice will be voting AGAINST Gonzales. It's not black and white, and we need all the help we can get.

We progressives are currently a minority and we need to be clever and efficient in figuring out how to turn things around. We can't get rid of Obama or the other Dems that voted for Rice overnight and we can't ignore them while they are in office. For myself, I'd rather have Obama than the man he defeated, Alan Keyes. Let's do what we can with what we have to deal with now.

[KissMeKate]

35. accountability - not false choices.

If he refuses to represent truth and justice, he needs to be held acountable- publicly. Period.

"hes a good man" you say- fine. Lets make him a better one by not letting him off the hook when he votes foir people who lied to get us into war.

The Democrats will continue to roll over until we start holding them accountable for their actions.

Going easy and polite isnt getting us OR the democrats anywhere.

In one paragraph you said, "its not black and white", and then the last paragraph, you presented a black and white (either/or) argument- either Obama (who sold truth out by voting to confirm rice) OR Alan Keyes.

which is it? Either its black and white, or not. If Obama turns out to be another Hillary Clinton, we will be completely justified in calling him out- repeatedly, and publicly, until he has the courage to vote against perople like Condoleeza Rice. That doesnt mean we have to make the *false choice* of "Obama or a republican"- We can choose more representative and courageous democrats.

[Nothing Without Hope]

39. Yes, he needs to be held accountable.

Of COURSE he needs to be held accountable. But what is the best way to do this? I don't think namecalling helps. But pressure needs to be applied through emails and other routes to make it clear when we agree and when we disagree with what he does. It's not the content, it's the TONE I'm talking about here.

Until his six-year term is up, Obama is part of the reality we have to deal with. We have to deal with him and the other members of Congress in ways that are most effective. I am not knowlegable or connected enough to be able to suggest an ideal list of these other than emails and faxes and letters and published articles and all the other standard things we do. I would welcome a discussion in which people who are more in the loop than I am can advise us on what techniques of persuasion work best and which ones don't.

[KissMeKate]

43. grassroots expressions of anger

this is not the political networking express board for everyone here- sometimes people feel frustrated and powerless- that manifests itself in anger. anger is a good thing- it tells us, just like pain does, that someone is hurting us.

The "fuck this or that democrat" threads have their place on a board of this kind. Everyone starts somewhere. Those people will move on past that catharsis into activism- but messages to moderate tone on a grassroots board like this might just stifle them.


Sometimes getting angry is all a base has. (at first, at least.)

Perhaps a simple encouragement and reminder to people that they can express their anger to the people who are supposed to represent them will do- I dont think a "stop saying bad words" message will do anything but make those people angry at you.

[Vinca]

25. The real (and most important) question is:

what on earth would make these Senators vote in favor of Condi? Yes, she's well educated. Yes, she's technically qualified. Yes, she's an attractive, amiable woman. BUT she has lied on more than one occasion to the American people. She has abetted an effort to snow job the Congress and the people into an illegal and immoral war. I'm angry, ashamed and puzzled. You don't award dishonest people with promotions and medals, no matter what the monarchy thinks.

[Sleepless In NY]

29. Hillary has been a disappointment for four years

What's to work with? In almost 4 years I have yet to see her stand up for NY against bush. Not once. You let it go and you let it go & you keep hoping she'll do something. After awhile you realize she never will. Today was just one more of those days. I'm learning, quite sadly, that Hillary does whatever is best for Hillary. Schumer is the same. I don't think we are doing ourselves or anyone else a favor, by continuing to support democrats that dont represent us. They take us for granted, well not anymore. If we never complain, never voice our anger, they will think no matter what they do, they will still get our support because of the (D) behind their names. Except for 12 democrats today, I'm ashamed of this roll over party.

[Nothing Without Hope]

32. Here's what Biden said on Sunday

in a Sunday interview:

He said he would vote for Rice to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state because "she's an honorable person" and a president "gets the chance to pick the person who he thinks will implement his policies."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1176704

Who knows? Maybe he even believes it, though it's hard for me to see how. Let's see what he does with the Gonzales vote. In tha same article he said he was "leaning against" confirming Gonzales, which is encouraging at the same time it is infuriating -- how can one merely LEAN AGAINST the corrupt torture enabler for the top legal position in the country? Judging by the narrow party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee today, many who voted for Rice will vote against Gonzales.

It's possible some of the people voting for Rice are signalling that they think Gonzales is even worse. They know that despite their votes, the Repub majority will confirm both and so they may be picking a single fight to make this point. (I can't agree with this reasoning, if it is true, but it might go a bit more toward explaining some of the Rice votes.)

[Walt Starr]

30. Clinton and Leahy and Obama are not now demons incarnate

I disagree with 1/3 of this. Clinton is.

[OneBlueSky]

31. dammit, I'm a Democrat for a reason . . .

and that reason is currently to oppose the worst and most dangerous maladministration in US history . . . and when my so-called "representatives" do nothing but continually enable said maladministration, I get more than pissed . . . unless they get their act together and start acting like Democrats (you know, for the people, against the special interests), I say fuck 'em all . . .

[snippy]

36. Good post. I would rather defeat republicans than have a democratic party

exactly to my liking. Attacking democrats for doing something I disagree with does nothing to defeat republicans. If democrats ever regain control of all or part of the federal government during my lifetime I may become more concerned about the direction of the democratic party. Until such time I will support most democrats regardless of how they vote on a particular matter. Defeating a corrupt and dangerous majority party is more important than having a perfect, non-diverse, minority party.

[Nothing Without Hope]

41. Thank you.

That sums up the way I feel, too. We have to deal with the reality we have as well as we can because it IS what we have. Unless we visit some sunny alternate reality -- and how tempting that would be -- we are in a nonideal situation here. If we go and pout in a corner because this reality isn't perfect, we cannot make an impact. Or we may even make a negative impact. As I said elsewhere, it's hard enough to keep spirits up and mind focussed on what to do to get the country out of this mess.

I admit, reading your post was something of a relief. I was shocked to be told I was using "blandishments" to "subvert the cause," if I understood that upthread post correctly. When passions are running this high, it's hard to think clearly enough to make workable plans. Without workable plans, what can we do but whine and curse? Neither appeals to me and neither will get us even one step closer to the goals most of us share.

[Nothing Without Hope]

37. Suggested reading: what Feingold said in voting AGAINST Gonzales

I can't agree with his justification for voting FOR Rice, but what he says about Gonzales is right on target and to my mind, encouraging. In effect, in his voting he is saying that Gonzales is worse than Rice.

His on-record remarks on Gonzales should be read by everyone who thinks that the Dems voting yes on Rice are nothing but "total sellouts" on every issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1186534#1186583

[izzybeans]

38. As long as the forum is named something purely ironic

it may even stop the cherry picking. I loved the name mentioned above "Counter-productive infighting forum" or perhaps "Cherry-pick This Forum". That way people can vent and no one can mistake it for something it's not. If NYTimes runs an article on the crazy DU'ers and all our crazy first response reactions are directed into the Cherry Pick this forum the possibilities for an effective retort are endless. STarting with this: "uhh...well those quotations did come from the Counter productive Infighting Forum. So stop your cherry picking and come participate if you want to know what it's really like. I did. Feels good. Love it. Bye"

[donheld]

40. Aw Pat Schroeder

Now there was a fighter.

[Nothing Without Hope]

42. Yes, and I love her way with a phrase

 "For nearly a quarter century Pat Schroeder has been the dean of feminists in Congress," Gandy said. "Her distinct combination of feminist passion, quick wit and political savvy are irreplaceable. Who can ever forget her calling former President Reagan, the Teflon president?' She sure made that one stick. And in typical Schroeder style, she pointed out that some men think harass' is two words."
http://www.now.org/nnt/01-96/pat.html

[zann725]

50. Sure miss her!

n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

44. Nah...we will all calm down. These things need to be hashed out.

Even if it gets bloody. Some just need thicker skins. It took me a while to grow one. :hi: And yes, anyone who voted for Condi is on my shit list. Anyone who disagrees with me can lump it. A grave disservice was done to us by our "representatives". Sorry.

[Nothing Without Hope]

45. a kick for the night crowd n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. and one last kick for the late night crowd n/t

[BootinUp]

47. Stop Kicking Already!! Dammit ;-)

[DFLforever]

48. DU IS a venting room

Nowhere in the actual world could one get away with some of the comments and insults that fly by here daily.

[orleans]

49. Obama, Durbin & my two cents

Obama had plenty of "political capitol". granted, he's new--but he won by a LANDSLIDE in illinois, he's got 6 years to make up to anyone he may have distressed by voting against Rice, and he is the supposed "shining star" of the democratic party; those distressed would have forgiven him.

he could have/should have voted on principle. it's an ethics thing--a moral thing. and he certainly had enough "political capitol" to spend.

Durbin, on the other hand...
from what i understand, he's trying to get money from the administration for the sucky roads in illinois, he's got a couple cakes in the oven that he doesn't want to burn...
And he voted NO! Hooray!

I sent Durbin multiple thank yous (all in one email), and I also sent Obama a note telling him how terribly disappointed I was and explaining why.

I'm also sending the other senators thank yous who voted no, and sending brief notes to the handful of others who I felt disappointed in their vote such as clinton, biden, dodd, & feingold.

Of course we need to let these people know what we expect of them. Why should we just let them guess how we're thinking?

As for the "New Progressive Democratic Party"...I like it--kinda long though. What about ProgDems or simply "The Progressive Party" which retains the moral standards/values of the old democratic party while combining it with a kick that is edgy enough to cut through the bullshit and liberate ourselves from our current constraints? Or what about the Liberation Party?

[Nothing Without Hope]

55. I like what you wrote - and I like "Progressive Democrats" or "ProgDems"

Despite the huge problems with the often backwards-looking, overcautious (I'm choosing a polite word here but it is an understatement) current Democratic Party, I still feel that tranferring all progressive efforts into a third party would be mistake at this time. If the country were relatively safe so that an election or two more might pass before the need for a consolidated effort with successful candidates were essential, then I might go for it. But we are against the wall here, hanging by a thread, in the act of going over the precipice. Choose the metaphor you want -- the country is in crisis by any criterion you name.

So I think it's best to do a Democratic Party makeover, including heart, brain and spine transplants. The makeover would be so thorough and so directed, I do think using a new name to demonstrate the people doing it and the direction they are headed is an important move. I like "Progressive Democrats," or as you suggest "ProgDems." The word "Liberal," when you think about it, really doesn't describe what we are about. We are about progressing into the future, not sliding back into 30's Germany or 50's-60's America.

Some of the posters in this thread seem to believe that I am urging either (1) holding back any sense of anger or urgency, and/or (2) trying to stifle the free expression of ideas in order to bolster, presumably, the same-old-same-old Democratic Party in the current, frustratingly "flawed" (another polite understatement) form.

NO WAY, NO HOW.

What I am arguing for is PLANNED, ORGANIZED ACTION rather than whining, hand-wringing and empty name-calling. The actions you describe in your post to put pressure on officials are much more likely to accomplish something than emailing them insults or disrupting threads on this board with useless bashing that is only empty venting. We can push our ideas and discourage backsliding, but insults and whining are not going to acomplish that. They are also easily taken advantage of by freepers and disruptors, who love to step in and derail what could be productive discussions that could produce workable plans.

Yet we do need venting, because we are angry and frustrated and no one can be "adult" all the time. So what to do? Maybe it's not such a bad idea to have a Ranting Room, named something ironic that makes it clear what it is. People there could scream and gnash their teeth and act as juvenile as they can stand about the public figures and news that are so infuriating. Get it out of their system. And then come back to the "adult" threads and get back to work.

Progressive Democrats. "ProgDems" may be noneuphonious, but it's what we are unless we totally jump ship and try to sail in a new little boat. Frankly, I think the water is too dangerous for that.

[LibertyorDeath]

51. future????

You mean the one the Corporatists Oligarchs & Fascists have planned for America the one that's being implemented right now as I type this.

That future. Rice is a disgrace to the office of Secretary of State

She is a sycophantic yes Man for Der Führer

I can hear them laughing all the way from Europe!

[Nothing Without Hope]

56. We have to FIGHT for the future.

Yes, Rice is a travesty. Incompetent, a proven liar, not trusted by anyone in the world, an enabler and apologist for the blivet**'s worst excesses. I call her the Stepfordwife of State whenI have to refertoher at all. But, amazingly, many in the Congress still say they think she is an honorable person. This is something I cannot understand and, in fact, do not believe. I think they chose not to fight Rice for other reasons

The fight to oppose Gonzales is shaping up to be a lot more fierce, as if many of the Dem Senators are picking THIS fight rather than the one with Rice as the more important. The vote in the juciciary committee on Gonzales was close and along party lines. I also gave a link upthread to what Sen. Russ Feingold put into the Congressional REcord with his NO vote on Gonzales -- I cannot agree with his views on Rice, but he does hit the mark on Gonzales.

If we decide that it's all over, it's too late to fight, the fascists have already won, then they DO win. In fact, that is exactly the goal of many of the troll disruptors in DU threads. Why do their work for them?

I believe that it is disastrous to give up the fight now. We have to look forward and plot strategy and work for each future fight. And there is evidence every day that progress is being made.

[tngledwebb]

52. Call it as we see it. MSM and pols be damned. Call a liar a liar and

call it like it is. This can be done w/o making it too personal but sometimes the line grows fuzzy. In that event the truth, however one sees it, should take precedence. Sticks and stones etc...

If only MSM and Dem pols had done the same the past decade or more, we might not be trapped in this nightmare.

[Nothing Without Hope]

58. Yes, Rice is absolutely a liar and it was good to hear her called one

Even though it was in more polite language in the Senate hearing, the meaning was clear.

I am not saying we should hold back from the truth. I'm saying that when name-calling and expressions of disgust and despair rise over some level, it becomes harder to think positively and constructively of how to fight most effectively. The trolls know this and often chime in to say how hopeless our cause is or blast Dem Congress members in such a way as to close off all possibility of any productive interaction.

There's a time when venting and ranting is useful as a therapeutic release of frustration and rage. Maybe it wouldn't be such a stupid idea to have clearly labeled threads set aside for this.

[earth mom]

54. Venting IS therapeutic

and frankly sitting back and rolling over hasn't gotten the dems anywhere lately has it? Getting angry is what it takes to mobilize people to act and work towards change and that's a helluva lot better than passive acceptance. Expecting and demanding more from those who were elected to work FOR the people shouldn't be put on the back burner because someone else is distracted or annoyed by it.

IMO, the dems aren't fighting hard enough, loud enough, or mean enough. We could all use a lot more fire on our azzes and a lot less tip toeing around in order to get the results we want. How we get there is NOT as important as getting there.