So...am I to get this correct. If I am not a "Good German", then I am NOT a "Good Democrat"

[Horse with no Name]

I see.
I also see how well that has worked in the past history of the world. If nothing else...perhaps some historians can have a field day figuring out how we jumped from the fat to the fire simply with blind loyalty and rhetoric.

In real life, where it REALLY matters...people ARE discussing politics.
People know that I am active and they want ME to reassure THEM that there is something besides smoke and mirrors to obama's campaign.
I assure them that as soon as I see some "there" there...I will let them know because all I have seen to date is platitudes and promises. Neither of which pays the bills. He is a good speechifyer. However, without a teleprompter, he falls into a heap of "uh uh uh". That is disconcerting to me. To his faithful, it it seen as being thoughtful and precise and you all make excuses for it.

Some of the same traits that I have criticized bush about are present in obama. I sincerely hope he figures out how to make that comparison go away, because it is out there in the real world...although obama-friendly blogs tend not to talk about it and gang up on anyone that does...the people that he NEEDS to persuade ARE talking about it and it concerns them.

What is so frustrating is that those of us who see a lack of substance have had their opinions and discourse shut down by a very well-oiled obama blogging machine. We weren't allowed to ask the questions PRIOR to his nomination, and now we are threatened with out very existence in our online communities if we question it now.

I WILL work on solidifying a progressive Congress and vote for those who will pursue a progressive agenda. I will do this no matter WHICH party comes into power into the executive branch. What I will NOT do, however, is vote for someone that claims to be a Democrat whose actions are antithetical to the core beliefs of our party. Is it NOT in the best interest of the "party" to assure that the core sacred values are protected...at all costs...even when the attack is from within?

HOWEVER, no longer will I vote for someone simply because they have a (D) after their name. As I accused the republicans of...I will NOT put party before country again. I will work my ass of to vote in TRIED and TRUE progressives and not their elitist counterparts. The "Blue Dogs" have killed ANY progressive legislation simply by ganging up on OUR party from within. How is that good for ANYONE?
To not be true to MYSELF and MY belief system may turn out in the long run to be harmful if not downright treasonous to my country.
Given the choice and what is at stake...I would vote for a Lincoln Chafee anyday if my other choice is Joe Lieberman.
However, give me a Maxine Waters and there is really no contest of who would get my vote.

I am a Democrat and I live in an area where politicians run as Democrats because the locals wouldn't vote for a republican...no matter what. So what you have are opportunists who are republicans that run as Democrats. Republicans are slimy...and will do ANYTHING to win. That is WHY party before country is never a good idea. We have brought too many republicans into the fold under THAT premise because the republicans KNOW that is what we do so they use it to their advantage.

[redqueen]

1. Tell us more about how Obama is like Bush.

Please... explain that.

[saracat]

2. Setting a trap?Horse does not need to answer that question.

[kelligesq]

3. Amen Horse. You have expressed my thoughts beautifully. We

can thank Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel for bringing in the blue dogs - who vote with Republicans.

I'm in Florida and like a jerk worked to have Mahoney elected, knowing nothing about him, as did Move-On know nothing about him who supplied the phone numbers to call. Turns out he was a republican turned Democrat at Nancy's request and now says he owes the Democrats nothing.

Someone made a good suggestion - we need a third and fourth party even - take the extremists from both ends of the Dem party - start their own parties. The Dem party wants to move to the right which they now call the middle. Okay. Liberals on the left form your own party.
Lieberman/Blue Dogs form your own party on the other side.

It's time.

[kelligesq]

4. Newsflash: 3:50 PM report that Obama has had big meeting with top Evanelicals.

Who wanted to know how Obama is like Bush ?

[Andrea]

5. What is considered left now, would have been

considered moderate or even right 30 years ago. What is considered right now, would have been considered fascist 30 years ago.

[kelligesq]

16. Yep, Andrea, you're right - errh - correct :)

[Andrea]

6. BTW, you do know where you can express these ideas

more freely, right?

[kelligesq]

15. Yes Andrea, but

if you read the Guardian article, I'd be inclined to suggest you email people individually instead of posting the site.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

[Andrea]

17. Link won't work

I REALLY want to read this article. Can you try again, please?

[Two Americas]

7. an odd thing

Saying that we do not have freedom of speech is not allowed - because we are wrong when we say that free speech is not allowed, and we are not allowed to say things that are wrong, and prohibiting people from saying things that are wrong is not suppression of free speech and anyone saying that it is will be suppressed.

[balantz]

8. Sometimes I just can't follow your meaning.

Could you lay that out differently for my tired eyes, please TA?

[Two Americas]

9. lol

Well I was being sarcastic, sorry.

"There is no suppression of free speech around here, and anyone saying otherwise will be silenced."

[balantz]

10. Geez

I think it's time for a nap

[Two Americas]

11. for me you mean?

lol.

I am distracted here and not being very clear probably.

[balantz]

12. Ha ha ha ha ha!

No, for me TA. Sorry, I really meant for me, I didn't sleep well and the temp is at 104 today and the AC is having problems.

Time for a nappy nap...for me!

[kelligesq]

14. TA

Isn't that how the German National Socialist Party started?

Blind Followers, censorship

And we all know how that ended up.

Have you read this Guardian article


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

guess they've been operating here for quite some time.

tell me how that's different than what Dick Cheney did - had done.

Shhhhh- you are being watched - yavohl

[cornermouse]

13. Arghhhhhhhh.

And I'll probably get in trouble for replying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6337880&mesg_id=6339707

No ethics. No principles. Short term thinking only. Aghhhhhh! :banghead:

[Two Americas]

18. kick

Kicked and saved.

[kelligesq]

19. what a good writer