I'm really pleased to see that Both Parties are the Same thinking has set in here

[bryant69]

As a Secret Freeper, dedicated to thwarting Democratic and Liberal ambitions, it's great to see you guys falling for this old gag. I thought this gravy train had ended after 2000 exposed the inherent weakness in assuming Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same, but apparently not. Thank goodness.

So remember, Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same - you may as well stay home on election day or vote for some no-hope third partier who "reflects your values."

This message brought to you by the letters F,R,E,E,P,E, and R.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. ...

:evilgrin:

[gatorboy]

2. Who are you and what did you do with Bryant's poll?

[bryant69]

4. I don't always do polls - just most of the time. n/t

[mdmc]

3. The dems will always be better then the GOP alternative

But we could do a whole fucking lot better. The next president (imho, HRC) will continue with a neo-con foreign policy. I doubt the sheeple will be tired of corporate neo-con policies in 4, 8, or 12 years.

But, perhaps in my lifetime, the left will get a fair shake. Perhaps we will get a real deal sometime in the future.:shrug:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Tesha]

32. Why di LA go Repub? Ethnic cleansing. That was the grand plan and it worked. (NT)

[TwilightZone]

5. Then, you'll love this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3859715&mesg_id=3859715

[Occam Bandage]

10. Grandstanding, most likely. Their tune will change after the nominee is set.

[yardwork]

54. Babies.

[King Coal]

6. Intolerant and hypocritical. What a surprise.

[bryant69]

8. I'm intolerant of people who don't support the Democratic Party

What's the name of this website again?

Bryant

[TheWatcher]

105. No you are intolerant of anyone who questions things and seeks the Truth

No matter where it may lie.

You want Blind Party Loyalty, not Democracy.

What's laughable is how you wear the Neon Sign of Hypocrite so proudly.

[DivorcingNeo]

115. Agreed, they are just as Hypocritical

My friend and I had a discussion last night about the current state of politics and it was agreed that the Democrats are hide behind false liberalism. In that, I mean, pretend like you want to do something about the issues but you really don't care. Just sweep it off to the side with empty gestures and lip service. The Republicans let you know what they disdain, why and that they wish to do little about it.

The Dems, just like their current leading candidate, are simply disingenuous.

I'm put off by both parties and no I don't overall believe they are looking out for their wider constituents...only themselves.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Nowhere in anywhere has it ever been suggested that one

is morally bound to tolerate destructive viewpoints. If someone were to say, "I plan on working against the Democrats, because the surge is working and they would weaken America," they would rightfully not belong here. I have a hard time understanding why "I plan on working against the Democrats, because they have not yet accomplished political impossibilities" is much better.

[TheWatcher]

107. Questioning your leaders when they are clearly not representing you is destructive behavior?

Once again, your willful ignorance does not trump the justification of those who legitimately question.

Nor will it shut us up.

[yardwork]

55. You want to see intolerant and hypocritical, catch the Supreme Court if another Rethug is selected.

[Bandit]

7. There are indeed times when I don't think you are kidding

You are definitely one of the most right wing members on this board..IMO Please tell us how you think 70 members of the Senate voting for more death and destruction as being an opposition party in anything other than rhetoric

[bryant69]

9. I am only right wing in comparison, incidentally. n/t

[spanone]

11. i support the democratic party...i support my family too....but not everything they do

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. It's such a quaint idea for people to think that their votes belong to them instead of a party.

But, there are some of us who still subscribe to the notion.


"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[bryant69]

14. Exactly - I hope you do choose to vote for a no-hoper.

You have every right to, and to pat yourself on the back as Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani takes us to war against Iran.

Bryant

[Occam Bandage]

16. It worked very well in 2000. The Naderites are very proud of their Iraq war, I'm sure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. How about the Democrats who voted for Bush because Gore was "too liberal"?

Despite Gore's attempts to move to the "middle".

[bryant69]

20. How many did that?

What kind of numbers are we talking about, compared to the number of "purists" who moved over to Nader?

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. "Purists"? From someone who demands party loyalty?

Such irony.

[bryant69]

22. I apologize for my terminology. I must point out, however, that you didn't answer my question.

I don't demand party loyalty - didn't you read my OP? I am strongly in favor of party disloyalty as a means of ensuring continued Republican success. But if you are saying a lot of Democrats are potential Guiliani supporters - well maybe that's an avenue to explore as well. So how many Democrats went for Bush, compared to those who went for Nader?

Bryant

[King Coal]

27. God, that is funny coming from you. You only answer questions that don't require logic.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[bryant69]

58. Apparently saying Fuck Off is not allowed

So let's try again.

If you have something meaningful to say, say it, you . . . well I guess I will leave that part out. If you don't have anything meaningful to say, why don't you not bother posting.

Bryant

[Forkboy]

78. Gee, imagine that.

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Beats me.

But, according to the figures of the election as a whole, it's pretty obvious that a lot of Democrats did vote for Boobya.

The votes of the left are available to the Democrats. If they seek them instead of their usual attempts to woo the right.

Alas, they are afraid of being seen as "too liberal".

[bryant69]

31. I think they are attempting to woo the middle

Not the right.

And at any rate Edwards shows you can run a substantive campaign which upholds liberal values and yet reaches out to the mass of America.

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Much of the "middle" is the right from my perspective.

But, I've grown accustomed to holding my nose and Edwards may not trigger the pain endurance limits that some of the candidates do.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

[bryant69]

43. Well Moderate means two things but that's a longer discussion

Suffice it to say that I personally don't pick a conservative position and a liberal position and arbitrarily pick the position right in the middle.

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Indeed. Perspective is everything.

And, even such designations as "liberal", "conservative", "moderate", "left", "right", are dependent on ones perspective and are frequently all-too-easy to apply labels.

As I see it, the system itself is corrupt and the question is to what extent am I willing to cooperate with it.

On many issues I am willing to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils or the "not as bad" candidate.

But, I reserve the right to do otherwise if the candidates go beyond the bounds of common decency to achieve their ambitions.

[Desertrose]

95. ...and if we didn't have Nader, who would you blame?

What if a bit of party disloyalty might just improve the party?

Why would it ensure Repub success?

[redqueen]

38. *sigh*

[TahitiNut]

50. Don't knock it. Without "party loyalty" the GOP wouldn't be where it is today.

:shrug: The three or four strongest poltical parties in the world during the 20th Century relied heavily on "party loyalty." :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

23. Ah, from here I can go in two directions.

Either I can ask what the hell that has to do with DU, or I can point out that there are indeed large blocs of centrist and conservative Democrats (far, far larger than the lefties that call themselves the "base"), and that keeping them in the fold is more valuable than keeping the insignificant, foot-shooting-malcontent brigade.

Decisions, decisions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. I certainly agree that the "left" isn't the base of the Party.

And, it's influence on the party is highly exaggerated by the rightwing of the party. All too obviously the party agrees with you about their value.

[TahitiNut]

51. Really? "Far, far larger than the lefties that call themselves the 'base'"??

So, what's the problem then? :shrug: If that's the case, who needs 'em? If that's the case, Nader was and is inconsequential, and doen't merit much attention at all ... and the Green Party poses no significant threat to the Democratic Party.

Besides, the Democratic Party can get far more voters from the right than it loses on the left, correct?

Go for it. :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

53. As 2000 demonstrated, every vote is essential.

According to the post to which I was replying, 2000 also demonstrated that tacking to the left would be disastrous. I don't think the two conflict in any way.

[TahitiNut]

56. Been reading entrails again?

:rofl:

Funny ... "tacking to the left would be disastrous" sounds virtually identical to "stay the course." It's every bit as drain-bamaged, too. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

62. Just going by what the post said.

That there were larger numbers of dissatisfied defectors on the right than the left. Is that untrue?

[Leopolds Ghost]

116. Every vote is essential to who? If lefties are irrelevant to most Dems (true) then why do you care

Who they vote for and why should they vote for you and your'n?

[TheWatcher]

108. Your willful ignorance also seems to blind you that Gore Actually Won.

The 2000 Election was stolen, as was 2004.

But that just doesn't fit with Pleasantville, does it?

[Occam Bandage]

110. They couldn't have stolen it without Ralph and his Enablin' Crew.

One percent--ONE FUCKING PERCENT--of Nader's FL total would have given FL to Gore, despite all the GOP tricks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Thank you for your permission. And, get back to me if my vote decides the election.

But, you'd be better to pat the backs of Democratic candidates trying to be Republicans.

[hfojvt]

101. you know what a no hoper is?

Any Democrat running for President in Kansas.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Quaint indeed.

The Founding Fathers were terrified that "factions" and parties would take over their political system. Their fears were justified within a generation. Your vote belongs to you, sure: you can choose to help the right-wing party, the left-wing party, or you can abstain. Until we get IRV, those are the choices.

[redqueen]

36. There is no left-wing party. (nt)

[Occam Bandage]

39. And hardcore right-wingers believe there is no right-wing party.

[redqueen]

40. So?

Do you think they're correct?

Do you think I'm mistaken, and there is a left-wing party?

[Occam Bandage]

44. You are both incorrect for the same reason.

[redqueen]

45. What reason is that?

From my perspective, the political landscape in this country has shifted so far to the right it's impossible to miss.

[Occam Bandage]

57. From their perspective, the political landscape in this country has shifted so far to the left,

etc., etc.

Extremists believe they are the true soul of the country; that this is a land founded to fulfill their views. They are incapable of drawing meaningful distinctions between both major parties, and especially incapable of drawing distinctions between the opposing major party and the extremists on the side of said party. They believe that both major parties are sellouts to the other side.

From your perspective, the landscape is shifting right. From their perspective, it's shifting left. Why? Because shifts are continuously occurring, and the perceptions of extremists are skewed (though they insist they're the only ones who can see clearly). When things go in their direction, they see it as natural and scarcely notice. When things go against them, they see it as proof the world's going to hell. When things stay the same, they see it as inconsequential or as proof of (R/L)W domination, depending whether it aligns with them or not (such is the cause of conspiracies of Liberal/Conservative MSM).

[redqueen]

60. Do you not believe there is an objective reality?

As I said below... we still have people who can't get medical care because they can't afford it.

Still think there's any justification at all for the idiot right's mindset?

Still think my perspective is just my perspective, and has nothing to do with objective reality?

[Occam Bandage]

61. Yes.

Yes.
Yes.

[redqueen]

63. Wow.

All-righty, then.

[Occam Bandage]

69. I believe your perspective is entirely grounded in objective reality.

It is grounded in your interpretation of objective reality. The same is true of the right wing. The same is true of myself. To suggest that any ideology is simply a mass delusion is overly simplistic and politically dangerous.

I believe the ideology (most likely) shared by you and me is one that naturally leads to better policies, and is one that would be beneficial to spread. I also believe the Democratic party would further that ideology, albeit not as effectively as a number of third parties.

[NeedleCast]

117. I nominate this for Post of the Year

Cheers to you sir. Very well said.

[Marrah_G]

46. I think there are extremes on both sides

And I think those extremes do not see themselves as extreme, but they do see the other side as extreme.

[redqueen]

47. I think the fact that we still have sick people who can't afford treatment

puts the lie to the "both extremes are the same" BS.

[Marrah_G]

64. What?

I'm trying to figure out your post. What the hell do sick people have to do with this conversation?

No one said both extremes are the same. What was said is that both extremes EXIST and both extremes rarely see themselves as part of that extreme. There is no judgment in that statement.

Personally I would rather see the left extremes succeed then the right extremes ( which frankly scare the crap out of me).

[redqueen]

65. If we had a left-wing party we'd have what every other modern country does.

Universal, single-payer care.

We don't, and we don't.

[Marrah_G]

66. Okay then......

Since we are obviously having 2 completely different conversation I am going to say by good-byes. Besides it's just about time for me to leave the office for the day.

[redqueen]

67. Not a different conversation at all.

I provided an example which demonstrates my reasoning when I say we have NO left-wing party.

You're welcome to give me an example to counter that, if you can.

[Marrah_G]

70. No, we really, we aren't having the same conversation.

Not having universal single payor health care yet has nothing to do with each party having it's more extreme supporters.

Have a nice day.

[redqueen]

71. I suppose you wanted to veer off from the discussion of parties

to a discussion about supporters.

I guess you'll have to find another thread for that.

Thanks & you have a nice day too.

[Marrah_G]

72. Huh???

I'm not veering off from anything. Going to stop responding now before I say something I will regret.

[redqueen]

74. Well... we were talking about whether there is a left-wing party...

then you started talking about supporters...

:shrug:

Reeeeally not clear on what's got you upset.

[Marrah_G]

76. Some days I hate the internet. Today is one of those days

I'll send you a PM later and try and explain what I am trying to say.

I have to run and do a million errands before tomorrow's company "Christmas @ the Casino" party and not enough time to do them all.

[redqueen]

77. Sorry!

Didn't mean to keep you or upset you.

Good luck with the errands! (yikes)

[jgraz]

89. It's sad to see that authoritarianism is alive and well in both parties

But, they're really, really different otherwise. :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

19. It is not that there are NO differences. It is the alarming degree to which

The differences have shrunk over the last generation. The parties have become substantively the same. Pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-"free trade," pro-rich, anti-worker, insufficiently pro-environment, anti-civil liberty. The differences in practice seem to be primarily rhetorical as "democrats" vote in large numbers in favor of the "republican" agenda time and time again. In practice, the parties truly differ only on small but important wedge social issues and slightly on environmental issues.

[Occam Bandage]

25. It's sad, the number of people who mistake

"lack of ability" for "lack of will."

[leftofthedial]

104. and vice versa.

[EFerrari]

26. You've done your work well, Grasshopper.

lol

:)

[redqueen]

29. Reid ignored Dodd's hold, and nearly handed bush a victory in the spying scandal.

That's a big deal.

No, they're not exactly the same, but many are far too cozy with corporations, and sticking your head in the sand and crying "la la la!" or "fuck you you green naderite!" every time someone points those uncomfortable truths out is only going to make things worse.

[bryant69]

34. I don't know -saying "Fuck you you green naderite" might make me feel better

But I guess you are right it doesn't accomplish much. That said I'm very wary of the theory that there is no difference between the two because I bought that in 2000 and voted for Nader. It turned out not to be true.

Bryant

[redqueen]

35. "No difference" is a strawman.

Nice job, though. Really.

[bryant69]

41. OK - maybe It's just me

But I am seeing an uptick in posts saying, perhaps, "No appreciable difference" or "Both parties are the same" or "Both parties serve the same corporate masters." Perhaps I'm just having bad luck.

Bryant

[redqueen]

42. It's hyperbole.

Obviously there are big differences.

There are certain very important, fundamental issues on which they are far too similar. No one can deny it.

That's why I'm more upset by these types of posts... they seem to imply that anyone who is concerned about this party's direction with respect to those issues is just some silly, lie-believing, naive idiot.

[bryant69]

59. Exactly - like it's hyperbole to suggest that there are consequences

for encouraging the perception that both parties are the same is the same as saying "you can't criticize the Democratic Party."

Bryant

[redqueen]

73. Of course there are consequences to that perception.

Which is why some of us are so fricking pissed off about crap like Reid's ignoring Dodd's hold yesterday... and are confused at why some would pretend that any criticism of these people for their actions is being a "debbie downer" or a "bitter betty".

[bryant69]

80. Part of the problem is the distinction between members of the Democratic Party

Let's face it, Reid, a Democrat, acted disgracefully yesterday.

Dodd, a Democrat, acted heroically yesterday.

So what can you say about Democrats?

Bryant

[redqueen]

81. That we have a few still willing to fight.

And that we have many who would do well to explain their actions.

[bryant69]

82. So you see Reid as more representative of the Democratic Party?

I disagree there. But of course this is the wall we've come up on several times in the past.

[redqueen]

84. Yes, and possibly only due to circumstance.

It's my opinion and without putting a lot of effort into research I wouldn't try to assert that my view was the correct one.

[Akoto]

49. Sorry, I will not blindly support every mistake, even by a Democrat.

Unconditional loyalty is what turned the once respectable Republican party into a group of money bleeding warmongers who'd support their leader if he were eating babies. That cult mentality does not appeal. Democrats are ideally for democracy, and part of the deal is the right (and in fact, the encouragement) to criticize those in power.

I will support whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be, as I always do, but I will also not hesitate to point out when our party leadership is failing to offer the alternatives they said they would. So far, I see a few wins here and there, and a lot of capitulation to *.

[Orsino]

52. Both parties have caught the same disease.

Though it's obviously set in more deeply on the Republican side, it should be obvious why so many Democratic decisions resemble those of the GOP. The same money is trying to buy them both.

It's up to us to make the Democratic Party different.

[mdmc]

68. You poor bastard. Having to share a message board with people who think differently than you.

I can't type any more - my eyes are full of tears.
check it out ->
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2455401#2455413

[Perry Logan]

75. Propaganda 101: Demoralize and confuse the enemy. Convince them they have no choice.

[The Stranger]

83. Propaganda 201 (Graduate): Get the enemy's leaders to abandon their base.

Then disassemble the very Constitutional structure of checks and balances that makes a multi-party system possible.

[jgraz]

91. All your base...oh never mind.

[Lerkfish]

87. um..like "Clinton is inevitable"?

sort of convincing people that they have no choice?

:shrug:

[Forkboy]

79. Yeah, it must be up to 5 threads out of every 100 by now.

Quick, let's bitch about DU!!!!!!!

[Mythsaje]

85. Yes, yes, and America's perfect.

You can't possibly criticize one of these things, the Democratic Party OR America, without it being assumed you want to destroy it.

[jgraz]

90. Love it or leave it, asshole

That's a democratic sentiment, isn't it? :P

[Mythsaje]

92. Well, to quote myself...

"Love it or leave it." You first.

:evilgrin:

[Lerkfish]

86. what's really funny is

that you're calling other DUers freepers, against DU rules.

[Desertrose]

93. I think he may have missed that little detail, Lerk.

But then rules are made to be broken, right?
:evilgrin:

[Lerkfish]

102. heh

yes, if you're certain people, that is.

[jgraz]

88. A direct result of "Both Parties are the Same" reality setting in everywhere else

But please, continue sticking your fingers in your ears and humming the Star Spangled Banner. I'm sure the problem will fix itself.

[The Magistrate]

94. Sin Novedad

[LoZoccolo]

96. Prospero año y Felicidad

[King Coal]

98. I think he meant to add en el frente.

All quiet on the Western Front.

[The Magistrate]

99. And The Same To You, Sir

That is about the limit of my Spanish by now, though. In my 'adventurous youth' a conversational smattering became a necessity, but that was long ago and far away....

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

97. Recommended; one of my favorite threads EVER! n/t

[Ignis]

109. Even though the OP voted for Nader in 2000?

I thought you HATED all those "traitors" who voted for Nader in 2000...or so you've often said.

Why the change of heart?

[mdmc]

111. a Nader voter!

for shame!

[LoZoccolo]

113. Why would I hate repentant Nader voters?

They make a stronger case against Nader than I could ever do.

[dysfunctional press]

100. both parties are equally beholden to their corporate masters.

if you can't see that, then i pity you- and i pity the party and the country for the many more like you.

[fascisthunter]

106. . (nt)

[DivorcingNeo]

114. Agreed

However if the candidate I would like to vote for does not get the nomination and does not break from the Democratic party and run independent, I will not vote or if Nader runs again, I'll vote for him.

Last year, 2004 and in 2000 I wasted my votes on the Democratic party. However I won't make that mistake again. I will not vote for the Democratic party out of fear (now *thinks* how does that sound familiar), I will vote based on my own judgement, issues that are important to me and my convictions.

[mmonk]

112. Simplistic