Radicalization

[Cary]

I am a left leaning moderate and I'm here to give a little advice to the radicals. I believe in deliberative, realistic, and pragmatic change. I want to know the whys and wherefors of things.

Yesterday I experienced something here that I consider a move toward radicalization. I was told that I didn't believe what I said I believe. I was accused of being a closet "conservative" or some other such nonsense. I experienced a level of intolerance and radicalism here, at DU, the likes of which I have not seen in my years here.

I truly hope that the radical elements of the Democratic coalition appreciate and understand what their Republican counterparts are doing to themselves and their party. I am not going to be trifled with or stepped on like my right leaning moderates in the Republican party. The radical right is nothing without their coalition, and I dare say that the radical left will fare even worse without left leaning moderates like me.

You radicals can destroy us as easily as the radical right destroyed the Republican party and their precious movement conservatism. You need to understand that. There are limits to what can be achieved in short term. Moderation in all things, as Aristotle implied.

I'm just sayin.

[annabanana]

1. Talk issues.

I'm just sayin.

[Cary]

3. And I'm just sayin that I expressed a legitimate point of view and got shit on.

I did talk issues and I am talking one right now. In fact I asked a question and it was a good question. It was a real question. Getting shit on for it is not acceptable.

The radicals have to cut out the crap.

[ret5hd]

6. Give us a link and let us judge for ourselves.

[Cary]

9. The thread was locked and I respect that.

I'm not going to go around it with this thread. This thread is a separate issue and isn't just based on that particular thread.

I'm seeing things from the radical left that I'm seeing from Republicans. A lot of what I am seeing is being generated against Barack Obama so you know what I am referring to. I am hardly the first one here to raise that point.

Moderation in all things. Criticism of Barack Obama is fine, to a point, and you can heed my warning here or you can ignore it. There's not much I can do except express my point of view, which is that we will not be well served by emulating Republicans.

Do you deny that?

[ret5hd]

15. I'll do it then. "Us radicals" ain't got much to worry about if this is all ya' got:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5731066

[Zodiak]

19. Thank you

No, we "radical lefties" did not act like Freepers on that thread.

The main mistake made was poking a community that just got kicked in the stomach by a court ruling. then there was the "I'm a lawyer, so listen to me", which never goes over well on the internet. Then the OP of this thread said a couple of things that were deleted.

In short, my honest assessment of what went on in that thread is that the OP of this thread shirred up some crap and it swallowed them up, and now the OP is here blaming the community he/she poked and acted treated in a condescending manner....not to mention that now the LGBT community as newly pained as "radicals".

This OP is as much of a fail as the last thread was, mostly due to intellectual dishonesty. No wonder they did not post the link.

[Cary]

24. You're entitled to your opinion.

I'm entitled to mine.

Which part of that don't you understand?

[Zodiak]

45. I guess the part where I never said you didn't have a right to express your opinion

Strawmen did not work well for you on that other thread, why would they serve better here?

[Cary]

87. Work well?

That's an odd characterization.

I'm not in any competition here, Zodiak. It's a debate. It's a discussion. That's it.

It starts here. It ends here. There will be no consequence other than what people take out of it.

What I've learned is that there are a lot of hypersensitive, irrational posters at DU. I regret that but I'm about to log off now and go about my day.

So here's my final word to you. I'm sure you're really a decent human being. I'm not a religious person but God (or whatever other entity or thing you believe in) bless you Zodiak. Have a great day. Have a great life.

:)

[Zodiak]

16. There is no rule against linking a locked thread

So you are respecting a rule that does not exist.

We would like evidence that you are justified with this OP that clearly is trying to smear the leftie people on this board as unreasonable people who act no better than right-wing extremists.

Why can't you respect the request for evidence?

[Mari333]

42. heres a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5731066

[Zodiak]

69. And this is exactly where you said you were slighted

"I expressed a legitmate point of view and got shit on"

Strawman my ass.

[Cary]

81. Your ass then.

I did express my legitimate point of view. I don't see how you dispute that. I did get shit on.

It does not follow that I said I got slighted and that isn't the point I was making. The point which you go out of your way to not understand is that this kind of behavior is going to sink us, the way the radical right sank the Republicans.

You just don't want to address that point. Ironically every radical rightist evades the point that they're hurting the Republicans in exactly the same way.

I don't see why that's so difficult for you to understand.

[Zodiak]

130. Then you were slighted.

Sheesh...how hard is that to admit? You accused me of raising a strawman when I said that you felt slighted. Here is evidence that I raised no strawman. And your response is to change the subject?

When one learns about logical fallacies, it is not so a person can be better at wielding them. Be intellectually honest.

And no, I do not acknowledge it because I do not necessarily think it is true.

and quit it with the false equivalencies. The left doesn't act remotely like the right.

You got shit on because you were impolitic enough to try to tell gays what they were fighting for without LISTENING to them on a day when they got their hearts ripped out. You are the one trying to attribute how you were treated to all liberals in general, and then telling us that is why we are doomed.

You deserved the surprisingly mild smackdown you got yesterday, and frankly you deserve this one today. How about trying to not extrapolate the behavior of a few individuals to everyone. You are very quick to generalize, and THAT is what is so offensive to people.

And you had better stop looking at your allies on the left as the mirror image of the right. That is not only not popular around here, it i frankly insulting and wrong. We do not shoot up churches because some liberals might be in there, we do not torture people, or cheer on the killing of others. We do not have KKK-like rallies against our political opponents, and we don't threaten everyone with guns. There is simply no comparison other than yes, we belong to opposite poles of the American body politic.

[Cary]

148. Let's see. . .

"Sheesh...how hard is that to admit?"

If it's true I have no problem admitting it. If it's not true I'm not interested in lying to you just to appease you. I don't do that, and there is no good reason to appease you anyway.

"You accused me of raising a strawman when I said that you felt slighted."

I don't recall why I accused you of raising a strawman and I don't give a shit anyway. I'm pretty good at identifying logical fallacies so I'm sure that if I said it I was probably correct.

Moreover it's silly for you to insist that I "felt" anything. You have no idea what I did or did not feel and who gives a shit anyway?

"Here is evidence that I raised no strawman. And your response is to change the subject?"

The subject being what? Your opinion of what I did or did not feel?

Sorry, not interested.

"When one learns about logical fallacies, it is not so a person can be better at wielding them. Be intellectually honest."

I hate that term. What's the difference between "intellectually honest" and "honest?" Nothing. It's just a more pretentious way of saying the same thing.

My honesty has not been impugned so I have no need to address this nonsense.

"and quit it with the false equivalencies. The left doesn't act remotely like the right."

I stick by my opinion, which has not been impugned here either. Do you have a better argument. If you do, make it.

"You got shit on because you were impolitic enough to try to tell gays what they were fighting for without LISTENING to them on a day when they got their hearts ripped out. You are the one trying to attribute how you were treated to all liberals in general, and then telling us that is why we are doomed."

How dramatic. I asked people if there was a bigger issue. People lost their cool and reacted. Now I'm saying that this is like the way the radical right operates and we should be better.

You don't have to like that.

"You deserved the surprisingly mild smackdown you got yesterday, and frankly you deserve this one today. How about trying to not extrapolate the behavior of a few individuals to everyone. You are very quick to generalize, and THAT is what is so offensive to people."

Now you're the one lecturing.

"And you had better stop looking at your allies on the left as the mirror image of the right. That is not only not popular around here, it i frankly insulting and wrong. We do not shoot up churches because some liberals might be in there, we do not torture people, or cheer on the killing of others. We do not have KKK-like rallies against our political opponents, and we don't threaten everyone with guns. There is simply no comparison other than yes, we belong to opposite poles of the American body politic."

Who said anyone shoots up churches or tortures? Hyperbole much?

It's a discussion Zodiac. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

[Zodiak]

165. And here we see the attitude

The point by point thing is tedious, as is the responding to me with this post long after I thought I gave you the last word more than an hour ago.

Seizing on the word "felt" to invalidate my point is sophistry. How about this, you "stated"? It is clear from your post that you stated you were "shit on" by other DUers. Address the main point rather than dig out your dictionary looking for an angle.

Now you don't care about looking up your own assertions to identify their veracity, because you are "sure they are correct". This highlights your intellectual dishonesty. I'm sorry you do not like the term, but it is distinct from plain old dishonesty. You said that me paraphrasing your position on this thread was a strawman. I point to exactly where you posted it, and now you state clearly that you aren't even going to look because you are sure you are right.

That is admitted intellectual dishonesty, and frankly the discussion ends here.

And yes, I do get preachy. In fact, I can be a real sanctimonious prick when I feel it is warranted. I own up to it. When you do so, you should, as well. I'm not the only one telling you that.

[avaistheone1]

79. What radicals?

I haven't seen any on this board. I really don't think you know what a radical is.

[Cary]

82. You deny that there is range of opinion? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

91. so what? tell me someone posting here who hasn't been "shit on" for some opinion.

if you can't take the heat, don't talk politics.

[readmoreoften]

102. The OP redefines "radical" as anyone who hurts his feelings.

Self-indulgent OP of the year award. :crazy:

[tekisui]

134. Well said.

[jazzjunkysue]

177. That doesn't make you a troll, it makes you a poster. Welcome aboard.

And get a thick skin if you plan to stick around. We radical democrats would rather argue than yes the precious leader or toe the party line.

[cali]

2. nazi.

seriously, get ready to be figuratively spit on.

[Cary]

4. Seriously, I spit back.

Like I said, I'm not getting trifled with or marginalized like my right leaning moderate counterparts. It doesn't work that way.

[Forkboy]

72. "godwined yourself right off the mark."

Someone here said that just a little while ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5734088#5734092

[Cary]

85. His point went over your head.

It's not the only point you've missed.

[Forkboy]

89. ad hominen!

:rofl:

[Cary]

124. Forkboy, if you're not a comedian you really need to consider a career change.

You're just so amusing. Such talent should not be wasted.

:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

150. What's really funny is how ad hominens aren't such a big deal when you do it.

[Cary]

153. Telling you that you don't understand isn't an ad hominem.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you do understand. But it's not an ad hominem.

[Forkboy]

159. Your words above...

Forkboy, if you're not a comedian you really need to consider a career change.

You're just so amusing. Such talent should not be wasted. :sarcasm:

Here was my first reply to this thread, which you claimed was an ad hominem:

And tell me, how solidly do you really believe in issues if other people's attitudes towards you personally can sway you from them? Do the personalities involved outweigh the issues themselves? Judging from your OP the answer is a resounding yes, and it says far more about you than those you're complaining about.

In other words, get over it your hurt feelings and pride and just support what's right.

You claimed that was an ad hominem in your response to that, but how is your quote any better or worse? I mean, if ad hominems bother you so much and all one would think you wouldn't need to resort to them yourself. Or is this another case of someone's else's actions forcing you to abandon another strong held belief by being mean to you?

[Cary]

162. It's ridiculous and obnoxious to tell me what I feel.

So here's the facts of life:

I responded, appropriately, with sarcasm.

I'm not having a problem here. You might want to declare otherwise, telling me yet again what I feel. However I like mocking people who are ridiculous and obnoxious. Again, you might try to tell me that I don't like mocking people who are ridiculous and obnoxious, but really and truly I do.

Do you want me to stop mocking you with my sarcasm? If so, 1) stop being ridiculous and obnoxious; and 2) ask me nicely. Otherwise, if I feel like mocking you I will.

:)

[Forkboy]

164. You claim you like it but complain when people do it.

It's ridiculous and obnoxious to tell me what I feel.

You'll live.

I'm not having a problem here.

:rofl:

However I like mocking people who are ridiculous and obnoxious. Again, you might try to tell me that I don't like mocking people who are ridiculous and obnoxious, but really and truly I do.

Which pretty much makes you a hypocrite, doesn't it? "All signs point to yes"


Do you want me to stop mocking you with my sarcasm?

Oh my, how will I handle it if you don't?

Otherwise, if I feel like mocking you I will.

Likewise, only you'll complain about it, then do it, then when called on your hypocrisy claim you like it.

:hi:

[Cary]

169. I don't take myself, nor you, that seriously. n/t

[tavalon]

5. I am a far left leaning liberal

Am I who you mean when you complain about radicals, which btw, you used in a manner that seems meant to inflame?

[Cary]

7. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't.

What I mean to do is express my opinion. If that inflames you, then it inflames you and if you have a problem with it, then you have a problem with it.

Where do you think you're going with that? When I get shit on for expressing my legitimate opinions I have every right to complain and I am telling you that you can count on me to do it.

[ret5hd]

8. So, can we expect a thread like this every time your feelings are hurt?

[Cary]

11. Who is "we"?

Do you speak for everyone here? Because I don't recall you ever either asking for or getting my permission to speak for me.

[tavalon]

10. "You radicals" is flame bait

That said, I'm not at all sure why I chose to take that bait.

[Cary]

14. You're not sure. . .

There are people here who want to pick fights. It's not very difficult to pick a fight and be a jerk. It takes a lot more skill and it's far more constructive to understand what someone is saying.

But the choice is yours. My choice of words is only only "flame bait" if you choose to interpret it as such.

[tavalon]

172. Well, it's pretty clear you got your feelings hurt

I'm sorry that happened to you.

[Zodiak]

12. I would like to see your evidence first

Then I can judge.

All you have given us is that you don't like the more leftie people on this site and feel slighted by them in an unnamed thread.

And there is NO PARALLEL between the Republican party's extremists and our lefties. Why? First, our lefties are never heard, never invited to the table, and never even acknowledged. They are not demanding everyone march in lockstep; they are demanding a place at the table.

On the right, the extremists have an alliance with the "moderate" elements (read: corporate) of our party and are effectively running the show to the detriment of the average American. Are you sure that extremism is why the Republicans were voted out, or right-wing extremism? If the latter is the case (which I suspect it is), then that same criticism cannot be applied to the powerless and unheeded (but usually correct) American left.

Food for thought....I am a little tired of hearing the comparison of the American left with the extreme right-wing in some kind of false equivalency. They are not equivalent in position, power, or the make-up of their political opponents. We don;t even use the same tactics.

Moderates have to get off of the "everything in the middle is by definition the best way" attitude (and its close-relative "everything that isn't moderate is extremist and radical). That is an ideology in itself, and it is devoid of the facts, the policy at hand, or an awareness of where one is in the political spectrum. And because of it, moderates are very easily manipulated by framing.

[Cary]

23. You can't judge when you resort to straw men.

I never said I "don't like the more leftie people on this site." I never said I feel "slighted by them." I never said that "everything in the middle is by definition the best way." These are straw man arguments. Nor am I saying that the far left is the equivalent of the extreme right.

I said that the extreme left can break us in the same way the extreme right broke the Republicans and making statements like "moderates are very easily manipulated," summarily dismissing moderates and moderate views is exactly the way to do it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. That just might be true if we, of the far left, ever got any REAL power -

but nevermind what Fox says - the blue dogs, the DLC, the corporate dems are FIRMLY in control of the party while the far left has to choose, every election, whether to continue to the fight from within or move to the Greens where our platforms are actually embraced by the party.

There is NO danger of the radical left dems seizing the party the way the radical right repubs seized theirs - you see, on the left we have this thing called 'ethics'.

[Zodiak]

50. You said yourself that you were treated badly

That is another way of saying you were slighted. It is not a common usage of the term, but it is apt. As a self-identified lawyer (why anyone would toss around their professional credentials on the internet is beyond me), I would think you are familiar with such terms.

You also said that the left are acting like right-wing republicans, radical and all....that's doesn't sound like you are allies with them, more like you do not like them. If you think they are wonderful allies, then state it as such, because the subtext of your OP says the opposite. Hardly a strawman, or you would not be hearing from DUers who think your OP is simply flamebait. They didn't get the idea from nowhere.

And yes, you did imply that only the middle is there any rationality. You did this with your false equivalency argument about how we could lose everything if we listen to those crazy lefties just like the Republicans listen to their crazies. I have clearly stated why your premise is wrong on that front, and now you claim to have never implied it?

You should brush up on your rhetorical techniques. Your inability to see the meaning of your own writing indicates a need for recalibration.

[tekisui]

131. Delete,.

wrong spot, sorry.

[Mari333]

13. I saw the thread and your posts were deleted over and over

when people tried to explain to you that gay marriage wasnt just about symbolism. they used facts and figures. you ignored them. btw, people who want equal rights for all arent radicals. thats just a word you are using like Rush uses to paint people like Martin Luther King as too radical. he was for equal rights, too.
so, if you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen . its that simple.

[Cary]

28. Nonsense.

I've been here a long time. I've had mods delete posts. It's not that hard. You just report them and they delete them more often than not. The fact that some of you people had some of my posts deleted confirms nothing except that you can't handle a dissenting opinion.

And apparently you can't handle me telling you that can't handle a dissenting opinion either.

[Mari333]

31. you never presented a dissenting opinion

you said that gay marriage advocates were choosing marriage for symbolic purposes, and you were countered with gay marriage advocates who succinctly described to you the 1049 benefits that are not available to them through civil unions, and can only be obtained by a marriage license.
you never countered that sufficiently with an opinion that I recall, and now choose to just call people radical if they countered you. thats sort of silly imho.
I have started threads that I wish I hadnt started, too, but I take the punches when they come and wonder what possessed me to do so.

[Cary]

38. You're putting words in my mouth.

I do not regret expressing my opinions. I do not appreciate you distorting them and making straw man arguments either.

No one has punched me. The sun actually rose in the East this morning and it will set in the West tonight. I have not been harmed in any way, shape or form.

Actually, I asked a question. I said that I thought there was really a larger issue here and that same sex marriage was more of a symbol. I actually made no definitive statement, except that I support same sex marriage but I didn't believe it was an Equal Protection issue.

Some people understood that.

But I'm making a different point here and it's interesting that some of you can't handle that either.

[Mari333]

47. I may be wrong but what I see is

someone trying to justify a little homophobia with circular arguments.

[Forkboy]

36. I love when people post stupid shit and then blame others for it being stupid.

[Mari333]

74. I take full responsibility for having posted stupid threads

and suffering the consequences of my actions. :) :) :)

[Forkboy]

75. I got pummeled by a few people on one of the very first threads I posted here.

It was pretty funny. :)

[Zodiak]

54. I have been a mod

You are incorrect in your assessment of what goes on behind the scenes. Removals are hardly automatic, and the decisions are not "erring on the side of removal" more often than not.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions about people you do not know. But I understand, you want to make it look like your posts really didn't violate the rules.

[Cary]

144. There is a deleted post in this thread.

I asked for it to be deleted and it was deleted.

[get the red out]

17. delete

[mmonk]

18. Define radical.

[Mari333]

20. radical as per the thread the OP is alluding to seems to be

anyone who is in favour of gay marriage because they view it as a civil rights issue. seriously. thats what the thread was all about. so, you are radical if you view gay marriage as an equal rights under the law issue. doh!

[mmonk]

21. I see.

Someone like me.

[Mari333]

22. yeah me too lol

you you you radical!

[mmonk]

26. I guess its good to be noticed. I would hate to think its all been a waste.

:)

[Cary]

29. Radical . . .

3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

[readmoreoften]

98. Nice jump to the THIRD meaning of the definition on Dictionary.com

The first being someone who addresses root causes to problems. Nice flame bait.

[readmoreoften]

99. Radical means addressing a perceived root cause for a problem. From L. radix meaning root.

A radical feminist sees patriarchy as a root cause. A radical Marxist-Leninist sees class society/capitalism as the root cause. A radical Democrat sees Republicans as the root cause. A radical anarchist sees authoritarianism as the root cause.

Anyone addressing a root cause is bound to "uproot" normal processes within a society.

[Morning Dew]

25. Fuckin' Radicals - all uppity and wanting civil rights.

Thanks for the advice.

[Cary]

27. I respect your point of view.

What I don't understand or appreciate is that you can't respect mine and discuss it with me in an orderly way.

And that is my main problem with rightists.

Mock away at me because my point of view isn't 100% in accord with yours, but I still don't think this attitude serves you, or Democrats.

[Morning Dew]

37. When someone expresses such an illiberal opinion about civil rights

I find that opinion hard to respect or take seriously.


Sorry, I can't do more than snark at your OP.

[Cary]

41. Oh good. Yet another ad hominem.

Your opinion of me is really important. Let me tell you.

[Morning Dew]

46. I didn't opine on you - I opined on your opining... in your OP. nm

[Forkboy]

49. Only the OP can talk about the OP.

:silly:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. well stated. how dare we/they? can you imagine wanting equality, RADICAL NOTION

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. And I notice that it is always the left side of the equation that is 'wrong'.

It is not the far right radicals who are being marginalized by the moderate republicans - it is the moderate republicans who are marginalized by the far right.

Here, it is not the moderate dems (those who have the presidency, the House, the Senate, the state legislatures) who are being held down by the radical left - it is the radical left that is calling for REAL change and the moderates who are standing in the way.

All along the spectrum, within each party, it is the left which is demonized.

So you bravely take your stand against the lefties - you only outnumber us 4/1.

[Cary]

32. So what are your alternatives?

If you're correct and moderates outnumber you 4 to 1, what is it that you expect?

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. It would be nice to be heard, once in a while.

You know, on far out notions like single payer healthcare, re-joining the international court, marriage equality, you know, the things that other civilized nations have. It would be nice to not have corporations writing our laws, for a start.

In most other countries, people with our 'moderate' positions would be considered hard core right wingers. Even just 30 years ago, nobody could have called Obama a radical and kept a straight face.

YOU are the one looking for concessions from the left - while WE have been making concessions for our entire political lives.

What do YOU expect, as you outnumber us 4 to 1? You expect US to roll over for YOU, the way the moderate repubs roll over for the radical right?

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE'VE BEEN DOING?

[Cary]

57. I expect a civil discussion.

I don't expect ad hominems. I don't expect to be told that I don't mean what I say.

I am not looking for "concessions." I am looking to discuss things and to reach a concensus.

FYI I am in favor of single payer healthcare, re-joinign the international court, marriage equality, you know the things that other civilized nations have. I don't want corporations writing our laws.

What the hell?

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. Then why bash on the left? Those are all issues for the left that the

'moderates' stand in the way of.

Is it just because you think we're an easy target?

Or is it really because of that link upthread, as others here suggest, and your issue is not with 'democratic radicals' but with gay activists? Reading that thread, you seemed to find yourself in a hole and the only way out was to keep digging deeper.

If you want a civil discussion, you need to actually say what you are trying to say.

[Echo In Light]

56. True. Moderate is simply that much closer to the Right, hence more socially acceptable

[Zodiak]

58. I call it the Red-Shift

All of our politics are red-shifted. Both parties are beholden to right-wing elements, and the left is shut out of both parties.

When the champions of the moderates come here, they draw false equivalencies between the left and the the right. they do not acknowledge the red-shift, mostly because it was their movements that caused it.

[Echo In Light]

68. The desperate attempt to align and parallel the "fringe" Right w/the "loony" Left is ridiculous

...however, given what's revealed when one examines the views and belief systems of 'moderates' who make such attempts...obvious, albeit unfortunate, conclusions.

[Forkboy]

33. Oy vey...IBTL on this one.

And tell me, how solidly do you really believe in issues if other people's attitudes towards you personally can sway you from them? Do the personalities involved outweigh the issues themselves? Judging from your OP the answer is a resounding yes, and it says far more about you than those you're complaining about.

In other words, get over it your hurt feelings and pride and just support what's right.

[Cary]

39. Oh good. Another ad hominem.

You just have to turn it on its head and make it about me. You just have to do that. You can't discuss the issues.

I hope this works out for you. I really do.

[Forkboy]

48. Uh, in case you forgot, your own OP was about you.

Hows that short term memory thing working out for you?

And that's a real weak dodge from answering those questions, but not a surprising one.

[Cary]

52. Even if that were true it doesn't justify your ad hominem.

But it isn't true. The OP was about "You radicals can destroy us as easily as the radical right destroyed the Republican party."

[Forkboy]

55. You mentioned yourself 18 times in your OP.

Want the pertinent quotes, or can you read your own words?

[Cary]

61. Even if that were true it doesn't justify your ad hominem.

You don't like the way I said what I wanted to say? Okay. I don't give a shit if you don't like it. You still have no business offering up ad hominems.

[Forkboy]

67. Even if what you say is true (to coin your phrase),

it doesn't justify your seeming willingness to abandon the right thing over hurt feelings.

And this "even if it were true" stuff is priceless. It IS true. You made this about you. You did refer to yourself 18 times (19 if you count the "us"). "Even if it were true". Pfffft. :rofl:

You want post your opinion and then play the victim when challenged on it, and that's not going to fly here. Deal.

[Cary]

76. I've hurt no one's feelings. I've said nothing wrong. I'm not playing anything.

All I'm doing is pointing out how ridiculous this all is.

You don't have to like that. Your approval or disapproval is a pre-requisite for nothing.

[Forkboy]

77. "Your approval or disapproval is a pre-requisite for nothing."

As is yours.

[Cary]

83. You insinuated that yours is.

I didn't.

[Forkboy]

90. Your whole OP insinuated it.

Next?

[Cary]

123. You don't understand my OP

That's okay. I forgive you.

:)

[Forkboy]

152. You don't know how to be intellectually honest.

That's ok. I forgive you.

:)

[Cary]

154. I can't tell you happy that makes me.

:)

[Zodiak]

63. Please, point out what name Forkboy called you

Otherwise, your ad hominem accusation falls rather short. Not surprising since you used the same false accusation technique on me earlier in the thread.

I do not believe you are being intellectually honest.

[Cary]

160. Ad hominem lesson.

Forkboy's post:

"And tell me, how solidly do you really believe in issues if other people's attitudes towards you personally can sway you from them? Do the personalities involved outweigh the issues themselves? Judging from your OP the answer is a resounding yes, and it says far more about you than those you're complaining about.

In other words, get over it your hurt feelings and pride and just support what's right."

My opening post is essentially that we should not emulate the right, demanding absolute ideological purity to the point where we run off moderates. I believe my use of the word "radical" was appropriate. It was not meant to offend. It was meant to describe a certain urgency that I feel is leading to an intolerance that could ultimately end up alienating people in much the same way as the right has broken their coalition of dumbasses.

Forkboy deals with none of that. Instead he redirects the argument to his perception of what he thinks I believe about "other people's attitudes towards" me "personally."

Forkboy could have said something like: "I disagree. I don't believe that we're alienating (insert name of group here)." He could have asked me for clarification. He could have said many things but instead he chose to redirect the argument at me and the alleged character flaw that he and so many others here wish to ascribe me with.

That, Zodiak, is an ad hominem argument. And ironically it is a ploy that I have encountered with virtually every rightist I have argued with.

[Zodiak]

163. This is a point I already conceded after researching it myself, yet you argue it again?

I now realize that ad hominem abusive is a subset of the ad hominem argument.

I find it a strange tactic that you wax didactic AFTER I conceded the point and moved on from it. Are you talking to me or playing to a wider audience?

[Cary]

170. You asked me to explain, Zodiak. It was a reasonable request so I did.

It's really just that simple.

[Forkboy]

167. Try harder.

You claimed this...

and I dare say that the radical left will fare even worse without left leaning moderates like me.

The clear implication is that you will leave them behind and/or ignore them, but you never explained what these radical positions were in your OP. In your OP you said "You radicals can destroy us as easily as the radical right destroyed the Republican party and their precious movement conservatism." and "You need to understand that." Who is this "You" if not some of your readers here on DU? So tell us which radical positions are being espoused on DU that you feel will be the downfall of the Democratic Party.

Hence, my questions were valid. I suspect they both still are, but this one definitely stands:

Do the personalities involved outweigh the issues themselves?

--

He could have asked me for clarification.

I did. You ignored it and claimed ad hominem. Questions were valid based on your OP. See above.

And ironically it is a ploy that I have encountered with virtually every rightist I have argued with.

Yet you say this as well...

However I like mocking people who are ridiculous and obnoxious. Again, you might try to tell me that I don't like mocking people who are ridiculous and obnoxious, but really and truly I do.

Does your use of ad hominems equate to you being a rightist, as you try to imply about others when they use them. Hypocrisy is something I've encountered in every rightest. You are a hypocrite. Ergo, you're a rightist. Correct?

[Cary]

171. That's enough of that.

You're just too needy. Alas, I'm just plain old bored with you.

Have a nice life.

[Zodiak]

60. I got the same thing

Accused of strawmen for pointing out what was clearly in the text of the OP, if not the subtext.

I do not believe we are dealing with intellectual honesty here.

Notice you were accused of ad hominem when in fact you never called this person a name?

[Mari333]

34. ....

[RandomKoolzip]

40. Don't invoke Aristotle.

As centuries of scientific and philospohic inquiry have proven, Aristotle was an ignorant, sexist blowhard who viewed slaves as less than human; his vaunted "Ethics" only applied to those with enough money and power to be "free"; he also invented the "binary,' which has been responsible for so much oppression, explict and implicit.

Fuck Aristotle. And fuck this false "moderation." We're careening off a goddamned cliff here - moderation will just make the car fall slightly slower. We were promised change - let's see it.

[Cary]

43. So you're saying your extremism is better than the radical right's?

Lotsa luck on that.

[RandomKoolzip]

64. What you define as "my" "extremism" is pretty milquetoast by international standards.

In fact, the dreaded "radicals" whom you turn into abstractions in your post have been the only consistent engine of progressive change in this country for the last century or so. Certainly, no "moderate" politician has ever enacted a noble or needed or progressive (or common-sense) law in America without pressure from the Left.

[readmoreoften]

101. No. I'm saying that you don't understand Aristotle. Or much else it seems. /nt

[Chovexani]

73. I think it's completely appropriate that he invoked Aristotle

That tells us all we need to know, frankly.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Zodiak]

66. There you go...now THAT is an ad hominem. n/t

[Cary]

80. Zodiak, calling me a moron isn't an ad hominem in and of itself.

I'd say it's weak and it's bad form. But it's not an ad hominem.

The sine qua non of an ad hominem is that it is a form of a red herring. In essence one is not addressing to point being raised. One is, instead, attacking to person raising the point.

I've made a few points. In the prior thread I said that I don't believe same sex marriage is an equal protection issue. I also said that I thought there was a larger issue at stake and I asked for others' opinions of that. In this thread I observed that there is a "radical" element that reminds me of the radical right, and that I thought this element could break us the way the radical right has broken "conservatives."

None of my points merit the things people have insisted upon saying about me. I am no rightist by any measure. I empathize with the gay and lesbian community and am very much in favor of their cause. I realize that Proposition 8 is a rotten deal. I would never have voted for it. If the Supreme Court rules that this is an equal protection issue (the probability of which I think is zero), then I will be happy that the gay and lesbian community will have gotten what they need.

I should be able to ask questions of them without getting shit on for it. That's not too much to ask for, and the inability to deliver that is exactly what the radical right is refusing to deliver to moderate Republicans.

We have to be better than this.

[Zodiak]

126. We do have to be better than this

But you must acknowledge that trying to lecture people who have just had their hearts ripped out is bad form in itself, and you have to expect animosity and not attribute such animosity to "radicalization". Not when "pissed off" works very well and can be tied to the events of the day. In fact, there was a prominent thread that day asking for people to not start threads like yours. I guess you missed it.

As an addendum....I see my error. Let me correct. "Now that is an ad hominem abusive". I always thought ad hominem is only the calling of names. I always reserved "attack the messenger" for the other forms.

[Cary]

133. This too shall pass.

I didn't see that thread but the opening post in my prior thread was not a lecture. It was a question that some people actually understood and answered.

And this thread was not a continuation of that thread. You agree that we have to better than this. That is the subject of this thread. While related to the prior thread, I did not intend to continue the prior inquiry.

But since we have some meeting of the minds here, is there a larger issue? Again, I'm not passing judgment. I'm not lecturing. But isn't the larger issue not just equality under the law but rather full societal acceptance? And what does that mean, exactly?

If I can't ask members of the gay and lesbian community to clarify that, who am I supposed to ask?

[Zodiak]

141. You cannot ask me

Because I am not gay, and do not presume to speak for them on issues that they hold dear to their hearts.

But you could have waited a few days. Yesterday was NOT the day to do this. And yes, you did act like you already knew their answer because you rejected the answers you were given. It seemed more like a lecture where you were trying to get the right answer out of your class with leading questions.

And yes, you were pilloried for it, but far more mildly than I expected before reading the thread.

[Cary]

145. Zodiak, it's just my opinion

You're making this seem like it's a really big deal.

It isn't.

[Javaman]

53. Here's some advice: get a thicker skin. DU isn't for the easy offended. nt

[Cary]

62. I'm fine Javaman.

But thanks for the concern.

[ismnotwasm]

59. Radical?

Judging by the locked thread, what you consider "radicals" are folks that simply want equality, justice and human rights for all.


I don't think you've actually encountered DU radicals yet. I'd wait a bit before you offer any more "advice".

[Cary]

65. This isn't about the locked thread.

Other people here want to proclaim it to be about the locked thread but this is about breaking our coalition the way the radical right broke the coalition on the right.

I'd prefer not to break it, is all.

As for what you think I've encountered and what you would wait for, who cares?

[Mari333]

71. you brought up the locked thread

as a symbol of your concern about 'radicals' taking over . what 'coalition' are you talking about? ???

[Cary]

78. A symbol?

Political parties in the United States are coalition parties. Interestingly I had pretty much the same problem I'm having with you when I just tried to have a discussion with a radical rightist, who was berating Colin Powell. This rightist made no more sense then you people are making here.

In fact he got really pissed at me because I told him that it's fine with me that he and his compatriots insist on their version of party purity. I don't have any problem with Republicans never winning any election ever again. He insisted that he's not about winning elections and got even angrier with me when I said that's fine with me too. Then he proceeded to put words in my mouth, exactly the way you people here are putting words in my mouth.

See, to me that's just senseless radicalism. I'm in favor of all of the same things you are, but I don't see it as an equal protection argument per se. And for that you all go apeshit.

I don't understand you any more than I understand the radical rightist guy. He's a reprobate. Again, his dysfunction is fine with me. But I really do want to see same sex marriages. I want single payer healthcare. I am very much a Keynesian and I want desparately to see the return of middle class prosperity.

It pleases me when I see the radical right in an irrational disarray. It bothers me when you people do it.

We have a lot of work to do. I expect more from you people.

[ismnotwasm]

114. Oh my

You're really not very good at this are you? Try again, you'll get better with practice.

[Cary]

121. Other way around bud.

A lot of people, like you, doing a lot of projecting.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

84. you are full of shit. nt

[Cary]

88. And yes, I love you too.

:)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. a dishonest argument shoudl be called out, you should be ashamed

of callign people who want equal rights radical.

intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.

[Stinky The Clown]

92. I can relate to whaht you're saying. I can not relate to what you're saying

I agree with you. I do not agree with you.

I like the way you think. I do not like the way you think.




The labels and descriptors you use have no meaning except for relative comparisons. You have to talk about issues.

Moderate. Centrist. Liberal. Progressive. Conservative. Far Left. Far Right.

What do any of them mean?

And who, exactly, are you calling a radical?

Me?

Some have. But they have no clue how radical, or not, I actually am. They are simply responding to one position I took on one issue. I have been called an Obama lover and an Obama hater. So what does that mean?

[Cary]

104. If that's true, then what difference does it make?

A lot of people getting worked up about nothing. . .

[annabanana]

125. yup. . "issues". . like I said back in response #1. .

I am surprised I read this far down. . .

[Sebastian Doyle]

94. FUCK "moderation"

DLC/Blueballs "moderation" gave us the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, the Murdoch/ClearChannel enabling act of 1996, Don't Ask Don't Tell & the Indefensible Marriage Act (DOMA)

DLC/Blueballs "moderation" gave us NAFTA, the WTO and all of this other "free trade" horseshit that has destroyed the middle class and brought us to the point of another Great Depression.

DLC/Blueballs "moderation" gave us a 60 seat "majority" in the senate that's no majority at all, because the so-called "moderates" won't vote like Democrats.

FUCK the DLC. FUCK the Blue Balls. FUCK corporatism posing as "moderation".

[Echo In Light]

100. Sums it up rather well

[chaska]

95. Are you aware of the rapidly deteriorating environmental condition of the planet?

Not to mention the economic situation. Now is the time for radical, not moderate, change.

True leaders are always considered radical. Until they radically change things.

[BurtWorm]

96. I don't think radicalism vs. moderation is the real issue here.

It's progress vs. status quo, it seems to me. Radicalism is more reductionist. The kind of change you seem to have an issue with (correct me if I'm wrong) is one, like other civil rights changes in US history, that is constructive to the existing order, rather than reductive or destructive. I mean most supporters of Prop 8 and same-sex marriage on DU anyway are basing their arguments on the constitution. They're not arguing for a radical reconstruction of society. They're arguing for the promise in the constitution to be lived up to for them.

[Cary]

106. I don't have issue with change.

Radical may very well be the wrong term but I don't have a better one. I have a problem with the intolerant behavior of a certain element.

[BurtWorm]

112. Ok.

Just some advice for you, though: if you want to oppose intolerance, be careful not to oppose it in a way that can easily be seen as intolerant itself. If you're not opposed to change or to radicals per se, but to certain posters in particular, it's not a good idea to address your complaints to all radicals or to the whole DU community. You'll save yourself a lot of heartache and heartburn if you wield a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.

[Cary]

116. Noted, but if I'm not mistaken this is an internet forum.

Not to be facetious BurtWorm but it's about discussion and this is as good a topic as any.

No heartburn. No heartache. Not a wink of lost sleep.

:)

[BurtWorm]

117. No light, either, unfortunately.

;)

A lot of heat though.

[Cary]

119. Actually I have learned quite a few things.

I think we need to work through this crap and focus on the matters at hand. Don't you?

[readmoreoften]

97. A "radical" has nothing to do with calling people conservative. Hell, it's the "moderates" on this

site who do that with relish at every criticism of Barack Obama. It's the progressives who are accused of being agents of Rush Limbaugh, so I guess its you "moderates" who are the "radicals."

Radical means addressing a perceived root cause for a problem. A radical feminist sees patriarchy as a root cause. A radical Marxist-Leninist sees class society/capitalism as the root cause. A radical Democrat sees Republicans as the root cause. A radical anarchist sees authoritarianism as the root cause.

[Echo In Light]

103. "To be a radical is simply to grasp the root of a problem." - Howard Zinn

[Cary]

108. Republicans aren't the root cause

They're just terminally stupid.

I don't want to follow them in their stupidity.

[Strong Atheist]

105. IBTL!

:popcorn:

[Nederland]

107. DU is powerless...

...so I wouldn't worry to much about the opinions expressed here.

I'm one of the more conservative member here, and I've been here since 2001. Every time I get frustrated by the radical left that hangs out here, I just remember that they are a tiny, tiny minority with little to no influence over the Democratic party as a whole. If they did have any influence, Dennis Kucinich would have been our nominee and we would have gotten pwned in the election.

Don't sweat it so much dude, the only place they are in the majority is on a little internet board called the Democratic Underground.

[Mari333]

109. so you think that gay marriage and equal rights for gay folks

are too radical, also? because if you read thru the whole thread the OP is alluding to, thats who he is calling radicals.

[Nederland]

111. No

My disagreement with most DU members involves economic issues, not social ones.

[Cary]

113. You aren't radical because you want equal rights for gay folks

You're radical because you're so eager and willing to attack people over minor differences in their point of view.

Just because this fellow identifies himself or herself as "conservative," you make all kinds of assumptions and go off on him or her.

[Mari333]

115. show me where I attacked you on the original thread

I pointed out to you 1049 benefits that gay people do not recieve unless they are legally married. your counter argument was ...nothing.
i kept posting those over and over, using facts and statistics. hell, I dont even know what your whole original OP was supposed to be about..some vague reference to gay marriage being 'symbolism' rather then equal rights.
when people pointed out it was about equal rights, with statistics, and facts, you never countered the stats and facts with your own stats and facts.
so now, you are mad, and calling people who provide stats and facts 'radicals.'

[Cary]

118. Please take a step back.

I don't have to engage you in a discussion if I don't want to, and I don't have to explain it. I don't want to talk about your 1049 benefits. No offense intended. I don't want to talk about it and I won't.

I didn't say gay marriage was about symbolism rather than equal rights. I simply never said that, and you admit to not understanding my point. I would like to discuss my point, thank you.

I was more asking a question than anything else. I asked if there wasn't a larger issue than same sex marriage, per se. I think there is. I don't see how that is offensive. There is a bigger issue and it should be discussed. I never said I was for or against that issue. I just said I thought there was a bigger issue, and there is. I think it's even more than equal rights, but that's just my guess.

What's so terrible about that?

I am not mad. You're projecting that on me. I'm sorry you don't like the term "radical." Others here have pointed out that the term is not offensive. It simply means that you want something and you want it now. It is not derogatory. Again, you get all excited about what, exactly?

Your "stats" and your "facts" are your stats and your facts. I have said nothing either way. I'm absolutely entitled to do that.

Do you want to discuss what I think is the larger issue? If so, I'm open to that. My opinions on this are not written in stone. I am very much in favor of same sex marriage as I have said a million times. That doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

So do you want to discuss the issue, or do you want to get pissed at me for some reason? I don't think we can do both.

[Cary]

110. I am intimately familiar with internet flakes.

If I weren't one myself I wouldn't be here.

:)

[Echo In Light]

128. Your postulation re Kucinich is way off the mark

His views, or, views you would align with the Left, actually resonate with many, I've found ... the problem is, the right-wing, corporate power that owns this country naturally won't allow such views to be a substantial part of the national discourse (mainstream, corporate media) , marginalizes such views accordingly, and over time gets a lot of mileage in creating a social environment, a climate of opinion, dominated by the narrow framework allowed by the two (one) party system that by default makes unfamiliar leftist views appear 'weird' and unseemly to those who are accustomed to having their consciousness bombarded with a deluge of right-wing, empire-friendly propaganda that masquerades as truth and reason.

[Cary]

136. The "problem" is that we have coalition parties in this country

You have to have a broad enough appeal to win elections. If you can't do that, you lose.

You have to live in the real world.

[Echo In Light]

139. The "real world" is what we make it, so one has to determine the dominant opinion makers/outlets

[Cary]

143. The real world is ultimately about giving things up.

You give up being a baby. Then you give up being a child. Then you give up being young. Then you give up your health. You give up a lot of things in between and then eventually you even give up your life.

To some extent we get to make it what it is. To some extent we have to accept things and grow up.

I would love to have a perfect world. I'm sure I might even love your perfect world. I'm 99.99999% certain that I'll get neither. You won't either.

So. . .

God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

[Echo In Light]

146. Some of those examples involve change in perception based on wants/needs/age/circumstance

To sum it up as "out growing" and "giving up" intentionally trivializes one's plight/dilemma/existence, etc

You're missing the point - most people accept things and have fucked up views because they've grown up and live within a social environment that encourages it - - so, my solution isn't yours...which, sounds like you're saying, well, gee, guess if you don't like a phony democracy that's actually an oligarchy, just accept it and grow up and give up taking the baby steps to make it different.

...ha, not hardly. Never say die.

[Cary]

151. How did you manage to mangle my words so completely?

We are trivial, but that's not the point. The point was:

God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Clearly a lot of you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[Echo In Light]

155. My initial re was to post #107: "DU is powerless," which cited Dennis Kucinich as a qualifier...

...for 'proof' of why the country doesn't abide his, or similar to his, leftist views (although I'm unsure if DK considers himself a leftist, per se)

From there I offered sociopolitical reasons as to why his views don't reach many people, or fall on deaf ears, and that's where you weighed in, suggesting that one need live in the "real world," to which I replied that, in my estimation, it's up to individuals to create and shape their world.

Your response has been to quote a prayer. I'm not arguing with you, bro, just not on the same page, apparently ... nor reading the same book. But that's okay, we needn't all read from the same book, as it were.

[Cary]

157. Thank you.

No, we don't have to read the same book and we shouldn't read the same book.

That's actually closer to what I've been saying here than you've been willing to give me credit for in this thread. We don't have to read from the same book, the way so many radical rightists think they have to read from the same book.

I don't want to see that happen to us. We can do a lot of great things while the right is fucked in the head. We don't have to succumb to that same disease.

That's all I'm really saying.

[Nederland]

149. No it's not

Dennis would have gotten wiped off the map in an election for precisely the reasons you itemized.

[Cary]

156. Welcome to the pissing match

You're absolutely right, of course. But that's not going to stop them.

I kind of like these every once in awhile. Mostly I have them with rightists but I've kind of cut off most of my rightist forum morans. They've gotten too ridiculous and I just can't take it any more.

I come here for sanity.

ROTFLMAO

[Echo In Light]

158. Of course he would have, which is why it's so important to understand why

These things don't randomly occur within a social vacuum - there are clear, definable reasons, and if understood, especially by enough people, than there's a chance those seeds can grow.

[Cary]

161. Why?

Because he's too radical. He's too extreme. He will turn off potential allies.

Please understand that I'm not saying he's bad. I'm not saying I disapprove. I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just saying he's not electible, in the real world.

I like DK. I'm glad his voice is out there.

[Nederland]

166. I understand why, you do not

The world has changed, and despite the fact that the biggest change lies underneath your fingertips and right in front of you on your computer screen you just don't see it. Your complaint about the insurmountable power of corporations to shape and filter mass opinion is so...1992. The internet has completely changed the monetary equations about who can afford to get their message out. The answer now is: anyone. Anyone with access to a computer can post their ideas online and have them read by millions. The root of the problem, the one you fail to acknowledge, is that many lefist ideas, particularly the economic ones, have been read by millions and rejected. The problem is not the system, the problem is the message.

[Echo In Light]

173. More people still rely on agenda-setting M$M than they do the internet. That is obvious.

Yet you fail to comprehend it. So if you're suggesting that The People, supposedly free from the external influences of a corporate media saturated climate of opinion somehow freely 'chose' to not - and continue to not - support a DK, a Nader, someone whose life hasn't been tailored to 'play ball' w/the corporate/state nexus, etc, that's incorrect. Try walking through any shopping mall and randomly asking people if they even know who DK is, and that should help to open your closed eyes.

The type of cultural indoctrination that brings a majority of the populace to perceiving reality through an empire-friendly lens begins in Kindergarten, and from there one encounters many social, institutional and professional inducements throughout the corporate culture prompting adherence and obedience to bullshit rightward "values" which by default makes leftist/progressive ideals appear unrealistic and unseemly.

So, yes, I do understand, as where per your preferences, you don't. At all.

[Nederland]

174. History proves you wrong

If what you say is true, that most people are nothing more than ignorant cogs in a machine spewing out whatever BS is fed to them by the system, then nothing would ever change. We never would have freed the slaves, allowed women to vote, passed the Civil Rights bill, legalized inter-racial marriage, elected a black President, begun a debate about universal health care, or seen four states legalize gay marriage.

Simply put, the fact that things do change attests to the fact that you are wrong.

[Echo In Light]

175. Did today's technology and consumer culture exist during early advancements? No

And those progressive social advancements did occur specifically due to persistent baby steps made by lone individuals who refused to 'grow up and go with the flow' ... which is precisely what you're suggesting people do by giving up on supporting non-corporatist politicians such as DK.

Also, people aren't merely "ignorant cogs." Provided one has even a cursory understanding of sociology, psychology, and of how government's use and wield The Big Lie as a means of implementing thought control in democratic societies, one discovers very intentional, well sourced examples of how populations are manipulated - - does that impact all/every individual to the same degree? ...of course not. But that doesn't mean those machinations are non-effective or non-existent.

"The worst forms of tyranny, or certainly the most successful ones, are not those we rail against but those that so insinuate themselves into the imagery of our consciousness, and the fabric of our lives, as not to be perceived as tyranny." – Michael Parenti

[Greyhound]

120. Ah yes, that familiar whine from the "Raygun Democrats".

You better do what we want or we'll bring the Republiks back!

The thing is you're way doesn't work, never worked, and has brought only a steady destruction of this nation, interspersed with radical collapses.

So what is is when an idea or philosophy has been proven to fail multiple times, yet it's proponents insist on enforcing it? Do we yield to your insanity and go down with you, or do we fight you?

[Cary]

122. Fine, except I'm not a Reagan Democrat

Didn't vote for Reagan. I detested him and his "supply-side" crap, and still do.

You missed my point. Too bad.

[Sebastian Doyle]

135. No, you're a Daley machine operative

that's even worse.

[Cary]

138. Not even. n/t

[omega minimo]

127. so someone told you something and you're lumping a "radical left" into your broadcast assumptions?

[QC]

129. Sorry, but I don't have time to read this--I'm too busy singing The Internationale. n/t

[tekisui]

132. Boo Fucking Hoo. The party may be leaving you.

[Cary]

137. I'm having a great day Tekisui.

Sucks. Doesn't it?

:)

[tekisui]

140. I guess some positions appear radical to the obtuse?

:shrug:

[Cary]

142. Wow, that's great.

:)

[DireStrike]

147. Congratulations! How does it feel to have a party?

Must be nice.

[earth mom]

168. Quit using rethug memes and calling people on the left radical. It's total bullshit. nt

[LAGC]

176. Are you a troll?

I see you've accumulated 1000+ posts, but I have to wonder...

What was the point of stirring up such shit in your other thread? Just to argue over semantics?

You say you are for same-sex marriage, but you criticize how people justify it.

It all begs the question: whats your real point here? Are same-sex marriage proponents too "radical" for you?