Is there a turn against the far left here lately?

[Th1onein]

Or is it just my imagination?

[rudy23]

1. Peruse my journals if you're in doubt, my friend.

You are not alone. It is not your imagination at all. And it's not just the far left, but the moderate to far left.

[Th1onein]

10. That would be a really stupid move, if the far left were opposed here.

It is the far left that pulls the Democratic Party from the right of the center, back to the center and to the left of it. It is the radical that is necessary for this type of movement. God knows, the Democratic Party has gone too far to the right. We need to move back to the left.

[nemo137]

75. I have. They're heavy on accusation and light on proof.

[rudy23]

80. The proof is that for every DK basher I find, you can find 20 more using the EXACT same language

You have to be able to see qualitatively that when dozens of people use the exact same vile language and out-of-left-field talking points (things a DU member would NEVER say, even a "moderate"--comparing DK to Sara Palin or Ron Paul, bashing his pres. run, belittling his height, calling him a grandstander) to bash a procedurally insignificant House member based on what he represents to our community.

You're not going to have any people stand up and say, "Look at me, I'm part of an orchestrated effort to smear the most beloved pol on DU." I don't know how much more proof you need.

[nemo137]

84. That's not proof.

That's what happens when you have two camps, and one camp has set up DK as their standard bearer. This stuff goes back to before the start of the message discipline program - I can remember height cracks appearing before the 2008 primaries, for example. He's always been a lightning rod here, because he takes stances and takes them rather publicly. The difference is that now we're supposedly in power, and so he's going against a Dem congress and Dem president, and that rubs many people the wrong way. Believing in some kind of "marching orders" isn't necessary to explain the anti-DK vitriol.

[rudy23]

89. No, that's what happens when one camp sets up DK as the OTHER camps standard bearer

It's kind of like when Repukes accuse Obama supporters of thinking he's the Messiah.

I would not see the attacks on DK as orchestrated if they occurred during the heat of primary season. That makes sense, and would be appropriate for this board.

What we all saw was out of NOWHERE in July (as evidenced by my journal), people started bashing him EN MASSE, and trying to brand us with him once the healthcare debate ramped up. He was used in conjunction with that "I want a pony" meme that the more obviously "on message" posters were pushing on here.

I suspect the "center" wants to brand us with DK because he has a lot of qualities that turn off the mainstream voter, especially on a superficial level. I think they want to create a meme that shows that Obama is pragmatic as opposed to idealists on both the right AND left.

I think that just as Olympia Snowe is the figurehead that represents the Obama admin's claim to bipartisanship, being anti-Kucinich shows they're willing to fight their own, too.

To me, you'll never see more proof than in the repetition of the same talking points among dozens of people on here. While I realize people can share opinions, these are very off the wall things for dozens to be saying all on the same days---and when one shifts, they all do instantaneously, like a flock of birds.

[nemo137]

90. We're going to have to disagree on a pretty basic level.

For one thing, "I should have voted for Dennis" and "Dennis is the one remaining Democrat" are both seen, verbatim, on these boards fairly frequently. It's not like there was some kind of cabal that decided that Kucinich rather than, say, Weiner was going to take the brunt of attacks. Second, I haven't noticed things shifting instantaneously. There's a standard repertoire of anti-DK stuff, and very occasionally things get added on. I don't see any reason to assume some kind of conspiracy here.

[rudy23]

91. Somebody called him a "fucking jerkoff" on another thread, then compared him to Ron Paul

Two things that are on the checklist---vile, over the top ad hominems, then the talking point about Paul. It sticks out like a sore thumb, especially in a non-primary year.

That goes beyond a bunch of people saying "Dennis is the best", or "Obama sucks." The similarly worded, over the top attacks reek of orchestration, and if you pay close attention, you actually can see it shift instantaneously. It usually happens right after Dennis comes out against the Blue Dogs in a vote, OR pre-emptively when disappointing news for Progressives comes out of the White House.

But I won't force you to see it, and will also agree to disagree. Just want to make my case as best I can. I believe you are making your point sincerely, and I appreciate it.

[nemo137]

92. Thank you for your sincerity and civility, too.

Tensions are running high, but it's nice to be able to disagree and be civil about it.

[Stargazer99]

2. NO, it is just conservatives pretending to be liberal

It is proven time and again they lie and speak half-truths to gain their agenda.

[NJmaverick]

6. Like this guy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7195823

[treestar]

129. Right, they act like the freeper stereotype of a liberal

They are what freepers claim all liberals are. Conservatives pretending to be liberal is exactly the way they act. Like conservatives say liberals act.

[DJ13]

3. Some love the President unconditionally

Others see that things arent improving under his leadership (unless you're in the top income brackets), and exercise their right to say so.

And yes, the unconditional types (or are they DLC? Hard to know for sure) are trying to ostracize those who dont see in Obama what they see.

[NJmaverick]

8. How's the weather in fantasy land?

:hi:

[DJ13]

11. My side is fine, yours?

[NJmaverick]

12. I'm stuck in the real world and as expected the weather sucks, it's frickin freezing

[Mithreal]

69. Gawd, I wish that guy who wrote about the 10 steps of intellectual honesty

were here, he would sooo kick your ass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7170545

[nightrain]

103. thanks for posting those 10 steps. DU seems to be more a place of

dumping feelings/reacting, rather than a place for serious discussion of issues and proposals. That's been my experience.

Recalling the back and forthness of some of the "discussion" about healthcare over the past 6 months, I experienced more name-calling and other false attributes than I expected from fellow Dems.

It takes quite a person to own their errors of judgement and perception and to apologize. Far too little of that on DU. But, if all a poster wants to do is dump their feelings and attack, DU has plenty of that. I go elsewhere for discussion and find less attacking behavior. Sad.

[Mithreal]

153. Not sure how to interpret what you wrote, seems like more than one possibility

My take on DU is that is sort of a crucible of ideas.

What combination of nature and nurture allows people to extinguish emotion and avoid venting?

Dem representatives show far too little emotion when debating these issues. Look what happened when that Congress member from Florida stepped up and said the Republican plan for HCR is for the sick to die quickly. That guy has emotion and it comes through. I think anger can be constructive.

People do evolve. The DU'er I directed my comment at, posted those 10 signs of intellectual honesty. That is what brought my attention to that DU'er. Then I noticed the same DU'er over and over again preaching but not practicing. I thought, maybe it is just someone new. Blew me away when I saw it was a "seasoned" member.

I think I get what you are saying. We need far less ego and more substantive discussions. Sure, I agree. Can't see how anyone would disagree. Maybe give each person time? I will forgive my fellow DU'ers but I really don't expect them to forgive me for anything I say, I am too emotional sometimes. I love this place more and more even with all our faults.

[nightrain]

166. there's no need to extinguish emotion. I certainly would not advocate

that! But there is a problem I often notice on DU which is that some posters do not OWN their feelings, but dump them on others. Personal attacks are far too common and civil discourse is rarer than necessary for this to be an effective forum.

Sure, anger can be constructive. Most of the time on DU though, it just ends there, and the anger isn't explored by the person having it. Feelings UNDER the anger, such as hurt, sad, scared, never see the light of day. Just dump the anger, make accusations, call a poster names, try to humiliate them. It's very young behavior. And certainly not exclusive to DU!!

Far rarer is it that dfferences are acknowledged, appreciated, considered, and used to self-reflect. Even rarer are true apologies for behavior that is excessive by the aggressor.

Other fora are just as heated, but not as attacking.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Interesting - but there is another category.

Love that he's prez - thought (hoped) he would make the country and world the way I wanted it to be. then realized he never was a pure partisan. He was and is a pragmatic, thoughtful, reasonable, conciliator.

[panzerfaust]

94. "...some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap.”

Hillary Clinton, during her campaign.

No, I am not a Clinton partisan: She would have simply represented the old machine, just as Obama now represents the new. What we needed, and still need, and will never get, is a president who is not a tool of the powerful, but who represents the rest of us.

In all the masterful conciliation on the Iraq War, the Afghan War, the Drug War, the War on Terra, GITMO, Military Tribunals (recently quietly resumed), National Health Care, Arctic Oil Drilling, Gays in the Military, "PATRIOT" Act Abuses, the ridiculous and shaming "Southern Fence", rapacious practices by the Credit Card Industry, Bailing out Billionaires, direct support of Christian proselytizing, defending illegal wiretaps, I may well have missed it: On what substantive issues has the current administration not taken a very similar position to that taken by the previous administration?

The closest that I can come is: Possibly the US government no longer is actively engaged in torture (though the president's shielding of those responsible does make one wonder); an admission that Climate Change is real (oh, sorrrrry - many on the DU recognize this as a "Science Conspiracy" - but I do back Obama on this one); the practice of administration apparatchiks rewriting conclusions in scientific papers has likely ended, as have the restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research, no longer are we treating "Old Europe" as an active enemy (but even * was lightening up on that - after all "French Fries" were even allowed again), and we, at least started, to enter into a rational discourse with Iran (which may, or may not, be possible).

What I, mostly a flaming Lefty, would like to see is: Restoration of Constitutional freedoms by abolishing the "PATRIOT" Act, immediate end to our Oil War in Iraq, an end of our Completely Pointless War in Afghanistan, National Health Care for ALL, prosecution of War Profiteers, prosecution of the US War Criminals who have caused havoc in the world and dishonored our military and our nation, criminal investigation into the - mostly bloodless - Presidential Coup of 2000 & into the not-so-bloodless events of 911, decriminalization of ALL drugs, abolition of all legal disability inflicted on Gays (et al), restoration of the Separation of Church and State, establishment of a Guest Worker program which would put an end to the idiocy of our making criminals of Mexican workers upon whom we depend, etc, etc - you know, all the usual leftwing crap - and on all these issues I see no difference from the previous administration.



Unlike Bush, Obama is not an evil man. But like Bush he is but an instrument of those who are rich and powerful

[clear eye]

161. That analysis would be a little more convincing if he included progressives among those

he listens to. Then you could say he's listened to both sides and made a reasoned judgement. But especially on critical economic matters, he has uncategorically refused to hear out a single prominent progressive or labor economist. He just listens to the most elite of the multi-national financiers who he's brought into his cabinet and preaches to everyone else. Ditto civil liberties. With predictable results.

[NJmaverick]

4. just wishful thinking. There has been a nasty turn by many DUers against the Demcratic party

the Democratic President and the Democratic Congress, much to the delight of the GOP and right wingers.

[kestrel91316]

5. It's not your imagination. Many purported Democrats here are in fact

RW trolls. Including some very long-timers who have surprised even me with their recent tombstoning.

[NJmaverick]

29. There have been numerous reports of paid GOP and right wing operatives

posting on various message boards, considering DU's size it would stand to reason they would be posting here.

[madinmaryland]

50. Huh??

:tinfoilhat: there nomad???

I may be a vast Cowboy wing operative, but...

mim shakes his head.

[Occulus]

78. .

Wrong post! :wow:

[NJmaverick]

97. Here is but one source

check it out

http://current.com/1u0rq4c

[Cetacea]

60. This sort of thing has been going on for years, I believe.

I also think they paid to circulate those FWD emails, which are extremely effective,imo. I often here people parroting the "facts" contained within them.

Also, if you read any online news reports from magazines and newspapers you will often see ten or twenty wing-nut responses before anyone else posts.

The right is far more organized on the net in a deceptive kind of way.

[Occulus]

79. Yeah, it has

I meant to reply to you and replied to someone else instead. OOops.

When W "won" again, the DU trolls even had a "coming out" of sorts. One 'longtime'- for back then- DUer even posted an image of an elephant using a branding iron on a donkey and gloating about the win in the OP.

They've always been here. There are RW trolls here who have been here since 2001 who will never be TSed, and they depend on the fact that we can't call them out as the trolls they are in order to thrive here. I'm frankly surprised OMC and imdjh or whateverthefuck that letter salad was are gone; I honestly expected them to last.

Then there's Fredda Weinberg. I remember that piece of work from Salon's "Table Talk" forum when it was new (she drove me off there; I fed the troll and didn't know better). The biggest clue? Her habit of ripping her "dead" "father's" "concentration camp inmate" corpse out of the ground and flailing about with it time after time anytime anyone disagreed with her on anything at all regarding the Nazis or their treatment of Jews during WWII. She was just batshit nuts over-the-top, and I was frankly shocked to see her posting here.

Finally, I think a great many of us remember Bev Harris, but I won't go there tonight.

I haven't ever seen a forum on which trolls live longer than they do here. That is my one major complaint about this site at this time. We tolerate them here long past the time when they should have been taken out with the other internet trash.

[emulatorloo]

104. On the 2004 "coming out." A fair number of them posed as progressives, attacking from the left

John Kerry just was not "pure" enough etc etc.

[rudy23]

81. Also, left wing. Blue Dogs and New Democrats engage in Astroturfing, too, esp. now that they're in

control of the White House. Why wouldn't they want to control the message on the left? I would.

[burning rain]

7. 'Far left."

:puffpiece:

[lob1]

9. There's been a lot of anti Kucinich threads, too.

[rwheeler31]

13. no

Why are you thinking this?

[Th1onein]

108. I saw where, in a couple of threads, there seemed to be an agreement...

that the far left didn't belong on DU, or something like that. It surprised me. I had always thought that the far left was welcome here on DU.

I'm far left, obviously, and I think that we have a very important role in politics. We move the center to the left, just as the far right moves the center to the right. The farther out we are, the more centric others look--we give them credibility. That's probably not the right word, but I hope you know what I mean.

Even so, as far left as I am, I know that change takes place, sometimes, slowly, and you don't need to shoot yourself in the foot when you might make some incremental gains. So, even though I'm very disappointed in Obama because of the Afghanistan escalation, I will vote for him in 2012. And, although I'm very disappointed in the Dems in Congress because they haven't included a public option in the healthcare bill, I will vote for them in 2010 and 2012.

I'll try to find those threads for you.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Democratic Underground doesn't really support Democrats anymore.

The site should change its name to something else.
When only a handful of Democrats in congress are supported on a site
that claims to "help elect Democrats", but yet, there is more negative written
at this site about Democrats than about Republicans, then it becomes time for a name change, IMO.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. and William Pitt comparing Obama to Bush. it's a different place - imho

[NJmaverick]

23. it's no longer the DEMOCRATIC Underground

[clear eye]

163. Question is how that transpired.

Did we move away from them, or did they move away from us?

I don't think 1000's of DU members suddenly changed their thinking about issues. I think they found it more and more difficult to continue supporting those Dems who, for instance, wouldn't move toward impeaching GWB/Cheney as that admin overtly, blatantly ripped the heart out of the Constitution--traditional civil liberties being a core Dem value. When even overwhelming numeric control doesn't result in real movement toward Dem ideals on some of the most basic matters, could the resulting gap between Dem officials and Dem DUers really be seen as a DU desertion?

[arcadian]

46. I feel bad for Pitt for that piece

I saw what he was saying. He said the Obama gave the best speech Bush could had ever given, it was actually a slam against Bush.

[Raster]

19. Bullshit! How can you even say that DU doesn't support Dems?

What many of us don't support is our party and our President seeming to abandon true democratic principles like "of the people, for the people and by the people." And yes, Frenchie, I know you are a big Obama fan, and good on you for it. However, President Obama needs to be held accountable just like EVERY politician, and even more so because he represents the Democratic Party. Many of us worked our asses off and donated large sums of money to get President Obama elected. We have every right to be disappointed in many of his actions and decisions, which, quite frankly, ARE resembling actions and decisions of those of another party.

And let's be real: it appears that the Dems in Congress and THE DEM in the White House have other agendas than those of the people that elected them.

And I am damned tired of persons questioning my loyalties because I don't jump in lock-step to *blindly* support the Dems in office. I support them if they deserve support. And quite frankly, quite a few of them don't deserve my support.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Raster]

22. I won't stuff anything. These are frustrated Dems that have busted their asses

and their wallets to bring much needed change to this country. We are Democrats, not mindless idiots.

[NJmaverick]

25. Whining for years on DU, is not "busting one's ass"

that is just another BS excuse your using to try and excuse the inexcusable.

[Raster]

28. You have a nice day!

[NJmaverick]

30. I'll have a nice day when DU is no longer helping the GOP

[rhett o rick]

53. See the problem is that it isnt Dems against the GOP.

It's the people vs. CorpAmerica. And CorpAmerica not only owns the republicant party, they OWN many Dems. So it isnt just defending Dems vs. Repukes. The Dems tent is too big and a lot of ex-repukes are under the tent calling themselves Democrats. So some say that if you attack Dems, any Dems then you are helping the GOP. I say bullshit.

[Th1onein]

109. I agree with you, rhett o rick

It IS the people vs CorpAmerica. We need to hold our representatives' feet to the fire. They are answerable to US, the American people, not the corporations. Uncritical support for the Democratic party is not a good thing for Americans when our representatives are giving uncritical support to corporations.

[clear eye]

164. Do you personally know the DUer you are accusing of not

doing anything other than "whining...on DU"? Do you have some inside track to info on how politically active this person has been? If not, you are incredibly out of line to voice those baseless assumptions.

And you are incredibly out-of-touch to think that many active Dems aren't upset w/ the current direction in DC.

[emilyg]

40. +10

[snagglepuss]

51. Hear. Hear.

:applause:

[leftstreet]

+1

[winyanstaz]

135. I agree...

I support the dems in congress that are standing up and fighting for us..but I will be damned if I will support those that are selling us out.

[alarimer]

34. It's the Democrats who have abandoned US, not the other way around.

They have abandoned any pretense of adhering to what used to be Democratic Party principles in favor of giant corporations, mostly due to the legalized bribery that is our campaign finance system.

Better we throw out the bums who no longer represent us. They (and the President) work for US, not the other way around. And they need a wake-up call to be reminded of this. Maybe every single one of them needs a progressive primary opponent. Some might even win. THAT is the lesson they need to learn.

[Raster]

67. There may well be two political parties in Washington...

...but they feed at the same trough and by the same hand.

[shadesofgray]

98. +1.

[arcadian]

45. Underground part now more apt than ever in my opinion.

The site doesn't help Democrats get elected, it would have to be registered as a PAC to do that.

[Mithreal]

70. Odd that "Underground" gets left out in this argument all the time

and no amount of reasoned explanation breaks through

[NuttyFluffers]

85. reasoned explanation was once pretty strong on this board... cult of personality still prevailed.

ah, the arguments of style versus substance... haven't we already found the answer? ;)

oh well, the wheel, it merrily turns, turns, turns.

[rhett o rick]

57. The problem is that the big Democratic tent has allowed a bunch of conservative, former repukes

to enter the tent. So, it isnt Dems vs. GOP, it's humans vs. CorpAmerica. So you are going to see DEms fighting Dems because the conservatives gave up on the Palin GOP and are trying to take control of the Democratic Party. Can you spell DLC.

[Lyric]

105. I suppose that depends on whether you define "Democrat" as someone

who stands up for Democratic principles, or someone with a (D) after their name.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. No, just some poor kids who couldn't get a job anywhere else

so they signed up with Rahm Emanuel's Message Discipline, LLC and are now paid to bash actual Democrats 24/7

[Ken Burch]

76. Doesn't "Rahm Emanuel's Message Discipline" sound like one of those dvd's they say they have

in the back of the video store?

[rudy23]

82. Word. nt

[jobycom]

17. There's been a turn against everybody by somebody lately. It's just testier than normal around here.

I don't worry about the labels, so I don't know what group is what anymore. But everyone is mad at everyone right now, and there's less patience and more frustration with everyone right now. I think that's part of the difference between being in power and out of power. When Bush was in, we were all united in anger at him. Now we're all split over how to use that power, and we're so used to thinking of "disagreement" as what you have with your enemy that we haven't worked out yet how to disagree passionately with our allies without turning against them.

Politics is always ugly, always a fight. Everyone disagrees with 80% or more of what anyone else does, and none of us can understand how anyone can disagree with what we all know to be true. That's why it's so hard. And that's why the only things that ever really get accomplished are the few things that we can agree on, and everyone feel betrayed at the end of it all. It's like a football team where all 22 players on the field have a different goal. Even if 11 of them unite to move the ball for a touchdown, those who united aren't going to feel like they really got what they wanted since they had to unite with people on other teams to get there.

My observations at this point in the story, anyway.

[Raster]

21. Yes there is. There is a major "centrist" movement, and it does not include progressives.

And the fave tactic is to question someone's Dem cred. It sucks.

[NJmaverick]

26. More like an anti Democratic movement by people claiming to be progressives

[quiller4]

59. Here here.

[Ken Burch]

77. Careful buddy, you're moving into Benchleyite territory there.

In a few weeks you'll be posting things like "pound sand and peddle it walking!"

[Raineyb]

130. Exhibit A n/t

[Individualist]

110. Absolutely.

And those "centrists" have been bringing in more reinforcements lately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Nope, not your imagination

:hi:

And it will byte the party in the ass. People are realizing that this is about a MOVEMENT, not a party.

[Raster]

66. Damn, Girl, well put: "People are realizing that this is about a MOVEMENT, not a party."

We have a winnah! This is the post I want to recommend.

[timeforpeace]

27. The pro-war crowd has left the left behind.

[Echo In Light]

96. +1 ... and then some

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

101. DU pro-war=will support Obama no matter what he does, even though would have raged if it was Bush.

[Echo In Light]

102. Fickle bunch, those 'moderates'

[MissDeeds]

149. +10

Amazing how the same people who would have been opposed to the escalation under a GOP administration now try to spin it as a necessary and even a good thing. The double standard has become commonplace here. Who would have thought we'd be this divided under a "Democratic" administration?

[TheWraith]

31. There's been a backlash against the Obama haters, if that's what you mean. nt

[HuckleB]

38. A minor one at that.

[patrice]

61. What do you think haters of any type should expect?

I understand opposition, but hate is bias and, therefore, destructive no matter its target.

[Number23]

64. I've noticed that too. I think people have had all that they can stomach

[clear eye]

165. By "haters" do you mean those who would hold him to his word? n/t

[EFerrari]

32. How "far left" do you have to be to object to an unwinnable, useless escalation?

It's lovely to see right wing smears being used here at DU. :sarcasm:

[Th1onein]

35. I'm disappointed in Obama. I'm disappointed in the Democratically controlled Congress.

And I think that I have good reason to be. All Democrats do. I will still vote for the Dem candidate, though. It's the lesser of two evils.

I just wish they would do what we elected them to do. We don't need to escalate the war in Afghanistan and we need universal healthcare.

[LooseWilly]

65. If you're still gonna vote for the Dem candidate... who gives a goddamn if you're disappointed?

Indulge yourself all you want (in disappointment)... no one cares. Read through the thread again, and you'll see what I mean...

[Th1onein]

112. I think that people who would challenge these candidates in the primaries give a damn.

Don't you?

[JVS]

74. Only as far left as Arlen Specter

[EFerrari]

117. Ba-da bing!

lol

[ThomCat]

33. This site has always been more centrist and "moderate"

than anything else. People to the left have been members here, but not terribly encouraged or at home here. It's worse in the past year or so, and yes, often we seem to have targets on our backs while we are here. But it isn't just recently.

[rudy23]

83. Something changed dramatically in '07, and even more in '09

It's not the same as it was in '04-'06. I think the rise of viral marketing and the acknowledgment by mainstream politicians of the usefulness of these kinds of boards in getting THEIR message out, as opposed to just our voices being heard is largely responsible.

[murdoch]

162. This is correct, read the rules

A long time ago I posted about some race and said the Green was better than the Democrat. Someone responded that I was breaking site rules by supporting a progressive Green over the moderate/conservative Democrat. I read the rules, and they were correct.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

This is spelled out even clearer here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office.

It is the bottom line of this site. Free Republic is about a movement - the conservative movement. They talk about the Constitution and Libertarian Party all the time there, and are allowed to support them. As the rules state, this web site at the end of the day is about supporting the Democratic Party, no matter what it stands for. I remember when many, many people were silenced and banned for supporting Nader.

For myself, I am completely horrified to turn on my television and hear the talking heads talk about how we need to torture prisoners - people like Alan Dershowitz. But Alan Dershowitz is a Democrat. As is Joe Biden, who is probably one of the most gleeful bombers out there.

Nothing has changed on this web site, other than some progressives have been enlightened to the rules and hierarchy that have underlied it all along.

[patrice]

36. For those on both sides who are sincere, there's a difference as to whether to proceed

incrementally or by much larger steps.

This difference is being aggravated by moderates playing both ends against the middle.

[Raster]

43. I wouldn't even call them "moderates" They are purposely stirring the pot...

...formenting unrest.

[patrice]

48. In a situation full of hypotheticals, THAT is one thing for damn sure.

[NuttyFluffers]

86. the diffused energy cannot focus energy to do damage...

it's all very easily understood, the logic behind the tactic.

[Th1onein]

113. Sorry, NuttyFluffers, could you explain that better to me?

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

[girl gone mad]

37. I'm only slightly left and I feel it.

Either the centrist set believes bullying will win voters over, or they have become so arrogant and blinded by their new-found power that they simply don't give a shit about appearances anymore.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. Maybe you can explain. I, for example, feel that people shouldn't attack

libs, but should attack Repukes. I think it's a mistake to not attack Repukes. I think lately there have been right wingnuts in here swaying many libs to focus on attacking libs of all kinds rather than Repukes.

Is that what you mean? Kinda?

[Th1onein]

118. I don't know. I just saw some posts that were to the effect of the far left

being persona non gratis here on DU. And everyone seemed to agree. I wish I could find those posts again. I should have saved them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

160. Doesn't matter. Don't you understand what a disrupter is?

And do you understand what a GOP operative is supposed to do?

I'm going to attempt to locate some articles about GOP paid operatives who do this. They are not 1 or 2. There are zillions. Even COMPANIES do it.

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Far left?? You mean even further left than the liberal media??

I'm amused and amazed by the definition of "far left" these days.

[upi402]

68. Funny! and true. The "center" is to the right of Goldwater now

You made me laugh, thanks.

[Th1onein]

119. No, that's not what I mean.

There is no liberal media. Our media is, at best, right of the center. It's the far right that's trying to convince us that our media is far left. And it's bullshit.

I'm talking about socialists, I guess, when I say far left.

[RufusTFirefly]

121. Running the gamut from A to B, I see.

I am pretty far to the left in the States and I have a friend from Germany who's a member of a right-of-center party there. And yet, politically, she's to the left of me. Even the notion of socialism is a red herring. Do you think of our streets and police as socialism? Probably not. That's because most of us consider roads and law enforcement to be essential to the health and well being of the community. The same goes -- for most of us, at least -- for schools and libraries. But when you support expanding the support for the community's infrastructure to include health care, for example, it suddenly becomes a question of socialism.

[Th1onein]

125. Yeah, actually I do think of our streets and police as socialism.

And, to the degree that they are necessary to maintain safety for all of us, I support that kind of socialism. However, when police turn into Nazis and start tasering us for not giving them the respect that they think that they deserve, or protecting the monied interests over the people's rights, I label them as fascists.

[bridgit]

42. Never thought about it, if true; maybe they're just in *their* rotation, after having pushed...

Other Dems so far away :shrug: For whom the bell tolls indeed: it tolls for me I hear it all the time, it tolls for thee, it tolls for anyone one group of us; it tolls for *all* of us if we don't get our collective thoughts together

[Renew Deal]

44. No

I'd say it's a turn to the hard left lately.

[neshanic still]

47. I consider myself far left, and to me it seems that it has become more open for people like me.

To the dismay of more moderate/centrist voices.

[Bluesbreaker]

49. Progressives want to improve the party, not destroy it

You can't make any improvement if you don't have the ability to be introspective and find where improvement is needed. There are certain core beliefs that Democrats have traditionally held. When those who call themselves Democrats abandon these core principles, it's important to point that out. We elect these people do represent us and they must be held accountable.

This is a good site because it entertains a range of views and is one of the few places where the left is fairly represented, for example in today's videos of Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur, as well as the video clips and columns of Matt Taibbi.

[leftstreet]

52. How are you defining 'far left?'

:shrug:

[Umbral]

54. Yeah, it started the day after the '08 Primaries ended. nt

[FrenchieCat]

55. Were you a lurker then?

[omega minimo]

56. Where have you been?

Can you go back? :toast:

[Raster]

107. What a nasty thing to say, even wih the little "toasties"

Perhaps they've been here longer than you....:toast:

[Th1onein]

120. We don't know because omega minimo hides their profile.

Yes, it is a nasty thing to say. I've been here for close to six years now. How long has omega minimo been here?

[omega minimo]

140. I'm sorry.

"Where have you been?" is a common phrase from the 20th Century in response to a question or surprise at something ....

[omega minimo]

139. Not even a LITTLE funny?

:yoiks: :hi:

[Th1onein]

143. Okay, I get it, omega minimo.

You have to admit, though, the humor wasn't obvious. But all is well. No offense taken.

[cynatnite]

58. I'd say it's more a complete insensitivity, throwing around baseless accusations...

for disagreeing with someone, and a willingness to be jerks with others who may not share the same opinions as the majority.

Start worrying about DU when there is too much willingness to be and to think like the majority. Diversity of opinions and ideas should be welcomed and not met with derision and baseless accusations.

[Skittles]

62. no, there is a turn against the right

[JVS]

63. Yup. Hatred for the left.

[Mithreal]

71. Overall, I think the center is getting a deserved pounding.

So, just your imagination I think, but it's a big site.

[Ken Burch]

72. There's a turn against the LEFT

"far left" is a might pejorative. That term is normally applied to Maoists or defenders of Pol Pot or insaniacs like that.

[Individualist]

144. No doubt about that

I agree that the term "far left" is perjorative.

[nemo137]

73. No, people are just at eachother's throats more.

It's not a movement either way, tensions are just incredibly high right now.

[panzerfaust]

87. ? Lately ??

Astounding Induction Holmes!

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[StarfarerBill]

95. The ends of the democratic spectrum here are definitely polarized, these days.

[shadowknows69]

99. We must have the same imagination.

[WilliamPitt]

100. The Left is doing fine here

There's some vocal push-back, which is understandable given that a centrist Democrat is president now, but I've been here for almost 9 years now, and imho, the left is doing fine here.

[tjwash]

106. You kind of sound like an American Christian moaning about being opressed

I see a ratio of 10 threads bitching and moaning about every single thing that Obama does to 1 thread praising his actions here. Same for the congressional and senate majorities and the bills being passed through.

[Th1onein]

124. I'm not a Christian. And I'm not moaning about anything.

I'm talking about some threads that infer an agreement among posters that the far left doesn't belong here on DU.

[mcablue]

111. There's been a slight turn, not huge in my opinion

But real.

[nini]

114. Maybe if you didn't spend time on right wing sites you wouldn't think so

You mentioned that last night.. perhaps your view is skewed?

:shrug:

This site has always had a all kinds of Democrats - nothing new.

[Th1onein]

115. You're twisting the facts.

I was looking for OMC and found out he had been tombstoned here. So, I was curious, and looked at the site that can't be mentioned here, and there he was, bragging about lasting so long here. Please don't twist the facts. There's nothing wrong with doing a little detective work, and sometimes, in order to do that, you have to look in dirty little places.

[nini]

131. really?

You've never posted on a right wing site? The internets do not hide much my dear.


on edit: let me add there was no need to do detective work at that site to confirm all the crap about him. There was PLENTY of info here - no need to go there really.

[Th1onein]

137. In fact, I've been knocked off of rightwing sites.

I posted, years ago, about the Office for Special Plans (Cheney's office under the Bush administration that was created to manufacture evidence to justify a war on Iraq) and was promptly kicked off just for asking if anyone knew about it. (Silly me, I thought the people there were just ignorant of the facts, instead of just not wanting to know anything that would burst their Bush is God bubble.)

I've also posted about my nephew getting killed in Bush's war on the site that we can't name here. Someone here alerted me to the fact that they were talking badly about me there, so I guess I'm not the only one here who visits those sites.

My point is that all of my posts on rightwing sites have been leftwing posts. If you don't believe me, why don't you look them up? I do this, not because I'm a rightwinger, but because I believe that staying on a leftwing site and preaching to the choir is not always productive. I think that we have an obligation to talk to people who hold different views than ourselves, and to try to win them over to our camp. I also post, for this same reason, on yahoo, and I used to post on AOL discussion boards.

As for OMC, I believe that someone here posted something about him bragging about getting tombstoned on DU, and I went over there and saw it for myself.

I'm getting really tired of being accused of being a rightwinger simply because I don't agree with some people on DU on one single issue.

[PeaceNikki]

122. Let's go ahead and chalk it up to your imagination.

[RagAss]

123. No...we're fine.

[varelse]

126. DU's membership seems to be polarizing

Both the left and the more right-leaning elements seem to be less patient with their opposite numbers and more testy. People are snapping and sneering at each other, and representatives from both camps seem to be trying to set up rules of engagement we're all expected to follow.

I am not sure where it will go from here, but if it's anything like the primary wars, more mods will need to be added and trained (imo).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

127. Suppose there is. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? -nt

[Th1onein]

133. I think it's a bad thing.

The far left has it's purpose. It pulls the center to the left. Since the center is a bit (maybe more than just a bit) to the right presently, I think that we need the far left more now than we've ever needed it.

[treestar]

128. Yes

The far far left is of no help and just makes things worse.

[Th1onein]

134. I disagree with you, treestar.

As I've stated here about three times already, the far left has a purpose. That purpose is to move the center to the left. Since the center seems to be to the right of center right now, that purpose comes into play especially now.

I think that we need to be more civil to each other here. And, I think that we need to be careful about attacking each other, and be more aggressive about attacking the right.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. "Turn"? No. More like a reaction..as in reactionary.

[natrat]

138. the corporate junta has so much pr money,it's bound to show up in places like this

it's probably very cheap for them to get a couple whores to type away

[onenote]

141. right, because spending money to post on DU would make so much sense

Not.

Get.Over.Yourself.

This is a great place to exchange information, have arguments, sometimes even learn something. But if you seriously think the "corporate masters" are paying people to post here, you might explain what they would get from that would make it worth doing.

[Th1onein]

146. I do think that there are some really, really to the right wingers who post here.

They do it to disrupt. It's part of their hate exercises. They're miserable people and they need for everybody else to be miserable, in order to feel okay about themselves.

[onenote]

148. i agree, I just don't think they're paid to do so

[Th1onein]

150. Righto.

I don't think that PR money is spent here. But I do think it's spent on other message boards, that are "open."

[bigwillq]

142. Ever since Obama was elected (nt)

[wolfgangmo]

145. What far left? There is no far left in the US.

There is only the middle, the far right, and the completely bugshit crazy.

[upi402]

147. The far left used to be center Democrats, when I started activism

I see the same thing, but have seen everything move right for decades. I've moved a bit right, but find myself labeled radical fringe now. It's the media propaganda organ, and it will end this nation's primacy like Osama can only dream about.

[tbyg52]

151. What do you mean, "letely"....? ;-> nt

[Th1onein]

155. I'm confused. You do know you wrote "letely"?

???

[tbyg52]

167. Hey, I know I can't even post one line without a typo....!

It's just that sometimes I catch them and sometimes I don't. ;->

[BolivarianHero]

152. I've seen a turn both toward and against the far-left...

I've seen people say hard-left things that I never thought I'd see on a liberal board, and I've seen (usually more ignorant) people react accordingly.

[HarveyDarkey]

154. Define "far left"

N/T

[showpan]

156. Left or right...what does it matter

I really never thought about putting a label on myself since i don't know what it would be, maybe someone could tell me.
I believe that our government is too big...
That we shouldn't meddle in foreign affairs...
That we shouldn't invade countries for their natural resources or strategic positions...
That there should be tarrifs...
That we shouldn't spy on all of us...
That we should adhere to our constitution...
That our money should be worth something other than debt...
That we shouldn't let monopolies happen especially with the media...
That government has no say in such things as abortion...
That government has no say in sexual preferences...
That government should have no opinion on religion and use it as a tool...
That our school system is not a daycare or testing facility....
That our health care is controlled by insurance....
That our government is not above us...
That the banksters and corporations control everything....
That both parties have been taken over by corporate neocon fascists (NWO)...
That it is treason not to question our government and it's motives...
That if our government no longer represents it's people and if that government happens to be controlled by Dems or Repugs, it doesn't matter and it's time for a real change.

(BTW, I have been voting for dems my whole life and will no longer support their right wing policies and agendas. Any politician, especially our president, who votes yea on the next war budget is a traitor to America and what it's constitution stands for...IMHO)

So how would I be labeled?

[LWolf]

157. Of course.

The left were among the first to be thrown under the bus, long before the general election. Since the left has numerous excellent reasons to oppose the center-right administration, we are not popular with the centrist/corporatist/dlc/3rd way/"new" dem population.

[followthemoney]

158. The Democratic Party does not like DK.

DU is becoming more like the party proper.

The left is marginalized by both parties because they are both RIGHT WING PARTIES.

That is why the two parties don't like democracy.

The little people should keep their noses out of the business of the powerful in government.

[clear eye]

159. Actually I think there is more tolerance than in the past. n/t