I swear, being on DU has sent me running to the center...

[Paragon]

...not politically, but in practice. Indulge me.

I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty. I think there's a heinous misdistribution of wealth in this country. I believe gay marriage will one day become a reality. I hate Bush and all of his rich, warmongering jerkoffs with a passion.

That same passion I see on DU every day is terrificly inspiring to me. I love each and every one of you and everything you stand for right down to your fun-lovin' cotton-pickin' bleeding hearts.

That said, some of you are pretty frickin' nuts.

I'll admit to my fair share of naivete and "purity", especially when I first joined up here. I voted for Nader in the last election (in Ohio, but that's no excuse), because both parties are in the pocket of special interests and corporations and who knows what else. But you know what, I'd much rather work within the Democratic Party than be without it. That old Willie Sutton saying about robbing banks "because that's where the money is."

Having been exposed to the left, the center, and the tombstoned right here, I've since become much more of a realist. Would I like a single-payer health care system? Sure. Is it anywhere near possible in the confines of our current system? No way in hell. Would I like each and every one of our American soldiers to come home today? Who wouldn't? Unfortunately, that would make an already scary situation descend into chaos.

Friends, there are Republicans (and independents) out there, and they're not going away. The Constitution sets up a set of checks and balances to make sure that no side misrepresents the nation as a whole. I'm not willing to demonize every representative on the other side, when there are decent people like John McCain who I disagree with, but who is aware of the dangers of gridlock and polarization -- and is willing to work together to get things done.

Change is slow, especially in America. We should fight for what we believe in, and I will. But you know, sometimes Muslim extremists do decapitate American "infidels". Sometimes capitalism is actually a healthy thing. Leaning too far to the left or the right makes you appear to most people, well...unbalanced. It's impossible to create a dialogue with anyone when you're both shouting at each other.

But hey, call me a freeper centrist sellout pig if it makes you feel better. I'll be over talking to the reasonable people.

[durutti]

1. Where do you draw the line?

Would you vote for Stalin if it meant beating Hitler? At what point do you decide to stand up for your principles?

[Maddy McCall]

5. At the point when the last vestiges of democracy are not threatened by

the Bush administration.

Get a Dem in, and then let's shift to ideological purity.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

16. I bet you the people who voted for Blair felt the same way...

fat lot of good it did them.

[Warpy]

34. People who refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils

..invariably find themselves saddled with the greater evil. Usually this isn't much of a problem.

This time, it's a problem.

Kerry is no Stalin, but Bush may very well be. It's time to grow up and realize we're not getting a saviour this time around.

[DemCam]

124. Pretty much where I am.

There is absolutely no way that Kerry can be worse than Bush...on foreign policy, on the environment, on health care, on social and human rights.

Some could argue both ways on business, I suppose. But we know he's not going to continue to push for tax cuts for the rich.

Give him hell after he's elected. At least we may stanch the slide over the edge to ruin....for a very long time.

[Vladimir]

32. We pretty much did in WWII n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

90. Yep. And guess what? It was RIGHT. (nt)

[Vladimir]

96. Indeed n/t

[LittleApple81]

2. The problem is not so much the "fringe left" people here. Is that their

reaction has been caused by the fundamentalist, rightwing, awful people at the RW end of the spectrum. When reasonable people try to present their ideas to the world and they get absolutely crazy, fundi crap, you tend to respond in kind.

[troublemaker]

102. So society is to blame?

Is it as Johnny Rotten said, "God save the Queen. She ain't a human being. she made you a moron..."

Why isn't it equally plausible that right-wing nuts were driven to their condition by left-wing nuts? Doesn't it seem likelier that a certain number of people are just plain nuts and that being a nut doesn't force a given political orientation, so nuts are found on both sides?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[anarchy1999]

4. Divide and Conquer!

Interesting post.

Sometimes the CIA decapitates people, did you know that. We train them at the renamed School of the Americas.

Sorry you feel as though DU people are not reasonable. Many of us are. By the way, what exactly is your definition of reasonable?

[kiahzero]

25. Um, try again

If you're going to accuse the government of doing shit, at least get your agencies straight.

The CIA is, obviously, our intelligence service. The School of the Americas trains the military of other North and South American nations, hence the name.

Why would CIA agents be trained at the SOA?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. What part tipped you off that this site has extremists?

Was it the part that only liberals are allowed here? I mean, seriously, you HAD to know what you were getting into before you came. But if you really think that some 45,000 people that post here are the true representation of what it is to be a Democrat or liberal, you're more naive than you think. This is the same site that would've elected Kucinich if it had the chance, and you see how well he fared in the "real world".

Perhaps you should just take things here with the grain of salt they deserve.

[scared]

105. With a grain of salt huh?

Are you talking about people like me? Since the stole election of 2000 I definitly have moved way over to the left, and I think with this administration you have to think in those terms.

They are not NORMAL people. They are fanatics and dangerous, not just to other countries but to ours as well. And if that makes me fringe, well then so be it.

And if actually knowing the real reason we invaded Iraq, not because of Saddam, but becasue of our desire to control the Middle East, well if that makes me a leftist, that's okay too. I mean, Jesus, we helped this tyrant to kill his own people, and then we have the nerve to invade them, maim them, kill them and torture them to free them from Saddam. Makes sense to me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

109. I have no problem with you being a leftist

This guy does though. He needs to understand that no one on this site speaks for everyone though, and we're not the true representation of our party's make-up.

[Flubadubya]

7. "I'll be over talking to the reasonable people."

And where might that be? A place with only reasonable people, I'd like to go there... I think!?

Take what you need from wherever you are. There will always be "kooks" and "spooks" wherever you go. You might even learn something from one or two... ya just never know!

[bowens43]

8. It's hard , so it's not worth doing?

There is less danger in grid lock then there is in compromise.
Compromise is how we ended up where we are today.

The Constitution does not set up checks and balances 'to make sure that no side misrepresents the nation as a whole'. The Constitution knows nothing about 'sides'. The checks and balances are to control branches of government, nothing more. The checks and balances provided by the Constitution will do nothing to stem the tide of fascism and religious fundamentalism that threatens us all.

Yes , there are a few Republican members of congress who are honorable decent people but they aren't the ones we have to worry about. Anyone who follows politics in the US knows that 'reason' accomplishes nothing when reasonable people are not at the helm. 'Reasonable' people do not change the course of history. They never have and they never will.

There is a time when shouting and outrage is appropriate and there is a time when total victory is the only acceptable outcome. We have reached that time.

The center is ineffective. Change , both good and bad, comes from the
fringes. While we work to change the world , you can work to maintain the status quo. To each there own.

[moondust]

9. You know your sig banner

may have a hidden meaning or be an inside joke or satire or something else in your mind but...at face value to the casual reader it makes you look wacko and is sort of an embarrassment to everyone who posts in these forums. Is that your aim?

[ShaneGR]

10. According to a lot of the radicals on this board

Kerry is running a horrible campaign. Ooops, he's winning the polls in every single swing state and almost every national poll.

So I tend to not visit this site a lot. Unfortunately.

[bowens43]

11. Radicalism is in the eye of the beholder......

Kerry isn't running a great campaign. He should be way ahead in the swing states but the fact is that the race is a statitical dead heat just about everywhere. I bet you thought Al Gore ran a great campaign too.

[OKNancy]

12. I bet you thought Dean ran a good campaign

n/t

[bowens43]

14. No , I didn't, Dean knocked himself out of the race.

In fact , I'm a Kerry supporter and have been since the Iowa caucuses. Gore ran a lousy campaign and Kerry isn't doing much better. I don't know what he should do to improve but he needs to something. I have heard many Democrats say they're not inspired.

[smada]

20. I would be one of those uninspired

Kerry is uninspiring.

Although I didn't agree with Dean on everything, I never doubted his honesty and sincerity. The man is sincere and has a passion for what he believes and he inspires others to believe it also.

I see none of that in Kerry. Kerry makes me want to lay down for a nap.

[bowens43]

24. I agree about Dean.

I was a supporter during the early days of the campaign. He was inspiring. After it became apparent to me that Dean wasn't going to make it I switched to Kerry because of his record as liberal. I will vote for Kerry and I think he will make a very good president. I just think he needs to do something do bring more people into the polls.

[meow2u3]

60. You're falling for the Bush propaganda

It's the Bush camp who's trying to paint Kerry as "boring, uninspiring, unlikeable, etc.", and you're swallowing the pernicious propaganda the Bushies are feeding us whole.

I had been force-fed those same lies, but I decided to induce vomiting and hurl it right back in the faces of those who try to deceive me--and I hope you see through the lies.

[smada]

65. You're telling me I can't think for myself?

Sorry, that's bunk.

Kerry is, in my own opinion, boring, uninspiring, unlikeable. I don't need Bushco to spoon feed me that. I've made up my own mind.

I'm praying for a Dean coup at the convention.

[bowens43]

97. I don't need you to tell me what I am doing or not doing.

I like Kerry but IMO he,like Gore (who I also liked and supported) lacks charisma and that has NOTHING to do with the bushies propaganda. I'm not 'falling' for anything, I'm not 'swallowing' anything. I'm stating MY opinion. I realize, that you are trying to be a positive influence here but condescension gets you nowhere.

[djg21]

68. Kerry is doing fine.

BushCo is self-destructing, and all Kerry should do is stay out of the way. We're six months from the elections. I have no problem with Kerry waiting until after the convention to swing into high gear.

[bowens43]

98. I look forward to 'high gear' too

I'm not saying that he is self destructing I just think that he should be doing better. He's not reaching some people. I'm talking about family members, life long democrats, who say they are going to vote for him but they're not thrilled by it. I think he's going to win and I support him.

[Cheswick2.0]

43. Dean ran an honest campaign

Kerry and the DLC did not and won. That's nothing to be proud of.

[Q]

38. It's interesting that YOU are always among the first...

...to throw out the RADICAL label for those who have a different point of view. What a coincidence: that's what the DLC calls those who won't submit to their conservative, corporate agenda.

- As to 'checks and balances'....one must also consider the other aspect of democracy: coequal branches of government. That means what it says: that no one branch of government should have the ability to attain dictatorial powers over the others. Checks and balances have been totally eliminated by a Congress that has relinquished their Constitutional duties and responsibilities to the executive branch. This gives Bush* a blank check and the ability to wage war against any country HE thinks holds 'terrorists' and without a formal declaration.

- And certainly...free speech gives us the right to criticise even our OWN party and the candidates they choose to run. We joined the Democratic party for a REASON...and it's not acceptable to be told that the party can arbitrarily change its principles in order to 'win'...with a wink and a nod and a 'promise' they'll be changed BACK again as soon as we're in 'power'.

- It's not enough for the 'new' Democrats that we'll hold our noses and vote for Kerry or anyone else who is nominated. They want an oath of loyalty much like the oath RWingers are forced to take or be labeled as enemies of their party. That's just too much to expect.

[Selwynn]

115. Well said.

I am with you more and more Q.

[Spentastic]

13. reasonable people?

Other sellouts you mean? Enjoy yourself. I'll be talking to people with principles.

Your little piece could read as the third way manifesto. Change nothing and win.

Win what?

on edit

The best testament to Paragon's position is the friends who have decided to join him/her in the "centre".

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. Simple question:

If there are "checks and balances to make sure that no side misrepresents the nation as a whole", how did Bush become President, and why has he gotten away with an illegal invasion, the destruction of civil liberties, and all the other heinous acts his "side" has carried out in the past three years?

Change is slow, especially in America.

Is it? Bush sure has changed the US and it didn't happen slowly, that is for sure.

But you know, sometimes Muslim extremists do decapitate American "infidels".

What has that got to do with the price of butter? Are you suggesting that such an act somehow means that the left should abandon its principles?

Leaning too far to the left or the right makes you appear to most people, well...unbalanced.

Most people? Bollocks.

But hey, call me a freeper centrist sellout pig if it makes you feel better. I'll be over talking to the reasonable people.

Reasonable people? Define reasonable? Do you mean someone willing to say, for example, well homosexuals don't HAVE to have the same rights as anyone else, or illegal invasions and war crimes are justified if we can find some "excuse" to carry them out.

If that is your definition of "reasonable", then I am GLAD you don't want to talk to the likes of me.

[smada]

17. I agree and disagree

I have become distanced from the majority thinking here over the issue of Iraq.

I think Saddam Hussein was an incredibly sadistic murderous tyrant the likes of whom the world is better off without. And I'm glad that the US played a part in getting rid of him. This is a man who gassed to death 15,000 men, women, and children simply to show that he could. I don't know how so many here who would consider themselves champions of civil rights could think his ouster wasn't a good thing, regardless of the means by which it was accomplished.

I don't believe radical Muslims hate us because of our foreign policy. They don't hate us because "we don't listen to them". They hate us because we are not Muslims, we are infidels to them. I don't believe sitting down to discuss things with them would appease them any, it would only embolden them. The Koran commands them to be at war with us, everywhere and all the time. Everything else is pretext and many seem naive enough to believe all the pretext.

I'm truly appalled at the apparent publicity hound Nick Berg's father has become in the days since his death. I may not be a fan of George Bush, but at the very least I would trust him more than those who killed my son. Michael Berg's article in the Guardian almost seems to romanticize those who beheaded Nick. That, to me, is just looney.

Unfortunately, I'm all too aware of how my opinion on this issue puts me at severe odds with the majority here. But nonetheless, on other issues I enjoy the discussion here and find a lot of good points, especially on the civil rights threads.

[Turbineguy]

22. Welcome aboard!

[Flubadubya]

26. It's just hard to figure that someone is "one of us"...

who believes that Saddam Hussein's tyranny justified the invasion of Iraq by the United States, that our foreign policy has not affected how we are viewed by the Middle East (and the rest of the world, for that matter), and who is not skeptical enough of the Bush government to even suffer the thought that this misadministration might could have had a hand in Berg's murder... would find a welcome home on this board.

Nope, I don't see that as fitting in with the general philosphies held by most DU'ers. But nonetheless, you must believe you fit in somehow, and for that you're welcome.

[Puglover]

29. I agree Fluba...

I don't see how Smada can be comfortable here and support the invasion of a sovereign country to "liberate" them and believe that ALL radical Muslims "hate" us because we are not Muslims...
Doesn't sound terribly progressive to me.

edit for spelling

[smada]

33. Not to parse words but

It's not accurate to say I think the invasion of Iraq was justified. However, I'm not displeased with the result. Now I just wish they'd take care of loose ends and get out. However, I also don't want to see another power vaccuum filled by another Saddam.

It's also not accurate to say that I think our foreign policy has had no impact on how we're perceived. How could it not how some impact? But I don't think that's what drives them to fly planes into our World Trade Center.

I can fathom some far out, Hollywood type scenario where Berg was killed by the CIA for some reason. But I can't seriously entertain that idea. It's just too far fetched to be believeable, Occam's Razor and all. Most likely, he was captured and killed by radical Muslims.

Like I said, this is the one big issue that puts me at odds with other DU'ers. I realize that. I'm OK being in the minority.

[Ripley]

36. There you go again!

Man...you are not displeased with the result of invading Iraq????

So, you like thousands of dead civilians including children? You are pleased 800 soldiers are dead? You are happy just because one man, one GD man is behind bars at the cost to so many?

Sick.

[smada]

39. You're baiting me

Of course I'm not pleased about any dead civilians, or dead soldiers and it's simply inflammatory for you to suggest that. You know what I mean and you're simply stirring up trouble.

Now about the 15,000 men, women, and children Saddam gassed to death. I suppose that was OK?

[Ripley]

42. Since you keep bringing that up...

No, Saddam's brutal treatment of his populace is not OK. Neither was Hitler's, or Kim Il's or Stalin's.

The world is not black and white. You said you were not displeased at the result in Iraq today. I would venture to say that BUSHCO is displeased with the result of Iraq today. IT IS A DISASTER and how can you say it was worth it? Saddam killed 15,000 (you say) and now there are at least that many Iraqis dead due to GW Bush. Why is it better because "we didn't mean to kill them." They're still dead.

[Puglover]

45. I guess I don't understand

how you cannot support the invasion of Iraq but be "pleased" with the result. I wake up every morning horrified with the result. Smada, I posted an old article by Arundhati Roy yesterday that she wrote 18 days after 9/11. I'd be interested in your take on it. If you have time, take a look.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html

[smada]

54. Let me make an analogy

But first, and again not to parse words, but I said "I'm not displeased", not "I'm pleased". You might think it's semantics, but it's a difference that conveys how I truly feel versus not quite how I feel at all.

If a convicted child molester was running from the police and ran out into traffic, got hit by a car and was killed... I wouldn't be displeased. I can't say I would be pleased, nor that I would support running over child molesters with a car as a routine course of justice. But if it happened, I wouldn't be displeased.

Understand?

[Puglover]

59. I think you're trying to explain how you feel

and in my experience that's a difficult thing to do posting on a board. Saddam is history. Okay, not a bad thing. However to me, the means it took to take him out was and will be costly beyond our expectations both in human tragedy and loss of any trust for the US from folks in the Middle East. And I feel as if what I'm saying is a HUGE understatement.

[Ripley]

35. Wow, that is the most bigotted thing I've read here.

You sound just like the Bush-lovers in my area who write letters to the paper that sound exactly like your description of Muslims. Do you know any Muslims? Maybe you should get to know some and ask them about what they believe before you say shit like that.

[smada]

37. Yes, I do know Muslims

I happen to be very close to one. That's why I carefully said "radical Muslims", which you chose to overlook.

[Ripley]

44. You said:

The Koran commands them to be at war with us, everywhere and all the time.

If you only meant "radical Muslims" like OBL, well okay. But it sounds to me like you are bashing the Koran.

[smada]

46. I hate to think I have to spell out

every little nuance of what I mean. But maybe so.

I specifically said "radical Muslims". When I say "the Koran tells them...", perhaps it would be more clearly understood if I had said, "to radical Muslims, they interpret the Koran as telling them..."

However, I assumed that would be understood from the context of the discussion.

[Ripley]

50. No, I'm usually not so dense.

But I see those words almost exactly in my paper and they refer to all Muslims, not just radical ones. So I apologize for not reading your post more carefully.

And by the way. The same could be said about "radical Christians" like Bush and his wacko Generals who think we are on a Crusade. I've heard Rush, Robertson, and the other mouthpieces for the RNC claim we should just bomb Iraq to kill all the terrorists. How is that different than the "agenda" to kill all infidels by OBL types?

[smada]

56. I completely agree

I have a whole list of radical Christian fundamentalists I would like to see shipped off to some tiny island:

Pat Robertson
Michael Powell
Robert Knight
James Dobson
John Ashcroft
Randall Terry

Is that a good start?

Rush, I don't take seriously because I think he's all schtick. He knows his audience and how to entertain them. He does it well apparently. The guys above are true believers though, and that's scary.

[Ripley]

58. Yeah, good start.

But you are so wrong about Rush. Well, I guess you're right it's a schtick...but you misunderestimate (as Smirk would say) his power. It is not, I repeat NOT entertainment alone.

On a daily basis you can listen to CSPAN, or co-workers or anyone of the millions of Americans (including soldiers I hear) who listen to his LIES and hear them say "Thank God for Rush. Rush is Right. I only get my news from Rush." They are the most ignorant people in America. They are hateful and mean because they have been spoon-fed fascist dogma for years from this buffoon. If you don't think the John Ashcroft's and Michale Powell's got to their places of power without Rush, et al. you aren't paying attention.

[smada]

62. Maybe so

I don't listen to him, I don't read about him. Rush just isn't on my radar so I probably do underestimate him.

I do hear about the frightening neo-fascist fundamentalists all the time though, who think a constitutional amendment is the perfect solution for imposing their moral strictures.

Who doesn't think we should use the constitution to mandate that no one has any sex except procreative, missionary position intercourse (preferably in complete darkness), which we should then pray for forgiveness for since we're being so lustful?

[dpibel]

117. If you don't mind

Would you please give me a link to support your statement that, "This is a man who gassed to death 15,000 men, women, and children simply to show that he could." If you are referring to Halabja, I've apparently been badly misled, because everything I've ever read about that says (1) the number was about 5,000 (still a lot, but somehow different than 15K), (2) the massacre took place in the middle of a war, and was associated with a battle for control of a city (different, I think, from "simply to show that he could"), and (3) at the time, US intelligence said it was Iranian gas that did the deed; it wasn't until BushDaddy needed to go to war that the gassing became clearly the work of Saddam Hussein.

Would you please give me a link (other than the maunderings of those paragons of honesty, the Fierce Warrior Chieftain and his warlords) to support your proposition that radical Muslims want and intend the utter destruction of non-Muslim civilization? The most famous of those radicals, Osama bin Laden, made a statement detailing the reasons for his anger. His agenda did not include the forcible conversion of the whole wide world to Islam.

Finally, if you would be so kind, won't you explain to my why TF you're injecting the topic of radical Islam into your discussion of bringing to justice the World's Most Wickedest Man? Last I heard, and I'm not aware of anyone gainsaying it, Saddam ran a secular government and was, in fact, at odds with radical Muslims, not least of which was his enemy Osama bin Laden.

Got Kool-Aid?

[smada]

118. Instead of a link

I'll let my many conversations with Iraqi Kurd refugees over the last ten years inform me of what I think the truth is. You see, my city has the largest population of Kurdish refugees in the US. I live one block from a refugee village populated by Kurds who were evacuated from Iraq during the first Gulf war, shortly after the incident at Halabja. I've befriended many of them and have spent many late nights discussing their life in Iraq and their feelings about the war, then and now. Convsations with them are fascinating, insightful, and extremely informative. Their word tends to hold more sway with me than yours.

You say it was Iranian gas? What conspiracy websites are YOU reading?

And you think Osama is going to be up front and tell us that he simply wants to either forcibly convert us or blow us up? You don't think he'd offer some pretext for his motivations? You really are naive.

Save the Kool-aid for yourself.

[dpibel]

123. How very interesting

There's a Kurdish refugee village in Tennessee? Fascinating.

I have no doubt that the Kurdish people with whom you speak are fascinating, etc. I'm not sure exactly how it is pitting my word against theirs when I say I'm aware of no story that says 15,000 people were killed at Halabja.

I guess you think I'm lying when I profess ignorance. Cool, but it doesn't get us very far. I'd say my profession that I've never read any number but 5,000 associated with Halabja. Here's that number (actually, I stand corrected to the extent of "5,000 to 7,000") from that famous conspiracy website, the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm

As for the initial identification of the gas as Iranian, I'm looking at the well-known conspiracy site The New York Times (via Truthout.org, the conspiracy site associated with noted DUer Will Pitt):
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm
Of course, this is an op-ed, written by the ignorant conspiracy theorist Stephen Pelletiere, who is such a nut that he functioned as "the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000." Of course, that's just what he says, and you know how these CT people are.

If you were a careful reader, you might be able to divine that I did not say "it was Iranian gas." I said that's what the US said at the time, and that when it became convenient the US said it was Iraqi. This is the problem when the government lies. A person (at least this one) doesn't know which story to believe. You, of course, do. But that may say more about your analytic process than about the truth of the matter.

As for Osama's secret intentions, here's a poser for you: I suspect you take at face value the "Osama confession" video. So (if I'm correct) you're willing to take his word for it on that. But when it comes to the matter of what's pissing him off, he's a liar, and you know his secret intentions. Funny how that works. Of course, I could be wrong, and you think everything he says is a lie. But that gets into different problems.

Feel free to offer me further enlightenment. I hope you won't be too sad if I'm not entirely convinced by your second hand accounts of the stories told you in a Tennessee refugee village (perhaps I'm reading your profile wrong, and the "TN" there doesn't stand for Tennessee, in which case I'm sure you'll correct me).

Thanks.

[ptsmknhipy]

18. Whats wrong with the center

You make it sound like you are ashamed to be in the center. Your thoughts seemed reasonable to me. I might not agree with all of them, but some of them I do. So that makes you and I like every other sole on this planet. I certianly won't apologize for that and neither should you. I'm here to stay away from the Pat Robertsons and the Newts (which thank goodness have not dissapeared from the rights political party) and to try to negate any effect they have on our lives. Everything in life has a center, thats where the balance and harmony is. If you grind your ax too long, there won't be nothing left.

Doc

[Bridget Burke]

19. There is no way I'd vote for anyone but Kerry.

But does that mean we should just shut up?

I'd like his campaign to improve, but it's early yet. I want better health care & our forces out of Iraq as soon as possible; perhaps not right now, but I'm not giving up.

I look forward to criticizing President Kerry for the next 8 years--& applauding him when he does well.

[ptsmknhipy]

21. Vote issues

I can't remember the last time I saw a man running that I would want to run my kids baseball team much less the country. Our choices are just the same silver spoon crap rich kids over and over. So I just focus on issues. But damn could they get anyone stiffer and more dull than Kerry? Really, this is the best we can do? I say we draft someone. Hell, I'm nominating you Bridget. I'll bet youre as good and a hell of a lot more fun than Kerry. You did make your Guard meeting didn't you?

Ive been holding my nose at the booth for so many years I'm starting to look like Michael Jackson.

[LeftHander]

23. Center been pushed to the right....because of Bush

Not in my lifetime have I seen a group in power with such disregard for everything but money and war....Us leftists....are really just plain everyday liberals and prgressives that are REALLY upset.

[John_H]

27. Sounds like you're starting to ralize what it took me too long to learn

That sometims, especially in politics, chiches are chiches because they're also truths.

By insisting on getting everything your're passionate about unsullied by the impurity of the acceptable-to-others, you usually wind up getting the opposite of what you want.

But...but the wingnut rethugs don't have to compromise. They just steamroll everything they want into being. First, it's our own demand for a pure candidate in 2000 that got them that ability, and I'd bet a buck the GOP is going to see the flip side of steamrolling, big time, on Nov 2.

Plus, the left will never be able to do what Delay does. Lacking the vote and money getting power of the appropriation of Jesus, and having far more non-radicals in our party than the GOP, the far left will never, at least not in our lifetimes, be able to steamroll an ideologically pure agenda through the legislative process.

Sometimes you fight to the death, to be sure. But like it or not, being left of center means you're always going to have to accept what you want a little watered down.

[Q]

40. It's not about 'impurity' at all...

...but how about not SLIDING BACKWARDS? It's not a demand for purity to desire a candidate that will uphold the same principles and values that were the reason many joined the Democratic party in the first place.

[Az]

52. Sometimes you have to look at the sum of the parts

And this is the troubling thing for many on the left. We have sat here and allowed the tactic of appealing to the center to go on for some time now. But what we are beginning to percieve is a bit unsettling.

In using the tactics they are the DNC/DLC have lead us into a very precarious place. When you examine the sum of their tactics you see that the path is not taking us to where we need to be. Instead it is taking us down the same path the Republicans are trying to drag us. The only real difference is whether we go there at a breakneck speed or slightly slower pace. There is no real reversal or change of direction coming from the Democratic leadership. They are staying the course but easing back on the throttle.

A further and more damaging aspect is how this appeal to the center is percieved by others. Everyone knows that Dems have to concede issues to the left. Its their base. Even if they don't give voice to it as much any longer. But it is that which disgusts people about the Dems. They appeal to the center in a false attempt to present themself as centerist all the while trying to play to the left under the table. At least this is the perception of most in the center and the right.

Thus when you talk to people about how they feel about the Democrats you will find that it is consistantly a question of trust. They simply do not trust them. They believe them to be manipulative and deceiptful. And in all honesty they are. Appealing to the center while trying to carry the left is inherently dishonest. They are lying to someone. Either they will remain true to the appeals to the center or they will attempt to appease the left.

Take a look at the polls and you will see this truth born out. Bush's approval ratings are dropping. But Kerry's numbers are frozen. This is because even though people cannot stand Bush's policies they still trust the man. Meanwhile they look at Kerry and see someone willing to do anything to get in office. They simply do not trust him. He does not seem to stand for anything. While Bush may be an idiot he seems to have conviction.

It is this sense of trust that appeals to people more than anything else. Politics has become so complex that a sense of the person running is all most people can really relate to. If a candidate does not seem to stand up and defend their positions strongly and decisively people will reject them before they ever have a chance to explain the thinking behind it. It is this battle that we are losing. And we are losing it because the DNC/DLC is obsessed with playing number tweaking games.

[jonnyblitz]

28. why does moving towards the right make one a realist.?

interesting.

[Puglover]

30. Paragon

I don't think you're a freeper, centrist sellout pig at all. Just don't vote for Nadar this time.....okay?

:)

[demnan]

31. Odd . . .

You're rather be talking to reasonable people? But they're so boring, my dear.

[Az]

41. Frustration

What you are seeing in some of the more vocal members of the left is frustration. This party has taken a path that causes it to attempt to appeal to the center and the even the right on occaisions. It is their belief that by doing so they can win elections and you need to win elections to make a change.

There are many problems with this. Not the least of which is it seriously disenfranchises those on the left. People are hard pressed to continue to lend their support to an organisation that asks them to stand quietly in the back of the room.

The left sees problems. With the tactics the DLC/DNC are using it seems to them their issues are not being addressed. While they are not calling for a socialist uprising they are seriously concerned about the power and reach of Corporations. Yet they see their leaders drawing money from the same Corporate handlers as the right. This is very distressing.

If you hold the left in the closet long enough they are going to start making a lot of noise or bolt from the party. This is simply a natural reaction. If the left leaves the Dems they dead. Period. The 2% Nader manages to drain off should be proof of the necessity of addressing their issues. But no candidate is willing to stand up and defend the left. Instead they try to play the tactical game and appeal to the middle in the hopes of winning a few more votes.

The left does not want to win in name only. It wants to win the battle of ideas. The current structure of the Democratic party does not seem to be arrainged to win the battle of ideas. Instead it has fallen into a slippery slope created by the fear of losing.

[Ripley]

47. Thanks for that post.

You explained that very eloquently.

Kerry folks keep saying "this is how it's played" about moving to the center....but they don't seem to realize how far right the center has been moved. The Dems keep moving right in their campaigns, but then forget to move back left after the election. Isn't it obvious to everyone that this tactic failed in 2002? And what about the Iraq war vote and tax cuts and budgets?

[Q]

53. The DLC 'strategy'...

...is one of 'appealing' to the middle and the right...with the EXPECTATION of the 'left' falling in line and voting for THEIR candidate. They expect these votes no matter what the nominee says or does...or how much he caters to the middle/right.

- But the other part of the equation is that the Bush* government has a (secret) policy of torturing and killing 'detainees' of the 'war' on terrorism without any kind of due process. The Dem nominee can't just ignore this...at the risk of appearing complicit or too cowardly to do what's right. There is more to being a nominee that just kissing enough asses to win. It MUST ALSO be about leadership and showing the world that these injustices won't stand.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

63. There you go, the Left is annoyed because it is always taken for granted.

Hence Nader.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. You Describe The "Path" As A Fact. . .

. . .when indeed, the path is your opinion. I'm a studious observer of politics and gov't too, and i don't see the Dems taking the same path as the Repubs.

While "business friendly" is a similarity, for instance, there is more than one path to economic stability and business growth. The fact that both sides are looking for "business friendly" policies doesn't mean the two sides are on the same bridge.

That doesn't mean i'm right, but i can support my POV, just like you can support yours. So, your opinion that the Dems are leading us down the same path is not, indeed, a fact. Merely an educated opinion.

If the basis of your consternation is that "path" argument, than your concern is an opinion based upon opinion. No?
The Professor

[Az]

75. The path is percieved

Not a literal made from concrete thing. The identification of the path comes from one's own understanding of the accumulation of information at hand. To be sure we are not actually standing in the halls of power listening while descisions are made. Thus we can only go based on what our subjective awareness of the path is.

It is an opinion. But it is an opinion that is becoming increasingly shared by more and more people who see trouble in the apparent direction we are heading ing.

[ProfessorGAC]

88. I Think You're Reinforcing My Point, Az

More and more people, who are basing it on opinions. So, you have an opinion shared by others, and that makes it the truth?

I didn't say the path was made of concrete. Don't imply that i'm some sort of idiot!

I said that you were declaring the path you perceive as the truth. I see it differently. I don't agree that the Dems are leading us down the same path.

Does that make me wrong, and you right? Or, is that a difference between two valid opinions?
The Professor

[Az]

92. I was trying to agree with you

Forgive me if it came out wrong.

Yes we can have two different opinions.

There are those of us on the left (there is not one monolithic left) that are concerned that the sum of the actions being taken by the Democratic Leadership is not sufficiently coorective to the problems we believe we percieve.

Politics is a game played with abstract constructs. Each person has their own image of what the contruct is supposed to look like. We tend to line people up according to the similarities they have in their particular image of it. As it is an abstract construct there cannot be truly a correct image. We can over time experience the efficacy of various paths over others and in hindsight determine whether a particular path was in fact effective.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Mandate My Ass]

49. I *LOVE* these threads

You people on DU are way too (fill in the blank with insulting stereotype) and your smugness is alienating the swing voters.

I, on the other hand, will start a sneeringly disparaging, self-aggrandizing, flamebait post to show you how to win friends and influence people.

I love it, I really do. :D

[IrateCitizen]

70. Yeah, you said it Monica

These people act like their public pronouncements and condemnations will suddenly get everyone to change their ways.

They might as well try and stop a glacier from sliding downhill or shout at the sun to stop it from rising in the East in the morning -- all three activities have about the same chances for success.

[Frederic Bastiat]

55. You and me both...

Now I am just content to...(see sig below)

[libcurious]

57. I agree with Paragon on this one

While I don't believe in some of Paragon's other beliefs, change will not occur without calm, respectable dialog. I want Bush out just as much as all of you, but demeaning and yelling at swing voters will only make this side seem to radical for them.
Conservatives want a Fascist state
Liberals want a Socialist one
Both are wrong.
The average joe citizen is neither and wants the government to stay out of their life.
We must honor the WHOLE Constitution as it was written, not interpreted.
After all, The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

61. I'm getting tired of the arrogant condescencion shown to the left here.

Particularly the underlying argument that by the very act of being left-wing and discussing left-wing issues, we somehow embarass DU. We often reach out to the centrists, to build a wider church. They often seem to be unable to reciprocate.

[RandomKoolzip]

78. That's true.

The true activists, the true arbiters of change, are NOT going to come from the center; they're the Larry Kramers, the Eugene Debses, the Emma Goldmans, the Malcolm Xs....the firebrands on the margin who have the drive and the passion necessary to annoy people enough to affect some kind of change. The more the buzzing hiss of the extreme left gets heard, the more those in the center may be forced to adopt some of those ideas into their ideological framework; diluted, possibly, but AT LEAST the process may push the rock a little bit more up the hill.


If things are ever going to get better, the voices of the "hard" left are going to have to be heard.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

83. Right. I'm a pragmatist, but within reason.

Remember, ideas like Canada's universal healthcare and the UK's National Health Service, even the Blue Box recycling program were considered heretical commie ideas until they were proven to work. Parties have to innovate, take risks and inspire. The left can do that, we can generate new ideas and beliefs, which help the centrists as much as they help us.

[IrateCitizen]

66. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

:boring:

I always get a kick out of the self-righteous indignation in posts like this, like simply expressing condescension toward those whom one deems as "radical" or "unacceptable" will suddenly turn everything on its head, and get everyone to agree with them.

One might as well try and stop glaciers from sliding downhill, because the effectiveness is about equal in each endeavor.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

67. This place makes me want to leave the Dem party sometimes and go

further left. I think we need the R word sometimes. But that's just me.

[RandomKoolzip]

69. I know, J____, me too.

I sometimes get pissed off at the "republicans are people, too!" sentiment I see here at DU sometimes. Guys, we are in a war we didn't declare.....If it weren't for the 2000, elections, I'd still be a registered green.

It'd be nice to pull the party back to the left, but realistically, it won't happen before november. (sigh)

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

71. True - but it MUST happen - not just for our good but that of the World

Man we are so behind the curve compared to many other countries in our fucking backward, arrogant agressive right wing ways.

And then there's the race issue. Oh wait - don't say that - I don't want to talk about that!

[RandomKoolzip]

73. Race? You mean NASCAR?

Ah love racin' cars! VRRRoOOOOoooMMM!


See, maybe we are behind Europe in terms of quality of life, but we're way way ahead of them Yuro-freaks in terms of how we apply our darkly ironic senses of humor.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

76. Agreed! At least there's something. But Hell, in Germany the Green

Party actually has some say. And there are, in Europe, such things as intillectual circles. Man I'm scared I'm losing my love for this country.

[RandomKoolzip]

85. I'll never NOT love America.

I still (STILL) believe we were raised in the greatest country on earth. But this country needs some fucking changes before it implodes.

"This country gave us Little Richard and it gave us Richard Speck
I saw "John Lennon Shot" while watching Monday Night Football
What more could I expect?"

New Bomb Turks, "Grounded Ex-Patriot"

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

87. It is hard to not love the birthplace of Coltrane

I couldn't not love it but I could want to leave it for a while!

[Monte Carlo]

81. How do you do that?

How do you decide to go further left? It would seem to me that being on the political left, the right, or somewhere in the vast middle is a consequence of other decisions in life, if you're honest with where you stand. The political party you are in does not affect that; they have a common cause.

Socialism doesn't need any more martyrs; it's already got plenty. It needs doers, and right now, virtually all of those who would bring national medical plans to the U.S., who would right Social Security, Medicare, public schooling, and who would make national employment a priority at the highest levels are Democrats.

[FlaGranny]

72. After reading this thread

I think you're all a hoot. :-) Some seem to think that Democrats either do or must try to appeal to the right. How did G.W. Bush* campaign for the 2000 election? He campaigned on the values of the left!!! He spoke of improving social security, the environment, health care - the whole works! He claimed he would deal with foreign leaders with humility. He campaigned on the kinds of things most Americans care about. That's why he got as many votes as he did. Many of the people who voted for him did so on face value, and did not research, in depth, what the man was really all about. If you didn't know better, when you heard his campaign speeches, you might have believed * was a Democrat.

[seabeyond]

74. sheeeet

and why did clinton win twice. cause he campaigned and then did the right. why all the repugs hated, literally hated him so. was such a slap in bush clinton election. was the first real striking of the sword with clinton. all the rest just festered their hate

[Sparkly]

86. They all move Center, every time

" spoke of improving social security, the environment, health care..." Are you saying you haven't heard Kerry speaking on these issues? Really?

[FlaGranny]

89. I don't understand

the above two responses. All I was saying was that * campaigned with "liberal" ideals - because liberal ideals are American ideals. Of course I've heard Kerry say these things. Kerry means them. Bush does/did not. I doubt any Republican could win in the US if they campaigned on their real ideals of corporate welfare, war, cutting education, and elimination of Social Security could they?

[anarchy1999]

100. Do you remember when Bush said we were not in the business of

Nation Building?

What happened, George. Also, he said he would bring back honesty and integrity to the "White House".

If what we have now is honesty and integrity, what's next?

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[FlaGranny]

106. It sure does boggle the mind.

It's hard to find one statement Bush* has ever made that was straightforward and truthful.

[Puglover]

108. Well Granny,

I think he was being plenty straight forward and truthful when he made the statement that being a dictator was preferable to being president (I'm paraphrasing abit here) Most people thought he was joking.

[anarchy1999]

110. Ummmm, I didn't ever think he was joking for a minute.

The day the Supremes made their decision and said same decision, giving Bush the Presidency, could never be used in the future as a precedent, sealed it up for me. I knew this country and the people of the US were in for a world of hurt! Not to even begin to mention the rest of the world........

[FlaGranny]

113. I did say "hard," not impossible.

;-) Remember also the "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks" statement. He does, on rare occasion, speak the truth.

[Sparkly]

77. I agree with you

I'm as left in my beliefs as anyone I know. And what I want is for Kerry to beat the Chimp in this election. I realize that means fighting for that elusive 10% in the middle, because *most* of us liberals are smart enough to see the differences at issue, the differences in the candidates, and the enormity of the stakes, no matter how Kerry campaigns.

There's a self-righteous "Lefter-then-Thou" attitude here, along with a belief that being "left" means bashing Kerry, and supporting him means being "center." By that standard, a lot of people, from George McGovern to Maxine Waters to Michael Moore, will be going "center" this year.

I don't think bashing Kerry, or even believing that he's "not liberal anymore," is being "left," I think it's just being stupid, frankly. This is a political campaign. It happens every time!! He will be the most liberal president we've had, at least in a long, long time. Dukakis didn't make it, Mondale didn't make it; Clinton did. Hello?!

We've got a lot of people out there to persuade -- people who are freaked out by the now-demonized word "Liberal." That's the real work we need to do, if defeating the Chimp is the real goal. (Is it?)

[Oddman]

79. You voted for Nader?

'nuff said . . .

[ibegurpard]

80. "I'll be over talking to the reasonable people"?

Please... don't let me stop you.

[Bandit]

82. And you fly the hammer and sickle in your sig line

I tend to question such ambiguity.

[seabeyond]

84. percentage of center is way higher than 10%

it is just that many many of the center have sided with kerry already. that is why he is so high and the undecided so low. that is the point of this thread and being center.

i be one of them. give me a good enough third party, republican or democrat i will vote. this election, last election i knew i didnt want bush. period end of story. live in texas. know the man. i didnt want to be ruled by that male. if mccain ran, could have been a different story.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

91. DU has sent me running to the center too...

I was somewhat to the right of where I should be. :evilgrin:

[Cleita]

93. That's a good assessment of your politics, but I don't

call it centrist. It's still very liberal. As for universal health care, if more of you born again Democrats vote within the Democratic party instead of against it, then it could become a reality sooner than later. Many in the health care profession are beginning to realize that our present health care system is broken. They need all the support we can give them. There is a movement now to change our system incremently, especially through local and state government. Also, we need to stop the destruction of government health programs like Medicare so we can move forward and not backwards.

[otohara]

94. Hey Paragon You Freeper Centrist Sellout Pig

wow, i do feel better...thanks:headbang:

[Paragon]

95. TO CLEAR A FEW THINGS UP...

I never made one mention of the DLC in the first post. I still voted for Howard Dean even after he pulled out of the race. The DLC bugs me, because they do pander to the center, whereas the whole point of my thread was sticking to lefty principles without coming off like a raving lunatic. (To be absolutely clear, Kerry now has my full support and no, I will never vote for Nader again.)

My views are well left of the DLC, as I thought the second paragraph illustrated. To repeat: my beliefs are not centrist, but how I choose to articulate them would hopefully appeal to independents and even reasonable right-wingers.

If you didn't like the first-person tone of the post, sorry. It's a polemic - it's supposed to article how I feel.

And the sigline is obviously satire - apparently, it's not just right-wingers who are missing the gene or portion of the brain or whatever to detect humor. There are more of these satirical banners at http://www.zenarchery.com/archives/001433.html for those of you who didn't get the joke.

OK, sorry to interrupt the, uh...discourse. Game on.


P.S. I've put hours and hours into collecting and transcribing the data for the Ohio section of Campaign Underground. Not many freeper centrist sellout pigs would do that. Or the people criticizing me in this thread, for that matter.

[bleedingheart]

99. While I am willing to negotiate to the center in some cases

that doesn't stop me from fighting for universal healthcare and other things that I believe should happen.

I will not resign myself to the "it ain't going to happen"...because those who try, try and try again sometimes find they will get what they want.

[troublemaker]

101. Right On!

In this irratioanl pro-gibberish society there's not more radical than restricting your political thinking to the realm of sanity. Radical centrism is, however, doomed to minority status because people enjoy irrationalism and emotionalism. Being a political nut is like road rage... very satisfying (but a real drag for the rest of us)

[troublemaker]

103. I strongly agree with you on some points, but...

re: "I'm not willing to demonize every representative on the other side, when there are decent people like John McCain who I disagree with, but who is aware of the dangers of gridlock and polarization -- and is willing to work together to get things done."

You don't need to demonize them, but you ought to recognize that everyone who voted for impeachment or conviction of Clinton is an anti-American moral degenerate of the first order. And anyone who sides with the Republicans in organizing the House or Senate is at best a "good Nazi."

I really like John McCain as a personality, but morally he's at best the German chancellor at the Wansee Conference who had written the Nuremberg laws. He was a good guy in that he hated the anti-intellectualism of the party people and wanted the Holocaust done only within the framework of law.

That's not good enough for me. (That said, I have no objection to McCain being Kerry's running-mate because I think it would weaken the American proto-fascist movement)

[Astarho]

104. not always

The Constitution sets up a set of checks and balances to make sure that no side misrepresents the nation as a whole.

The checks and balances are set up to keep any one branch of the govt from gaining power over the others. The constitution has no reference to political parties. But even as it was planned the checks and balances have failed. The legislative branch has become a rubber stamp for the executive and the judical, well they put him in there in the first place.

Sometimes capitalism is actually a healthy thing.

Sometimes Socialism is a healthy thing as well. (I even had a repub agree with me on that)

Change is slow, especially in America.

Not always. Bush has changed much in this country in the past three years. Sometimes change can be amazing quick. The whole "this is the way it is and nothing ever changes" attitude can be comforting, but is not true. The 60's witnessed great change in this country, and given the unsustainablity of the American way of life, well be looking at massive change in the near future. Isn't it better to try and change things yourself rather then just waiting until the change is forced upon you.

[LoZoccolo]

107. My theory is that a lot of it has to do with the Internet.

I by no means mean to stereotype everyone on here or the Internet or whatever, but it seems like the Internet works in such a way as to reinforce or at least not discourage certain types of behavior, such as escapism and lack of accountability to other people that would encourage a certain Naderite type-of mentality and a certain confrontativeness that wouldn't exist if they had to be right in front of people with the junk they say. Plus someone can come on and be a drama queen and it doesn't affect the rest of their life.

[hyphenate]

111. Much of what you say is correct

I think, for me, and for many others around here, that the reason so many have gone so far to the left is because of what happened in December, 2000. Before 12/2000, we had just run 8 years with a wonderful president who, fortunately or unfortunately, was only human. Clinton's 8 years in office could be compared to the greatest excitement we've had in a long time, and we won't soon forget how good we had it.

In the meantime, we had to deal with republicans and right-wingers who were boiling under their supposed calm exterior. They fumed at Clinton's popularity, they fumed at the surplus, they fumed at just about every aspect of government that Clinton either initiated or continued that was good for the entire population of the country. The rich conservatives, though, were more than angry--they wanted to use their wealth to get someone into the white house who could turn things around in their favor. They didn't want a "strong" president, of course, and the neocons definitely wanted someone who could be manipulated into doing things THEIR way so that their little plot to dominate the Middle East would become a reality. Enter Jr. John McCain was too good--too strong willed, too smart to let the neocons and billionaires manipulate him--and thus he had to be discredited. After all, up until 2000, those veterans such as McCain were almost shoo-ins for election, since all America loves its heroes. So they did what dirty tricks they had to to get rid of McCain, leaving the de facto Repuke candidate the shithead son of #41.

And so, the fix was in: Jeb Bush was the governor of one of the swing states, and he promised he would deliver the state to the repukes. It didn't matter how he was going to do that, but we know it was done, though we might not prove it in our lifetime.

Let's face it: we're bitter, and we have every right to be. The repukes used money, influence, dirty tricks, religion and any other trick they had in the bag to get the 2000 election out of the control of the people, and into the hands of the own slimey, sleazebag people. The political party most opposed to a central government took the election out of the hands of the state of Florida, and gave it to the Supreme Court. Regardless of anything else, force, influence and other nasty methods, oft employed by the CIA, were used to coerce this country into giving it to the pukes.

I think a lot of the vitriol and rancor will end once we have retaken the government office of President. We have all suffered needlessly and endlessly over the past three and a half years--many have lost jobs, houses, cars, income, savings, pensions, lives and more, but for some people, that doesn't really matter. The repukes in power want to continue their control of the country, and there are so many powerful people working with them to ensure that goal, that we, the loyal opposition, must continue to use every measure of passion we possess to keep it from happening again, despite the odds against us. It's been written that "The truth will set you free," but in today's right-biased media, with few liberal outlets telling it as it truly is, it's hard to know what is truth and what is propaganda.

I think you will see that once December comes, if we have won, that our long standing hatred for all things republican will again be moderated and people will go back to being far more ambivalent again. If, however, we lose, the hatred will be even more intense, and there will be no relief, not for another 4 years, and this country will be ripe and juicy for a civil war, or for some other actions far more drastic than anything we've done in these past three and a half years. I certainly hope that doesn't happen, but there is just so much to lose if it does happen.

[mzmolly]

112. With you on all counts. I think it's a matter of *realism*

Progress is a step by step process.

Also keep in mind, some of the lefties here are actually righties who protest too much. ;)

[Selwynn]

114. The bottom line is, right is right - whether its easy or not is irrelevant

Just because things are difficult, doesn't mean they aren't right.

Standing firm by your convictions and not wavering does not mean being unwilling to dialog and talk in a respectful and statesman like way toward other with different points of view. Standing firm by what you know to be right doesn't necessarily mean not acknowledging that change is slow. There is a difference between practical idealism that still admits that certain aims are right, even if difficult to achieve and we should never lose sight of those things or give up on them.

People mean different things when they say "moderate" and/or "centrist."

If you mean moderate in behavior, in attitudes, in showing a willingness to listen to all sides and not simply become dogmatic and fanatical, then it is possible to be a strong liberal progressive and still be "moderate" in that way, or demonstrate the qualities of moderation and fairness.

However, if you mean moderate as in advocating x kinds of policies - then that has nothing to do with balance, it has to do with having a specific political point of view that represents a certain way of thinking. It is a way of thinking that I disagree with, but that doesn't mean I have to disparage it outright.

The only kind of genuine change that has ever occurred in this country or anywhere else thorough history has been at the hands of people who were labeled "radicals" by other people in their day. It's like Einstein said, "If an idea is not at first absurd, then there is no hope in it." I think it's very very dangerous when we begin to mock and ridicule the people who say things like "I have a dream" or say things like "some people see things as they are and ask why - I dream things that never were and ask, why not?"

Dreamers and visionaries change the world. It has always been such, and so it shall ever be. And while that change is happening, there will always be a chorus of naysayers saying that change is impossible, and that these people are radicals, or fools and so on. But the civil rights movement wasn't driven by people who sat on the fence saying "hey, we need to be realistic." He was driving by people who were called "fools" and "idealistic" and "radicals." They were told "that's nice, but in the real world...." The womens suffrage movement were a bunch of idealistic radicals mocked by "realists." Abolitionists looked at the status quo and said, "unacceptable."

If I am labeled a radical or anything else for standing firmly by my convictions and fighting for them, that's fine. It's not about some false vision about a Utopian society. It's about developing an ethic or risk which says, "we accept that its much, much to late to "save" the world, but nevertheless believe that resisting the forces of oppression and inequality is valuable and right.

Sometimes we must commit to what we know is right regardless of how much hope there is in it. When the fall is all that's left, it matters a great deal how you fall.

[ulysses]

116. "create a dialogue"?

That said, some of you are pretty frickin' nuts.

:shrug:

Ok, a couple of thoughts.

Are we talking about creating a dialogue with the Republicans? If so...well, no. They're not interested. If they become interested, they can let us know.

Are we talking about creating a center-left dialogue? I'm at least willing to entertain that as an idea, but I'm tired of all the effort coming from the left. Ever made a good-faith, defenses-down post offering an olive branch to our centrist compadres or trying to come up with ways to work together? If you have, I'll bet you've been met, not with hostility, but with silence.

Not all of the extremism resides on the left.

[JNelson6563]

119. So is anyone with a different view from you

a "radical"?

I get that impression.

Julie

[Q]

120. Some use the term 'far-left' in a derogatory manner...

- Exactly what is this suppose to mean? What is 'far left' to centrists? Could it be a term used for people to the left of centrists that won't join them in selling out the party?

- What kind of ideology places someone on the far left? Women's rights? Unions? Worker's rights? Open government? Civil rights? Bill of Rights? Public education? Social Security? New Deal? Great Society? Environmental protections? Peace instead of unprovoked war?

- It's telling that so-called centrists are using the same rhetoric as the right to smear those who want nothing more than a government of, by and for the people.

[Trajan]

121. Blah blah blah ....

You focus on specifics, and declare them generalities ....

This is some sort of lame fallacy, but Im too damned tired to look it up ....

Look: .... one can be a 'centrist' and STILL hate the GOP ...

Your claim to 'talk to reasonable people' is anecdotal ... and not necessarily factual ....

Whatever: Your apparent need to lash out at the DU community as a whole to fill a void in your life, or to salve the wounds inflicted within your own psyche ... is reprehensible and selfish ....

DU has LOTS of people with lots of views: NONE are homogenous ...

[Paragon]

122. "fill a void...salve the wounds inflicted within your own psyche"

Thank you, Doctor.

:eyes: