Should Green/Nader apologists be considered DINOs?

[mot78]

The Greens are just as much an opposition party as the Repukes are, so why should we be leniant on Nader apologists? If they're not supporting the party (unless Lieberman or a DLCer runs, then I sympathize), arn't they more or less DINOs?

[LittleApple81]

1. What difference does this make? n/t

[jiacinto]

2. They are indeed DINOs

And we should be not be lenient on them at all, but rather aggressive and direct with them. We must not let them bully everyone around here and let them completely take over this board as they have in the past.

[Forkboy]

4. "Take over this board"

again,more Carlos Genu-Ine Brand hyperbole :eyes:

[Aidoneus]

5. no sense of irony..

:eyes:

[Tinoire]

20. Better to have those than to have RIDIs

RIDIs - Republicans in deed indeed :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

120. excellent Tinoire!

Republicans In Deed Indeed. I like it :)

[Runcible Spoon]

82. Carlos, am I mistaken

or didn't you declare a self-moratorium on Nader/Green bashing threads?

[Ardee]

113. that defintion makes YOu a green/naderite

as you have attempted to take over far more frequently with your distortions of Green policy and Nader statements than have the Greens who defend when attacked and point out the obvious.

Of course, those who quake with fear at any call for democrats to demonstrate a spine should be seen for what they are, an anchor dragging the democrats down to endless defeats.

[jiacinto]

115. I don't lie about Nader

His words speak for themselves. It's you who can't see the truth of St. Ralph.

[Ardee]

127. ahhh the Im rubber your glue defense

with apologies to Peewee Herman.....Carlos, I do not seek to insult you, only to try and make you see that your single minded obsessiveness with external forces does nothing to cure your party of its ills.

A while back you had a habit of posting cut and pasted segmments of Nader speeches, juxtaposed and editted to provide the conclusions you wished to "prove"./ I have read and listened to Nader for years, and with an open mind and there is only one conclusion to be drawn, he is far more correct, far more of the time than you are willing to admit.

I am aware that it is easier to look outside for reasons for failure, self examination is always the hardest row to hoe. If you wish to retoire your party to its winning ways then you will have to give up the ego and really look closely at the machinations of your party's leadership, as ,under its direction, the mid term elections were a disaster for them. This can in no way be placed on Naders doorstep yet you give it little thought at all....

Railing against one voice of opposition while ignoring the many flaws within is no way to become a success, whether as a person or a party.

[jiacinto]

139. Nader is a hypocrite

And yes I will continue to oppose him. I do agree that there are problems with the Democratic Party, but Nader and his extremist supporters aren't the answer either.

[Ardee]

204. gee a concession from Carlos

I hope it didnt hurt too much to bend that little bit.....I wonder then, Carlos, if you admit that there are problems within your party, why do you endlessly attack those outside of that party and fail to consider how to heal your own nest?

[ulysses]

206. ok, then

As long as we're here, what *is* the answer, Carlos?

[jiacinto]

211. Well

There was an article in the American Prospect a while back called "Gang Green". It had good solutions.

[bring_em_home_bush]

133. THE GREENS BUGGER DONKEYS!!!

And the donkeys like it.

Discuss.

[JVS]

3. Probably not

The reason being that DINO already carries the implication of being to the right of what a Democrat should be. Calling those to the left of the party DINOs would then be confusing.

If you want to you can categorize into left-deviationist and right-deviationists to borrow a couple of terms from the Stalinists.

[Tinoire]

21. Thank you for making sense. I didn't even want to go there!

Seemed to discouraging to have to point that out.

[roughsatori]

6. "Why should we be leniant (sic) on Nader apologists?

1) Who do you mean when you write "we"?

2) Who is giving you the message "We should be lenient"? (You're sentence implys the "we" is saying "we" should be lenient.)

3) Do you suggest corporal punishment for them?

4) Do you think that your post gives credence to the idea that some of the newer Clark supporters on DU seem more intent on causing divisions on the left than in promoting Clark as a possible Democratic candidate?

[LittleApple81]

10. my point exactly. n/t

[Tinoire]

24. If we had pull-down signature lines, I would quote you

4) Do you think that your post gives credence to the idea that some of the newer Clark supporters on DU seem more intent on causing divisions on the left than in promoting Clark as a possible Democratic candidate?

That was very nicely put. Very classy. Thanks

[ulysses]

7. and the MDP marches on

:eyes:

Whatever, y'all.

[Ein]

8. I'll support a liberal Democrat

anytime. Attack me if you want, I am a Green. I am not a DINO b/c I don't call myself a Democrat.

edit: I have nothing to apologize for on Nader. The Republicans stole the election, and the Supreme Court appointed Bush.

[jiacinto]

11. As usual

Like the typical Nader apologist you go to extreme lengths to defend and to rationalize the man. It is so sad that you follow him with blind loyalty and complete and total devotion.

[Ein]

12. What extreme lengths?

I guess what I said wasn't true. And alot more active in the whole deal than Nader.

edit: I cannot find this info, If anyone could help. What did the two Clinton appointees to the SCROTUS (Ginsberg and Breyer), vote on; stopping the recount; who won the election?

[fujiyama]

96. Ginsberg and Bryer

both voted to keep counting the votes. Remember it was a 5-4 ruling. Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, Kennedy, and O'Conner voted to stop the recount.

Just about all of Nader's actions point to him being a republican accomplice. I don't even think he believes in progress. To him democracy is irrelevent. Here's why:

-Nader has buddied up with Grover Norquist in the last couple months. I can be convinced of only one thing. Norquist and the others on the far right are pushing him to run again in '04.

-Nader explicitly stated he SUPPORTED THE IMPEACHMENT EFFORT AND REMOVAL of Clinton. That to me says it all. It's amazing, most Greens didn't know about this. I myself wouldn't be surprised many Greens wouldn't care because to them Nader's '00 run was like the second coming of Christ.

-He said nothing about the SC's help in the theft of the '00 selection. Some Greens did know better and did march on that inaugeration day, but Nader himself was quite happy at the mess he caused.

-He has expressed little if any opposition to the recall effort in CA. Wow, there he goes again, claiming this recall can breathe life to CA politics.

-Of course it wouldn't hurt him who won the CA recall, or the white house. Why should it? He's profitted nicely with the Bush's tax cuts. Nader and his supporters couldn't give less of a fuck about working people and their concerns. How many of Nader's supporters are actually poor minorities that have been affected by Bush's tax cut? Not a large number.

-Nader is more interested in trashing the democratic party rather than building any inroads with any of its members. Why should democrats play kiss up with him, when he thinks they can all go to hell? Why should we (and by we I democrats) make up with him when he obviously believes in republican attempts to subvert democracy?

-Nader is nothing more than a republican schill, who has his place with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Darrel Issa, David Dryer, and other right wing GOP bastards.

[Forkboy]

14. Nader Haters sound just like Hillary Haters

[Aidoneus]

15. and the Carlosbot strikes again!

Are you replying specifically to that post above, or is that just a pre-packaged spiel you go into at random?

[Tinoire]

39. What do you call what you are willing to do with any PNAC/CLC poster-boy?

if not "blind loyalty and complete and total devotion".

When you go to bed at night, do you check to make sure there aren't any Greens hiding under your bed?

How come it's always the Greens? How come it's never the CUBAN AMERICAN DEMS who REFUSED to vote for Gore and voted for Bush instead? http://64.21.33.164/CNews/y00/nov00/09e2.htm

How come it's never the disillusioned Dems who stayed home?

How come it's never Gore for preferring to gamble on a few centrist swing votes and alienating a ton of liberal voters?

How come it's never Gore for choosing that ass-hole Lieberman for whom several of my Jewish friends REFUSED to vote?

I'll tell you why- it's because it's an old broken record and it's buried in the sand.

[Forkboy]

47. A repost for Tinoire

because I know he has you ignore...you make people think...can't have that :eyes:

Tinoire's post;

What do you call what you are willing to do with any PNAC/CLC poster-boy?

if not "blind loyalty and complete and total devotion".

When you go to bed at night, do you check to make sure there aren't any Greens hiding under your bed?

How come it's always the Greens? How come it's never the CUBAN AMERICAN DEMS who REFUSED to vote for Gore and voted for Bush instead? http://64.21.33.164/CNews/y00/nov00/09e2.htm

How come it's never the disillusioned Dems who stayed home?

How come it's never Gore for preferring to gamble on a few centrist swing votes and alienating a ton of liberal voters?

How come it's never Gore for choosing that ass-hole Lieberman for whom several of my Jewish friends REFUSED to vote?

I'll tell you why- it's because it's an old broken record and it's buried in the sand.

[jiacinto]

54. You are being dishonest abotut my positions

One I am not part of the DLC. Secondly I don't support PNAC or the idea of war with Iraq. So please don't distort my views.

It is the Greens because they claimed to be opposed to Bush yet they did everything possible to make him president.

I do blame the Greens also because their nominee said he wanted Bush to win. And so when the Nader extremists complain about Bush they have no credibility since they helped him win.

Source: http://web.outsideonline.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

"When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." "

It is just sad that you feel the need to rationalize and to defend Nader.

[JVS]

57. You are being dishonest about something too

"It is the Greens because they claimed to be opposed to Bush yet they did everything possible to make him president."

They didn't vote for Bush. That would have been entirely possible.

[jiacinto]

58. But they lied and attacked Gore at several key points

Source: http://web.outsideonline.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

"When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." "


And Nader clearly wanted Bush to win.

[JVS]

66. True. And that really sucks. It was a shitty thing to do.

And whenever they spout lies about Democrats we should call them on it. But some of the Green hating here goes beyond the reasonable. For instance, people often say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. When Bush says "You are either with us or against us." we know it is bull, but when Democrats say the logically equivalent "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" to a Green there is much nodding along. I remember when someone told me that Gore was the same as Bush and I refuted the claim.

The problem here is that an increase in hostility will only solidify the Green party's base. Look at it this way: they can ruin elections for us, but because they have nothing there is nothing to do to them. Is it frustrating? Yes. But getting in a pissing contest with the Greens won't help. We either need to be able to get the votes without them and not cry about their existence or lure them back to the party. I think the latter is probably the way to go right now. If this conflict keeps raging long enough to form a solid Green bloc then the former will be the way to go.

[Ein]

67. Lure me in.

I don't say 'back', because I am only 20.

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.

Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

[Tinoire]

70. The Green Platform SHOULD be part of the Democratic Platform

Lip service isn't enough. No one pays for lip-service; why expect everyone to vote for it.

I'm so glad it's 'one man, one vote' in this country- at least on paper before the voodoo-math machines do their 'magic'.

[Ein]

87. I agree.

I wish....

[jiacinto]

116. So then you think 2.74% of the electorate should

have complete control of the Democratic Party?

[ikojo]

121. Lip service is what Gephardt delivers

Gephardt says he supports workers but when push came to shove he abandoned workers on July 10...

Deeds matter more than words..

Dems have been running as Republican lite for some time and people will go for the real thing when offered choice

[Darranar]

217. The Green Platform SHOULD BE the Democratic Party platform

If Nader had been the Democratic candidate in 2000 the Democrats would have won.

[JVS]

76. These are too broad to really be addressed meaningfully

Many Democrats would say that the party supports these principles.(Republicans could even claim to support some points) Perhaps more concrete items would make for an easier give and take between Greens and Democrats.

On edit: In other words what actions and legislation would you like to see in order to promote these ideals?

[Ein]

90. Would I like to see?

My 2 major causes are social justice, and ending the war this species is involved in, it cannot last.

Social justice is all encompassing. I want the end the bipartisan agenda of subjugating weaker nations and people that has gone on throughout history. I also want to stop the scientific research done in the name of warfare. We only have a reason to fear small nations nymore b/c of the bomb we developed.

That is only part of it. My young mind burst when asked when I want done. There is so much injustice in the world. I want to cry and scream when I hear of Grenada, East Timor, Vietnam, etc....

[Julien Sorel]

91. The price for 'luring' such people 'back' in is way too high.

The Green platform is socialist in effect, and it would be suicide for the Democrats to make the kind of changes necessary to attract people who would embrace it. Let them twist in the wind until their hormones have abated, and they grow up and want to be responsible citizens. Until then, they can have Nadir and his quixotic campaigns for all I care. Better losing Nadir's 2% or whatever, than the huge numbers who would be alienated by a Green-friendly platform.

[Ein]

93. Grow up.

People who strive for a perfect world need to grow up? I don't know about other Greens, but I do. And I think thier platform is a good start.

edit: The history I have read speaks nothing for moderation. Carter and Clinton have brought nothing for the left. At this time, I feel fighting for a liberal agenda is being a responsible citizen.

[Julien Sorel]

100. Thus, quixotic.

Lots of us needed to grow up at one point or another.

[Forkboy]

94. Better a Green friendly platform

the the current Republican friendly one :eyes:

[Ein]

95. If I met you in person

I would hug you, then most likely have a lively discussion with you :)

[Julien Sorel]

99. You keep believing that.

And keep watching your Green friends with their <2% vote.

[Forkboy]

164. You keep believing what you believe

and watch you all turn in repukes :eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

173. Turn in repukes to what?

The police? It makes no sense.

[Forkboy]

176. so sorry

turn into

[jiacinto]

117. You make such a good point

But see these extremists demand way too much.

[He loved Big Brother]

156. When the vote tally is split nearly 50/50-

2-3% can and does make a difference.

And yes, what about all those Dems who stayed home? I know a few that did...I was also 21 at the time, and couldn't have named 10 out of appx 100 of my friends in my age group who went and voted. None of the candidates bothered to acknowledge this demographic's existence in 2000, let alone actually attempt to court their vote, so they responded in kind. By voting for Nader or not voting at all.

And it pisses me off. Dems could easily avoid stupid fuckups like ignoring the youth vote, picking Lieberman for a VP, etc.

I also wholeheartedly think Gore decided not to run again because he knew he would *have* to pick a different VP to have any shot at winning, and that would be the same as admitting he made a mistake by picking Lieberman, and thus make him look bad/indecisive, etc, and in the end it was a catch-22 so he just said "forget it". I really think Lieberman is what is depriving us of Gore as a candidate. All the same, if my theory is correct, I am proud of Gore for not spending the campaign dollars on a ticket that has a Repuke-lite VP. Those monies could be better spent on candidates that actually do have the ability to instill a passion within us to get our party's message out there as much as possible.

[Julien Sorel]

161. The vote tally wouldn't be split 50-50 or even close

if the Dems started pandering to the Greens. That's kind of the point. The Greens are radicals, and mainstream America has resoundingly rejected them.

[He loved Big Brother]

163. They have?

Well since they are probably feeling all rejected and stuff by mainstream America (you know, the people the Greens want to be just like), we should, I dunno, maybe try to get some of Nader's 3 million voters, cuz as awe-inspiring as our party leadership is recently, we still might need a few independents/Greens/never-voted-befores. Let's not get a Bush-like macho swagger going, please. It's unbecoming. And elitist. And they aren't evil, they are just liberal. Oh wait, I forgot even on DU it's sometimes a dirty word, "liberal". Gads! How dare they be more left than us!!

The Greens ideals don't seem that radical to me actually. Unless by "radical" you mean "ballsy, motivated, and progressive".

Yeah, we could use a little of that in the (D) section of the populace, I think. I'd rather have that than fence-sitters who could go either way. I'd bet money that I have more in common with a Green than a Repuke-lite. :shrug:

But yeah, your strategy of saying "fuckit" to a large segment of the liberal populace worked in 2002, let's stick with it! :bounce:

You know, Nader received 3 million votes...but I bet fear of Bush kept many people from voting for him. I wonder how many held back and voted for Gore while dreaming of a society where the Democratic party used to actually care about some of those "radical" Green ideals and even helped advance them.

Where'd those ideas go?

[Julien Sorel]

193. Everything I said went completely over your head.

Or perhaps you simply don't want to hear it. Ever see a bell curve? Mainstream America is right in the middle of it -- where most of the area is. That means there are far more mainstream people than there are outliers -- radicals. Pandering to the Greens is an election losing strategy, because you are trying to please a tiny percentage of the populace at the expense of a far greater number of people. Worse than that, it's stupid. Have you seen their platform? It's socialism. That might appeal to you, but it doesn't appeal to me -- and I will also point out that socialism is absolutely not liberalism. If you think the Greens are true liberals, you need a political education.


You can be 'ballsy' without being Green, by the way. Mere radicalism isn't being 'ballsy;' in fact, it's a way of abdicating responsibility, since the Greens have absolutely no chance to gain true power, and therefore responsibility, in this country. Truly 'ballsy' people do not adopt extremist positions which they know will be ignored, and then make snickering remarks about the people who were willing to step up and take real risks to try to actually accomplish something.

[John_H]

189. The possible gain from the far left fringe is nowhere near 2 percent

Do the math: 2.7 percent minus the greens in states we'll win anyway (the overwhelming majority of that 2.7 percent) minus the ones who live in states we'll lose anyway minus the vote's we'd lose in important southern sates. Even though we're already in negative numbers, you can also subtract the Greens who will never vote for a dem no matter what.

Greens sure are fun to tweak for their wacky justifications of Nader's foibles and their inability to come to grips with the fact that 98 percent of their fellow citizens think their agenda is full of shit, but they just don't have the juice to be affect anything.

[jiacinto]

109. I'll say this much

It does come down to being "with us or against us". In the voting booth there is no gray area. Now I don't have a problem with those who voted for Nader in states like California, Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, or New York, where the outcome was not in doubt. The ones who voted for Nader in NH and Florida are the ones who anger me.

As for the Green Party they have no "base". They are only 2.74% of the vote. Maybe if they had gotten around 10% of the vote I would respect them more. Even if they had just gotten 5% in 2000 I would respect them.

I don't have a problem with luring them back to the party. However, at 2.74% of the vote, they aren't in any position to demand anything. And some of the Greens here act as if they should have complete control and 100% of what they want.

Ultimately I do think the Democrats are going to have to be able to get the votes without them, as they are an opposition party. Their leader Ralph Nader has all but said that he wants to "destroy" the Democratic Party.

How can you negotiate with someone who wants to destroy your party?

[JVS]

128. hmm let's see

If they had gotten 5% I bet you'd be screaming bloody murder about them. It is my opinion that the Democratic party would have an easier time getting them back in the fold than getting right-wing swing voters. I think that the swing voter strategy has been nearly exhausted, while most Green voters I know are looking for some sign of life from the Democratic party. There are probably a few hard core ideologues, but I doubt that most who voted green were fully in line with the Green platform. The only thing keeping them away is this hardline "not a scrap for them" mentality. Meanwhile the Republicans are allowed to take whatever they want.

As far as negotiating with someone who wants to destroy the party is concerned, the Democrats negotiate with Republicans who want to destroy them every day. The Republicans are much more likely to destroy the party.

[jiacinto]

175. But Nader has delclared war against the Democrats

And most of the Greens want total control of the Democratic Party. And that can't happen.

[JVS]

177. Historical metaphor

You are France in 1940. Germany is invading in the East. Andorra has started invading from the Southwest. Who is the bigger threat?

[Tinoire]

69. You'd go to your grave blaming the Greens rather than admit being wrong

I am not saying you are part of the DLC though some of your previous writings could make one wonder how close you are to them. What I said is that you would blindly vote for them. You may not support PNAC, but you would vote for a candidate who supports/enables the PNAC plan as long as he was a Dem.

It is the Greens because they claimed to be opposed to Bush yet they did everything possible to make him president.

What did all of those people I asked you about, whose votes the Dems were counting on, do? Surely you don't count them as having helped Gore or done anything to prevent Bush from gaining office. How come those apathetic or stupid, petty, vindictive people get a free ride with you? Could it be that they're lesser Dems than the Greens? That the Greens are better Dems than they?

What's the big deal with your quote? Did he lie about anything? Did he not have the right to vote because he voted differently than you did? His last sentence is sadly prophetic. I have no problems with people trying to stop the disastrous Centrist course the Democratic Party is on. I have a problem with the people who go out of their way to prevent the parties from diverging from one another- those are the people enabling Bush because the evils of Bush are more than one man. They're the entire system that brought us Bush.

What is sadder than a Democrat rationalizing and using reason is a Democrat who three years later is still stuck a the lie of 2000.

On top of being a self-serving lie, it's... so yesterday.

[Forkboy]

72. well hell

I guess I'll repost this one too :D

Tinoire's post;

You'd go to your grave blaming the Greens rather than admit being wrong


I am not saying you are part of the DLC though some of your previous writings could make one wonder how close you are to them. What I said is that you would blindly vote for them. You may not support PNAC, but you would vote for a candidate who supports/enables the PNAC plan as long as he was a Dem.

It is the Greens because they claimed to be opposed to Bush yet they did everything possible to make him president.

What did all of those people I asked you about, whose votes the Dems were counting on, do? Surely you don't count them as having helped Gore or done anything to prevent Bush from gaining office. How come those apathetic or stupid, petty, vindictive people get a free ride with you? Could it be that they're lesser Dems than the Greens? That the Greens are better Dems than they?

What's the big deal with your quote? Did he lie about anything? Did he not have the right to vote because he voted differently than you did? His last sentence is sadly prophetic. I have no problems with people trying to stop the disastrous Centrist course the Democratic Party is on. I have a problem with the people who go out of their way to prevent the parties from diverging from one another- those are the people enabling Bush because the evils of Bush are more than one man. They're the entire system that brought us Bush.

What is sadder than a Democrat rationalizing and using reason is a Democrat who three years later is still stuck a the lie of 2000.

On top of being a self-serving lie, it's... so yesterday.

[Tinoire]

74. lol- I don't think Carlos has me on ignore... Do you?

You're so funny. One of my favorite posters! If you live in CA, please PM me ;)

[Forkboy]

84. Actually

in a PM he told me he did,in fact,have you on ignore :shrug:

Maybe he's un-ignored you since then,but it was just recently he told me.

I'm amazed that I'm not on ignore yet to be honest.He's like the younger kid brother to me.The one you see going in the wrong direction but are unable to change,who then goes on to be a rich doctor or lawyer or something and ends up having to let me live in his basement when I get all old and stuff :)

I wish I lived in CA just to have the honor of meeting you,but sadly I'm a country-lengths away in MA...I never catch a break :mad: :)

[JohnKleeb]

85. I wish I had the honor of meeting both of you that said fork

Thanks for putting me on your list. You know the most wanted list of far fringe leftists. To answer the question no I dont think nader apologists are DINO. Nader while hes far from perfect if you listen to him makes sense, that said I voted Gore in my school mock election.

[JVS]

86. I voted Gore because the Communists told me to do it.

Of course people called me a freeper here when I said that. There is no pleasing some people.

On Edit: That and the fact that I just hated Bush and knew PA was important.

[Forkboy]

88. I voted for Gore also

but like you I think Nader makes a lot of sense.Of course to some that seems to be considered "worship".Nader is far from perfect but he's a far better man than many are willing to give him credit for.

As for the list I bet that would be a hell of a gathering :)

[JohnKleeb]

92. yea I voted Gore in the mock election at school

yea it would, we would call each other comrades.

[Tinoire]

102. Ah- Possibly the same day

I put him on ignore. You never know. He was only on ignore for one day anyway. lol. I am, I admit, very hard on Carlos because I hate to see anyone that bright get a gear so stuck, they won't even try to shift, and end up in the stupid ditch instead.

If you're EVER in CA, let me know! And I'll do the same if I'm ever in MA though I don't see that happening for a long time :( Great state you have there though! I loved it! Especially Rockport where I spent some summers as a child. Peace :)

[Ardee]

119. hee

I once told Carlos that I believed that, in ten years or so, he'd BE a republican.......he seems to be beating the curve....

[jiacinto]

137. I won't ever be a Republican

Why do I have to like Nader to be a good Democrat?

[Forkboy]

165. That is sooooo true it's frightening

He wont see it until it's too late of course.

Oh well maybe he'll learn something about people now that he's moved to Florida.That is,if he can get over the fear of (Heaven forbid) living near a sketchy neighborhood where he feels his stuff will be stolen :eyes:

[Tinoire]

185. The real sadness is that you're unwilling

to rationalize (as in to use reason) at all.

But blame the Greens if it makes you happy. The Greens on this forum have proven to have a lot more maturity and political acuity than many...

How Green Was My Valley :)

[Spentastic]

195. Foul

"One I am not part of the DLC. Secondly I don't support PNAC or the idea of war with Iraq. So please don't distort my views."

But you did support the war didn't you? You only changed your mind after being confronted with its true horror.

[Forkboy]

231. I dont remember him supporting the Iraq debacle

maybe he did and I just forget,but I dont think he did.

[fujiyama]

97. Apologize for Nader all you want

You probably don't know half the truth about your messiah.

Try to justify Nader's support for Clinton's impeachment and the recall againts Gray Davis, then you have the right to criticize Bush. Until then, what Nader and his cult like followers mean nothing to me and most other democrats.

[Forkboy]

98. another bot

that someone who means nothing to you sure got you worked up.

[fujiyama]

101. Call me names..

It's the likes of Nader that are helping Bush in destroying our nation.

[jiacinto]

140. But that's what the Nader extremists want

They want things to get "worse" before they get "better" so that they can "heighten" the contradictions.

[Forkboy]

166. It's the likes of you Bush enabling apologists

thats are truly destroying our nation.

[jiacinto]

142. See

They want to defeat Democrats so that they can "heighten the contradictions"

[bring_em_home_bush]

145. THE GREENS ATE TOKYO!!!

discuss

[Tinoire]

188. Let me see

50 posts and you know all about me and "my" Messiah? HELLO! :hi:

Dragging, dragging... Someone must have let the cat out of the barn.

Bye, bye :)

[Terwilliger]

203. when you lose again, don't blame Nader and the Greens

OH WAIT! I forgot. Dems always need SOMEONE to blame! :eyes:

[sujan]

53. rationalize what?

lol

[bring_em_home_bush]

141. THE GREENS ATE NEW YORK!!!

discuss

[lcordero]

35. I won't even support a "liberal" Democrat

I'll support a Progressive Democrat but I won't support a "liberal" Democrat.

[Forkboy]

9. Fringe Leftist has a better ring to it

If a Green is a Green they can hardly be called a Democrat in the first place,so the whole point you're making is rather insiped.

[mitchtv]

153. Fringe Leftist? now you're sounding like J-----to

HIS FAVORITE expression to attack fellow Dems

[Forkboy]

167. that why I said it

ever since Carlos started tossing it around it's become a joke to many here...like he is doing to himself as well.

[Booberdawg]

13. Greens aren't DINOs; DINO's are Democrats

WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.


Perhaps you should take this up with Admin. It appears to me our Green and otherwise progressive comrades are welcome here.

[Forkboy]

16. Progressive is a scary word

to Defenders of the Status Quo.

[jiacinto]

17. The approrpriate term is "regressive"

That's what the Nader apologists are. They think that having Republicans win advances the progressive agenda even though it means three to four steps back at least. They are not "progressives", but rather "regressives". To me the Greens are the "regressives".

[JVS]

18. Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Tinoire]

71. lol. That was too cute :) n/t

[Ein]

19. Who helps Republicans more?

The Greens, by setting up a liberal party, or the Democrats, by moving to the right?

[jiacinto]

22. The Greens

That's a no brainer. Their pathetic party could only get 2.74%, a sad showing compared to other third party candidates. TR, LaFollette, Wallace, Anderson, and Perot all fared better. Yet they act like their small party is so influential when it can barely even local races for dogcatcher.

[Ein]

23. I act like that?

Really? What do you base this on?

[jiacinto]

25. Your posts here

You continually rationalize Nader and never admit anything negative about him.

[Ein]

26. Give me an example.

edit: Do to the use of the word 'continually', I'd like several.

You call my party insignificant, yet you say they help the Republicans more than the Democratic party moving to the right?

[jiacinto]

30. Your posts

You defend Castro. You defend Nader. It's obvious that you are a Green supporter. What else do I have to really say?

[Ein]

32. I don't defend.

LOL. Where did I do that. I am repulsed by your rhetoric, which I why I responded on that thread.

Look at my other posts, 2 others on that thread, where do I defend him?

And that has nothing to do with Nader. You have to back up your claims, if you want to be taken seriously.

[jiacinto]

36. I must retract the Castro issue

I got you confused with another poster who defends and rationalizes Castro. I take that back and I was wrong to mention it. I apologize as that was an unfortunate mistake.

I got you confused with someone else. And in the Cuba thread you aren't one of the people who is a Castro supporter and apologist. I apologize again for that mistake and want to make it clear that you don't fall under that umbrella.

[Forkboy]

37. "You have to back up your claims, if you want to be taken seriously"

someone should pin on that on his collar every morning.

[Forkboy]

34. it was just more Carlos hyperbole

he does it all the time...but never can back it up.I've been asking him all night for evidence of this being Green Underground as he claims,or that Greens have virtually taken over DU but he's failed to show any evidence of that too.

[jiacinto]

38. It's not as bad as it used to be

But I will say that there have been times when the most vocal posters have been the ones who say they "won't vote Democrat" and do their best to attack the party.

[Forkboy]

45. thanks for admitting that it was just hyperbole

[Aidoneus]

27. so pathetic and irrelevant, yet you can't stop talking about them....

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

28. For such an ineffectual party

they sure trigger your Pavlonian responses everytime without fail.

But like the typical vichy Democrat who worships the likes of Joe Lieberman I can't really expect anything else.

[jiacinto]

31. I am a Dean supporter

So that line is dishonest.

[Forkboy]

no it's not

If you can claim I worship Nader and Moore for merely defending them than I most certainly can claim you worship Joe.You defend him all the time.

[jiacinto]

56. I defend him against unfair accusations

But I don't like what he has been doing lately and think he is not one of the best candidates running.

[sujan]

59. what unfair accusations?

that he's a conservative and his platform mirrors that of Bush?

I think it's quite true.

[jiacinto]

60. It's not 100% true

You are being dishonest. If you go to Project Vote Smart and compare his ratings from the various interest groups you will see that he is nowhere near to being a Republican. But then again it won't change your mind anyway. You will still claim he is conservative even though the facts don't agree with you.

[sujan]

63. well

all I ask is for you to see how lieberman and bush's platform (presidency) differ?

and if you really see a difference, let me know.

[jiacinto]

112. You are from the far left

Unless Lieberman were a raving socialist you would think he and Bush are the same. You are so skewed to the left that you can't see the difference even if it were shown to your face. I would post his scores from Project Vote Smart; but I am not going to waste your or my time, as you are not going to change your opinion anyway.

[sujan]

126. like i say

if you want your man NOT to be called a 'conservative'...just check out his presidential platform. I dont give two pennies on what he did, I only judge by what he says he'll do in the future.

and NO, I am not an Ideologue or a yellow dog like you.

about being far left, your version of centrism is nothing but a 'date rape' (as Grover Norquist would say) and your party is the one being pounded in the rear. And you seem to like it.

[jiacinto]

131. How mature of you to talk in such deragatory terms

You are an idelogue. And no, I'm not supporting Lieberman. I've said that several times. What part of that did you not get?

[Iverson]

134. that raises the question

Do Greens deserve an identical defense from you against unfair attacks as Lieberman does?

One would think that a duty to higher learning demands consistency when invoking a principled stand, but I wanna see what you say.

[jiacinto]

136. Well

I don't use terms comparing people to anal sex. My attacks on the Greens aren't unfair.

[Iverson]

138. transparent

One day you won't dodge one of my questions.

In the meantime, I am so pleased that, like me, you don't use terms that liken people to anal sex. Please do not discontinue this practice now that you know you have something in common with a Green.

But if you dare, return to my question and answer it.

edited for verb tense

[sujan]

158. well

you're not listening to my question. I've asked you repeatedly how lieberman's presidential platform differs from that of Bush.

I wont claim he's a conservative given his record, I would say he was a neo liberal. But his platform for presidential aspirations closely mirrors to that of Bush. So since the man talks like a conservative these days, walks like a conservatives, want to solves problems like a conservative, what would you call him now?

[jiacinto]

171. Okay

Lieberman supports gay rights. Bush doesn't. Lieberman is in favor of Affirmative Action. Bush isn't. Lieberman is pro choice. Bush isn't.

[sujan]

186. you forgot one more thing

they are both dangerous for leading the US in unnecessary wars.

[Aidoneus]

46. at least register the irony, Carlos..

you spit out such remarks (usually 90% a lie) about others so frequently, don't you notice it being turned back against you?

[Ardee]

210. of course you are, poor lad

Dean is basically the same as you, a conservative in moderate clothes......

[bpilgrim]

29. yet you seen to focus on it so much

and even blame it for the loss of a major persidential election.

interesting...

peace

[jiacinto]

33. I resent what they did to Al Gore

They lied about him on several levels. They bashed him when they knew what the outcome might very well be. So yes I do blame them for their role in what happened.

[eablair3]

40. ^^^ this guy supports Joe Lieberman -- enough said

what else would you expect out of someone who supports and defends Lieberman.

[jiacinto]

42. I am supporting Dean, not Lieberman

But I do feel that Lieberman is unfairly attacked by people here who continually repeat the same dishonest lies about him.

[JVS]

44. I would have sworn by that until he posted that he supports Dean in this

thread. I trust Carlos' integrity enough to believe that.

[Terwilliger]

205. Your vaunted DLC destroyed Al Gore...stop blaming Nader and the Greens

[Solon]

41. I don't understand your point Carlos

To demonize and make blanket accusations of an entire political party strikes me as bigotry. Instead of living in the past, why not work with other progressives to build a future, where, yes another party would be welcome. We Americans are not used to the idea of a more than two-party system, but it is a free country, and besides, The Green Party is one of the largest 3rd parties out there, compared to the multitudes of parties that exist in the U.S.

Just look at this website, and see how fractionalized the right and left really are: http://www.politics1.com/

Besides, which Green party are you talking about anyways? There are two you know.

BTW: Nader said NO the "The Greens" and opted for "The Green Party" get it straight please.

[Ein]

43. I agree.

I'll vote for any liberal, regardless of the letter before thier names. I want, more than anything, for the Democrats to co-opt the Green key issues.

[Solon]

48. One thing I would love to see,

are Liberals standing shoulder to shoulder in support for a candidate, not out of fear for what Bush might do if he won an actual election, but with hope that their candidate will represent the interests of the PEOPLE. That should be our goal. We need to lay a foundation that we can build upon so that all of the so called "Leftist Fringe" which represents a large voting bloc, acually becomes a voting bloc.

[Ein]

64. I agree, with a different idea.

I think the current electoral process is in place to channel anger into a medium that was futile, and is now vastly corrupt.

I am all for the proletariate.

I love your idea, but massive direct action needs to happen first, in my opinion.

[jiacinto]

50. Well let's look at how other third parties fared

TR 1912: 27.39%
LaFollette 1924: 16.61%
Wallace 1968: 13.53%
Anderson 1980: 6.61%
Perot 1992: 18.91%
Perot 1996: 8.40%
Nader 2000: 2.74%

So even though it may be the "largest" 3rd party out there that's still not saying much. And compared to those other candidates above Nader's showing was pathetic. The Green Party can barely win elctions for city council and yet you act like it is about to take the country by storm.

Our political system is not proportional like Europe's. It's winner take all. And frankly I doubt that the Greens will ever be in a position to win. It may be a free country, but the Greens are indeed helping Republicans win close elections in which they run candidates.

[Solon]

62. Ok let me try again

One thing I want to make clear, I voted for Gore, and had no regrets, not like my vote mattered in my damn purple state. Anyways, your comparison is flawed for the simple fact that most of those candidate "Started" the parties they ran under, and were either riding on the coattails of a previous success, or over a singular issue. Nader accepted the Nomination for President for a pre-existing party, a BIG difference. Also, and lets be honest here, Nader was not Charasmatic enough to garner the votes for president, The Green Party, not The Greens, made a strategic error on that. I'm not a Nader defender, but I will defend the right of any citizen to vote his or her conscience, regardless of party. You give Nader more credit than he deserves, while I agree on many issues with The Green Party, they are not quite a viable National party yet. I do not fear them, I relish in the challenge, and that is what it is, perhaps they will help the Democratic Party pull to the left even a little bit, otherwise I fear the Dems will go the way of the Whigs, and then what, one-party rule, I shudder at the thought.

ON EDIT: It always helps a third party when their presidential candidate has an obscene amount of money as well.

[jiacinto]

110. The Greens will never be a viable party

If the mentality of most Greens at DU typifies what they are in real life then I seriously doubt that they will ever be a viable party. They can barely even win races for local offices.

The Green party is years, if not decades, away from being a viable party. Right now they are just slightly above the Libertarians.

[Terwilliger]

151. Carlos contradicts himself a lot...even in the same post!

From "The Greens will never be a viable party" to "The Green party is years...away from being a viable party"

So, he doesn't even know what he's saying.

[sujan]

160. carlos is for two party fascism

anything else is intolerable.

[jiacinto]

172. Helping to elect Republicans is intolerable

nt

[Iverson]

183. Emulating Republicans is intolerable.

n/t

[Terwilliger]

207. ditto

...woops! ;-)

[Tinoire]

73. If their pathetic little party is so non-influential

how come it had so much power that it's ruining your life? So your problem with them is really their attitude? Their attitude that they know their 'pathetic 2.74%' of the vote is influential enough to swing the vote and that you know it, and that you both know Dems are going to have to work to get it, is what pisses you off.

I have the feeling it would gall you to see the Democratic party move even one more step to the left that selfish pride (or determined centrism) would prevent YOU from chasing that ever so elusive swing vote that's not coming in. You are willing to gamble away an entire "pathetic 2.74%", alienating more Dems as you go, to capture what? An even more pathetic 1% for another 4 more years of Bush?

Determined Centrist Voodoo math.

[jiacinto]

111. Okay

The Greens are an extremist party. If the Democrats were to adopt their entire platform do you honestly think that the rest of America would support that? The swing voters would all to the Republicans and the Democrats would then be left with around 35-40% of the vote.

[Ardee]

122. convenient memory lapses

such as the fact that 11% of registered democrats voted for BUSH..So it would seem that it is your party that need addressing and not that of an emerging third party that garnered only 2.74% of a vote from people who just might not have voted at all if that choice was unavailable. The Green vote is a symbol of the ills of the democratic party and is not some nonsensical plot by super secret gop agents, excepting of course in the mind of a ................edited to remove the breadth of my contempt for the unoriginality displayed by this certain poster.

[jiacinto]

135. And that's another misleading stat

Like the typical Nader apologist you continue to distort that number in a pathetic attempt to rehabilitate that man. It is kind of sad how some people will go to extreme lenghts to rationalize and glorify their hero.

But see most of those "Democrats" are in the South. They haven't voted for our party's candidate for president since 1976, and many probably not since 1964. The only Democrat who could get their votes would have to be someone like Zell Miller.

[Iverson]

144. another misleading rebuttal

Giving conservative Democrats a free pass just because they are conservative Democrats is not a line of reasoning; it is a dogmatic assertion.

You cannot cover it by projecting hero-worship into others.

"It is kind of sad how some people will go to extreme lenghts to rationalize..."

There's where I agree with you, but toward a different conclusion.

[fujiyama]

181. This is going nowhere...

Arguing with a Naderite is like arguing with a Bushy. They both won't listen to reason. They make quite a team.

[Terwilliger]

208. like trying to convince sheeple Democrats of anything other

than their bloated, flagging bulk of a "party"

[Terwilliger]

147. politics is regressive

I'm not ignorant of the "realities" of the political situation...I just want the Democrats to ignore all that shit and do the right thing...even if they have to FIGHT to make that happen.

Why is that so bad?

[JVS]

49. This is a poor tactic in my book.

The Green party is a recent phenomenon and as such has not had the chance to develop the hard-core party loyalty that other parties have. I've never heard a Green say "I'll never vote for a Democrat", I've heard Democrats say that they will never vote for a Green or Republican. By increasing hostility toward Greens you run the risk of solidifying the existence of a Green base by developing a long-lasting conflict.

[sujan]

51. DINOS?

how do you call someone a DINO if he/she is not even a democrat?

[Bushknew]

52. Slap the Donkey

The Dems lost in 2000 because they thought swing and moderate voters
were more important than their base (the left).

Come back home, come back to the left you stubborn donkey.

[John_H]

55. DINOS

Is this a new Green slogan?

Don't Interfere with Nader's OTC Stocks

Fidelity Ralphs Investment Consulting, Inc.

[Ein]

65. Nader sued a company he has owned stock in

And the stock he owns is through a mutual fund, if you know how that works.

[John_H]

187. hehehehehehe

God, how I love the way nader makes his minions justify his hypocritical antics!

So this is how we defend Fidelity Ralph's profiteering from corporate criminals? Since he holds shares through mutual funds its OK to flip off Merk with one hand and collect money made as a direct result of its tactics with the other hand? My God. Do you guys really believe this stuff?

Why'd he sue the company? Were they late sending his dividend checks?

[legin]

61. I can't control myself......

Kneel before Zod.

:evilgrin:

[Blue_Chill]

68. Yes and No

The Greens that hate the Dem party as a whole are lost causes and should be seen as the enemies to our party that they are. They won't come back and they don't give a damn what damage they do or how many more years of Conservative rule we get. In their minds it's all our fault anyway, thus their conscience is clear.

On the other hand there are some greens that are willing to return as long as we don't nominate a democrat that is too far right. They have valid concerns that are worth listening to. We shouldn't lose more votes to the green party then we absolutely have to.

[0rganism]

75. Maybe, if we're hanging out here, you could call us GENAs

Greens Engaged in Nader Apologetics

You know, it's been pretty damn tough finding a Democrat willing to take up the cause of the left, ever since "liberal" became a dirty word. Want to crush the Green party? Just adopt a slightly more liberal platform.

[Forkboy]

77. HEY MOT!!!!

you're started this flamefest for us....are ya gonna chime in????

[Tinoire]

81. Nope. It's called "the Meme Hit and Run" n/t

[IndianaGreen]

155. He got what he wanted!

Haven't you noticed how the flame baiters are quite content to get us fighting among ourselves, with some help from a handful of irrational centrists?

[Forkboy]

168. Well I'm as guilty as anyone so I can't really complain

I was (and still am) more than willing to jump into a Green?Nader hatefest to defend him...just like Carlos does with Lieberman.The only difference is that,like most idealogues,Carlos is totally convinced he is 100% in the right and will brook no discussion otherwise.

My debates with him are for others consumption more than his rigid,narrow mindview.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Blue_Chill]

80. He means stop dividing us please.

:D

[JVS]

83. Well said.

[Forkboy]

89. That Will

always the wordsmith :)

[leftofthedial]

79. yes

Voting for whomever the Democratic Party nominates is the ONLY way to get the Bush Cabal out of power in 2004.

And that is the first order of business for anyone who is an enemy of fascism.

[Q]

103. Whew...what a bunch of flame bait crap...

...so early in the morning.

- It's simply astounding that some DUers are still rehashing this same old argument. Nevermind that the thread premise is bogus...one has to be a Democrat to be a 'DINO'. That's 'Democrat In Name Only'.

- Blaming third parties for 2000 has distracted the Dems from identifying and making the real culprits accountable. DLCers blame Gore for being too 'populist' and New Democratic 'progressives' blame Nader for siphoning a few votes from a race Gore won anyway.

- Third parties such as the Greens will always exist...especially when groups like the DLC leave a void with their push to the right. But it seems to me that the Greens were only participating in democracy...while the Bushie republicans were doing the exact opposite.

[LittleApple81]

108. But why do people in DU always follow the bait? n/t

[Iverson]

104. for crying out loud, grow up

And remove the beam in your own eye too.

[peace4all]

106. what he said^ n\t

=

[bitchkitty]

105. Oh, please.

I've stated publicly more than once that chimpie stole the election, not Ralph Nader. Does that make me a Nader apologist, or less of a Democrat than those who just can't let it the hell go?

Ridiculous.

[KG]

107. here's the skinny-

no blow - no bush.

word.

[Forkboy]

169. lmao

thats a whole different flame thread :)

[Kahuna]

114. Greens are not Democrats. They are Greens. So, they

couldn't possibly be DINOs. Some of them are infiltrators and disruptors pretending to be Dems./

[jiacinto]

118. exactly

nt

[Ardee]

124. haa-haa good stuff that

please continue to look under your bed each evening for the dreaded green who may be hiding there... the agenda of the Green Party is strikingly similar to that of the former Democratic Party, you know , the one that deserted the left giving rise to the need for the Green party in the first place.

[Iverson]

129. exactly

n/t

[Forkboy]

170. No...that would be the Clark supporters

[slackmaster]

123. Sure, why not?

Having the party as fractured as it was in 2000 and 2002 failed to gain Democratic control over any of the three branches of the federal government, so we should clearly fracture it MORE. Let's alienate as many groups of Democrats as possible.

:shrug:

[KG]

125. Should DLC apologists be considered DINOs?

should war/taxcut/bush-supporting new-dems be considered DINOS?

The DLC's pandering to the Right makes them just as much an opposition party as the Repukes are, so why should we be leniant on DLC apologists? If they're not supporting the party aren't they more or less DINOs?

the dem. party need look no farther than the nearest mirror to recognized the source of it's present condition.

nice try, mot, but it's been done 100 time before you showed up.

0 points for originailty.

[fujiyama]

216. Yes they should

be considered DINOs and I think the DLC is clearly part of the problem. I have especially been annoyed with their Dean bashing. Lieberman is showing himself to be truly pathetic, bashing Dean and believing he can win his party's nomination by insulting it's base. I also believe it was a mistake for Gore to have chosen him as his VP.

I'm glad to see however, that many people on the left have said F*ck you to the DLC and the Naderites, for they are doing what is best, participating in the democratic party's primary process. Whether for Dean or Kucinich, I think that's great. I just hope that the Kucinich voters will stick around and vote for whomever gets nominated (and most can atleast be thankful it most liklely won't be Lieberman). While I also was opposed to this war and am dissapointed by Kerry's vote, he too would make a much better president than what we have now.

I want people to realize that this is much larger than protesting or building a third party. Something has to be done and the only way to start reversing this mess (which will take years) is to get back the WH.

[Paragon]

130. Should people who post obvious flame threads be considered dinosaurs?

[IndianaGreen]

149. More like (expletive deleted)

particularly when they can't spell "lenient"! I doubt the (expletive deleted) even knows the meaning of the word.

BTW, since Clark has not announced that he is a Democrat, what does that make the poster that wants him as Prez?

We should be discussing Kerry's appearance on Meet the Press, or Bustamante's on Face the Nation, or Dean's surge. Instead we have an (expletive deleted) sowing dissension. And dissension it is because many Greens are supporting Howard Dean for President!

[bring_em_home_bush]

132. THE GREENS ATE MY BABY!!!

discuss

[Booberdawg]

178. You seem to be going to a lot of trouble to get attention

Why don't YOU discuss - just get it off your chest already. Greens AND Democrats are both welcome here BTW.

[Terwilliger]

143. funny the right-wing of the party would ask the question

I'm trying to restore the Democratic party...you people are trying to destroy it

[gully]

146. Yes they are, but what's a dino?

:D

[RecoveringAsshole]

232. DINO =

Democrat In Name Only

[He loved Big Brother]

148. Someone finally notices!

"The Greens are just as much an opposition party as the Repukes are."

Yes. They are their own party. Which is EXACTLY WHY people need to stop bitching about them voting "Green instead of Dem". They aren't Dems, but anyone who believes in true American ideals would welcome more choices, not less. (Even if we don't agree with their choice, Nader *did* have a right to run. And people *do* have the right to vote for whomever they choose.) This is all obvious, of course, but it's funny how the Nader-haters (and I am not a Nader fan myself at all) forget these little facts whenever convenient.

Whining and even condemning a voter for casting his or her vote for the candidate of *their* choice instead of the candidate of *your* choice is the most asinine un-American thing I have witnessed from Dems, and frankly, it disappoints me. I love my party, but I don't assume that if Nader hadn't run that my party wouldn't be a little weak right now. It's my party's responsibility to overcome obstacles, not use them as excuses for why we lost. We need to look ahead and anticipate that sometimes a third-party candidate will run, and we either need to woo those voters away or write them off, but christ on a crutch, don't BLAME them for your guy losing. It just makes us Dems look like hypocrites, in my honest opinion.

Also, we need pressure from third-parties to keep our candidates on their toes. The righties have the same problem with libertarians, I am guessing.

Clearly Gore won, but I was kind of glad that Nader was a slight annoyance for Gore. I am by no means a supporter for Nader beyond his consumer advocacy work, but at least his numbers showed Dems that they do in fact need to remain Democratic and not go charging for the center as fast as possible. In other words, if the more progressive-leaning faction of voters happen to be your base, you shouldn't abandon them. Because there is always someone willing to scoop their votes up, votes we needed and still need, and shouldn't have taken for granted in 2000.

Dems should accept third-parties for what they are, which is pure "democracy" in action, and either woo or ignore their supporters. But bashing them as "would-be Democrats" and "traitors", and, even worse, calling those of us who are defenders of the civil rights of third-party voters DINOs...these are the times when my party saddens me the most.

Voting is our most fundemental right as Americans. Those of us who firmly believe that every citizen is free to exercize that right in any manner we CHOOSE for whomever we CHOOSE are *not* Democrats In Name Only. Far from it. We're just not hypocrites!

Nader is nearly a non-issue. Gore won anyway, DESPITE Nader's high numbers. Like I said, Nader wasn't illegal, illegitimate, or fucking up our democratic process. Those sorts of things took place in Flori-duh, and was not due to our fellow lefties who didnt vote Dem. It was due to our un-American enemies, and I think I will spend my time bashing THEM instead, and trying to court the vote of the "more liberal" lefties. We liberals have already displayed that we outnumber conservatives at the polls (if you add Nader's votes plus Gore's votes together). We should find a way to utilize that fact come 2004, instead of perpetuating even more division amongst lefties. If you tally up Nader's 3 million votes with Gore's votes, it amounts to a helluva lot of left-leaning voters, no?

[bvar22]

154. Well said, HeLovedBigBrother.

My feelings and beliefs exactly.

[fujiyama]

157. The right wingers..

do NOT have the same problem with libertarians or the raving Christian right, which realized long ago they can work well within the confines of the party.

Whatever I'm sick of arguing this. I hope most Nader voters will realize that this coming election is too damn important to vote for a protest candidate (which is a fraud at that). Voting your consciense should mean voting for that candidate which can do the most to further the progressive cause (at last for those of us on the left), and actually have a chance in furthering that cause.

Look, Lieberman, is not exactly my cup of tea either, but his voting record isn't exactly that of Zell Miller for God's sake. He opposed Bush's tax cuts all the way and has a decent vote record on the enviornment and other social issues...Now I know it would be difficult to vote for him (it would for me as well), but if in the unlikely chance it came down between him and Bush, there'd be no question.

Fortunately many former Nader voters have realized they can participate in the democratic party, thanks to the likes of Kucinich and Dean. I hope these people stick around though even if their candidate doesn't win the nomination.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

150. Yes. And, I are one.

If DINO means not joining the herd and following the dictates of the party bosses. Count me as DINO.

I'm a registered Democrat since 1966. I almost always vote for the Democratic candidate. In '68 I voted against Nixon and Humphrey by voting third party. In '96 I sat on my hands because my rep(D) had sold her soul to the NRA. She lost to an ultra-right repuglycan. We now have a very liberal (voted against the war) Democrat that I will vote for in '04.

This (allegedly) being a democracy, I get to vote for whom I choose, not necessarity for the candidate that the party chooses.

I will be voting Green if Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards or Gephardt should win the nomination.

Also known as thinking for oneself.

[jiacinto]

174. And it shows how little you really care about this country

If you did you wouldn't be helping to re-elect Bush. But then again why do you care as you have little to lose if he gets re-elected?

[Iverson]

180. guilt, projection, and victory by definition

Those who have the benefits of higher learning should not argue on the cheap. Remember: the object is not to be as good propagandists as the Republicans but rather to win in a contest of ideas.

Or do you insist upon killing defenseless children? (sarcasm off, and hopefully understood)

[Tinoire]

190. I have my own little list and may be right behind you

If the Dems can't find a progressive enough candidate for my progressive vote which unfortunately must be earned, I'm afraid I shall have to tag along and go Green also.

That's good. That will make at least two of us canceling somebody's vote if OUR party chooses the wrong guy :evilgrin:

By the time Carlos & Co have finished pissing off every Liberal and/or Progressive Democratic and/or Green DU poster and/or lurker

how high do you think that percentage will be 7.8% , 8.6% , or higher? We should start taking bets now.

[Booberdawg]

191. Thus is the problem I have with "so-called" progressive "comrades"

your words:
"That's good. That will make at least two of us canceling somebody's vote if OUR party chooses the wrong guy :evilgrin: "

In other words, if you don't agree with the MAJORITY of the Democratic party, you will partake to eat it out from the inside, regardless of the goals the Democrats and the Green party still have in common that CAN be accomplished.

Gotta have the sun, the stars, the moon, the heavens, and the earth, and all at once. If not that way and your way, you'll see to it, or at least try, to leave us with dirt and rocks and dust. Not a reasonable political goal IMNSHO.

I don't believe most progressives follow that kind of logic, BTW. I think the Democratic party will prevail, despite you and those like you. I think most of them know there are people like me who want to give them a bigger voice but need to get a foothold first in order to accomplish that.

Linda

[Iverson]

194. you mean like Lieberman?

Remember him? He's the guy who recently said that the Democrats deserve to lose if they move too far left, with the implication being that Howard Dean was unacceptably left.
:wtf:

The argument that progressives need to continue to shift rightward in order to shift left in some glorious future moment is the kind of mentality that permits Democrats to write a blank check to Bush for war. You can keep that.

[Booberdawg]

196. No, I don't mean like Lieberman

I don't care about fucking Lieberman. Nobody does. I mean, as you well know, the ones eating the Democratic Party out from the LEFT.

I said nothing about shifting rightward. You are making that up.

[Iverson]

197. that's a start

You didn't have to say anything about shifting rightward. That's the whole context that we're dealing with. If you do not agree that the Dems are shifting rightward, then we're looking at two wholly different worlds.

I do not agree that it is the responsibility of the left to abdicate its ideas in order to pander to the DLC, which doesn't want them in the party anyway. Don't take my word for it; go to www.ndol.org and start looking around in Blueprint magazine.

So, no, I am not making that up, and my example of the immediate past vice-presidential candidate and current presidential candidate has to be considered relevant. Sorry if that's uncomfortable.

[Booberdawg]

221. Sorry, no sale

You have taken my original words completely out of context. I was specifically referring to a leftward pull - not a rightward one. I repeat:

Tinoire's words:
"That's good. That will make at least two of us canceling somebody's vote if OUR party chooses the wrong guy :evilgrin: "

My comments:
In other words, if you don't agree with the MAJORITY of the Democratic party, you will partake to eat it out from the inside, regardless of the goals the Democrats and the Green party still have in common that CAN be accomplished.

Gotta have the sun, the stars, the moon, the heavens, and the earth, and all at once. If not that way and your way, you'll see to it, or at least try, to leave us with dirt and rocks and dust. Not a reasonable political goal IMNSHO.

I don't believe most progressives follow that kind of logic, BTW. I think the Democratic party will prevail, despite you and those like you. I think most of them know there are people like me who want to give them a bigger voice but need to get a foothold first in order to accomplish that.

*************************************

Now that we've that out of the way - no, it is not the responsibility of the left, (which I can only assume you mean to be the Green Party, so correct me if I'm wrong), so I say go ahead and do it. Establish a Party on your own. There's just a little problem with that - it's not a viable Party by itself.

As pointed out above, the Green position is used as a weapon to cancel out somebody else’s vote Okie Dokie. There's no gain to it either way for the Democratic Party, which happens to be the one with the overwhelming support and the only route to replacing the asshole in the Whitehouse. It's that simple. Yes, it is.

I say it again - you want the sun, the stars, the moon, the heavens, and the earth, and all at once. That's not going to happen under any reasonable scenario. We CAN get a foot in the door and work toward such goals - but YOU would have us believe you can force dirt and rocks and dust down our throats if we don't see it as your way or the highway. I think we can do it without you - if YOU must. And, we will.

But, I'd like to make myself available for those who want to help me get my foot in the door so I can take them with me. And I believe they outnumber you.

IMNSHO

Linda

[Tinoire]

222. Nopesorry, No-go, Do Not Pass Go

Your reasoning would be cute if I were a Green. Unfortunately for the Centristis, I am a pinko-commie, tree-hugging, granola-crunching, faggot-loving, card-carrying Democrat so you would do well not to blame the Green Party for anything THIS DEMOCRAT says.

It will be my absolute pleasure to personally cancel out someone's centrist vote and I will do that, as a registered Dem and with love for my party to stop this disastrous course it's on.

It's your choice- Read the writing on the floor or keep burying your head in Centrist heaven thinking YOU can have it all, have it now, and use my vote to do it.

I. WANT. MY. PARTY. BACK.

[Booberdawg]

224. Your reasoning would be cute if you were not VOTING Green

And I invite you to do so.

no sale - bait and switch

But, it will make you FEEL better.:D

[RecoveringAsshole]

233. I got $200 bucks for ya

Pass Go. Outta Jail. You got a Home Free Card.

Buh Bye!
:hi:

[jiacinto]

200. You don't understand, Linda

For these people it's about moral superiority and for some reason they take pleasure in their marginalization. They also like losing.

Their idea is that if Democrat X is with them 80% of the time, because he or she takes the "wrong side" (in their opinion) on one or two votes, that person needs to be "punished" and voted out so that Republican Y who is with them only 20% of the time can be voted in.

They aren't "progressives". There is another term for them. They are really the "regressives".

[Iverson]

201. You don't understand, jiacinto.

Attempting to win an argument by slamming your neighbor's motives, while simultaneously dodging the substance of the argument, is intellectually dishonest.

[RecoveringAsshole]

235. And when it's all said and done

they will left with holding nothing but their dicks in their hands.

Patience. It won't be pretty.

[Tinoire]

213. Forgive me for catching on

I woke up one day to find that the Democratic Party was asleep at the wheel with the car barrelling down the center of the road- you'll have to forgive me if I can no longer go back to sleep, closing my eyes and trusting just any Dem in the driver's seat anymore. There's alcohol on the breath of too many DINOs & RIDIs for that.

A few decades ago, people like me weren't even considered human enough to vote and now you expect me to just give that vote away for free? Sorry, can't do that.

Bush alone didn't get us in this mess. He did it with the help and complicity of many Democrats. You would like me to reward them? To keep the same old shoe but just to put it on a different shoe? That's simply silly.

Republicans alone didn't vote through those fat Pentagon budgets designed with only one purpose in mind. Republicans didn't wage that horrifying war against Yugoslavia which was the beginning of PNACs Pax Americana. A Republican administration didn't maintain and impose 8 years of obscene sanctions on the people of Iraq during which millions died (nor take to the airwaves saying "we think it's worth it" about the UNICEF-documented deaths of over half a million children). Republicans bear only recent responsability for the horror in Israel/Palestine. Republicans alone didn't quibble over how to divide the paltry millions our Reps deign to dole out for the poor only to suddenly find HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS for the Yugoslavia and Iraq wars. Too many people went to bed hungry and homeless under 8 years of a Democratic adminstration that was too busy forcing working on a non-progressive agenda of horrors like GATT, WTO, NAFTA, GMOs, to pay attention to the poor.

For years I've watched the Democratic Party abandon it's base and shift to the right ignoring it's progressive base as it courts the conservative vote because it's easier to whore than to fight for what is right.

It is easier to rebuild by banding together with a more progressive concentration than it is to fight from within a party that is only hoping you'll stick around until they get enough conservative votes that they won't even need to pay lip service to you. It's humorous that the ones who are the most anguished about losing Progressive votes are the Centrists whose takeover isn't quite far enough along to send the Progressives packing.

One man, one vote. One progressive candidate, one progressive vote. That's how the system works. Your conscience- your vote. My conscience- my vote.

Not much has changed since http://www.indiana.edu/~rterrill/Text-BorB.html">"The Ballot or the Bullet. This New Democratic Party will have to forgive me for finally catching on.

<snip>

Well, I am one who doesn't believe in deluding myself. I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate.

<snip>

If we don't do something real soon, I think you'll have to agree that we're going to be forced either to use the ballot or the bullet. It's one or the other in 1964. It isn't that time is running out -- time has run out! 1964 threatens to be the most explosive year America has ever witnessed. The most explosive year. Why? It's also a political year. It's the year when all of the white politicians will be back in the so-called Negro community jiving you and me for some votes. The year when all of the white political crooks will be right back in your and my community with their false promises, building up our hopes for a letdown, with their trickery and their treachery, with their false promises which they don't intend to keep. As they nourish these dissatisfactions, it can only lead to one thing, an explosion; and now we have the type of black man on the scene in America today -- I'm sorry, Brother Lomax -- who just doesn't intend to turn the other cheek any longer.

<snip>

These 22 million victims are waking up. Their eyes are coming open. They're beginning to see what they used to only look at. They're becoming politically mature. They are realizing that there are new political trends from coast to coast. As they see these new political trends, it's possible for them to see that every time there's an election the races are so close that they have to have a recount. They had to recount in Massachusetts to see who was going to be governor, it was so close. It was the same way in Rhode Island, in Minnesota, and in many other parts of the country. And the same with Kennedy and Nixon when they ran for president. It was so close they had to count all over again. Well, what does this mean? It means that when white people are evenly divided, and black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to determine who's going to sit in the White House and who's going to be in the dog house.


<snip>

In this present administration they have in the House of Representatives 257 Democrats to only 177 Republicans. They control two-thirds of the House vote. Why can't they pass something that will help you and me? In the Senate, there are 67 senators who are of the Democratic Party. Only 33 of them are Republicans. Why, the Democrats have got the government sewed up, and you're the one who sewed it up for them. And what have they given you for it? Four years in office, and just now getting around to some civil-rights legislation. Just now, after everything else is gone, out of the way, they're going to sit down now and play with you all summer long -- the same old giant con game that they call filibuster. All those are in cahoots together. Don't you ever think they're not in cahoots together, for the man that is heading the civil-rights filibuster is a man from Georgia named Richard Russell. When Johnson became president, the first man he asked for when he got back to Washington, D.C., was "Dicky" -- that's how tight they are. That's his boy, that's his pal, that's his buddy. But they're playing that old con game. One of them makes believe he's for you, and he's got it fixed where the other one is so tight against you, he never has to keep his promise.

<snip>

So it's time in 1964 to wake up. And when you see them coming up with that kind of conspiracy, let them know your eyes are open. And let them know you got something else that's wide open too. It's got to be the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet. If you're afraid to use an expression like that, you should get on out of the country, you should get back in the cotton patch, you should get back in the alley. They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when they got to Washington was give a few big Negroes big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they already had jobs. That's camouflage, that's trickery, that's treachery, window-dressing. I'm not trying to knock out the Democrats for the Republicans, we'll get to them in a minute. But it is true -- you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.

<snip>

Look at it the way it is. What alibis do they use, since they control Congress and the Senate? What alibi do they use when you and I ask, "Well, when are you going to keep your promise?" They blame the Dixiecrats. What is a Dixiecrat? A Democrat. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat in disguise. The titular head of the Democrats is also the head of the Dixiecrats, because the Dixiecrats are a part of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have never kicked the Dixiecrats out of the party. The Dixiecrats bolted themselves once, but the Democrats didn't put them out. Imagine, these lowdown Southern segregationists put the Northern Democrats down. But the Northern Democrats have never put the Dixiecrats down. No, look at that thing the way it is. They have got a con game going on, a political con game, and you and I are in the middle. It's time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and trying to understand it like it is; and then we can deal with it like it is.

<snip>

[jiacinto]

202. You aren't a progressive

The term for voters like you is "regressive". You are a "regressive".

As for the Greens you are deluded if you think they are going to get more than 5% of the vote.

But whatever you do please save us the arrogance and self-righteousness that the Green extremists love to show.

[Terwilliger]

215. you have no authority to define progressive

you wouldnt know progressive if it was yelling at you from the sketchy neighborhood!

[Tinoire]

223. What is a Progressive Carlos?

Someone who waxes poetic about water privatization?

Someone who has the audacity to speak for the Black vote but knows so little about Blacks that he fears for his life the first time he sees the streets of Baltimore at night?

What is a progressive? A Lieberman defender? A DINO who supportted the war in Iraq? Or is a progressive a person who is inconvenienced by anti-war activists because they blocked traffic desperated to wake up the American public while there was still time to stop the war?

Please let me know what dictionary you are using so I can start a petition to have that dictionary disappeared.

It defines Progressive Dems as Greens- clasifies Greens as an epiteph as if that's an insult but whatever, some people think it is

Nader is the enemy- to better distract from the enemy within

And a Centrist is now a Progressive...

Where did you find this dictionary?

[jiacinto]

225. You know better to claim Lieberman is a DINO

The facts have been shown to prove you wrong several times. But I guess that you hate Lieberman for reasons that have nothing to do with his political positions.

You are a regressive. A regressive is someone from the left who thinks that electing Republicans through witholding votes advances society forward. Or a regressive is someone who would rather "send a message" and "heighten" the contradictions in the warped view of making things so bad that the country will swing to the far left.

[Terwilliger]

226. I believe she asked you what a progressive was

[Tinoire]

227. I think I'm going to re-read "A Confederacy of Dunces" tonight

— Ignatius, don't you think maybe you'd be happy if you went and took you a little rest at Charity?
— Are you referring to the psychiatric ward by any chance? — Ignatius demanded in a rage. — Do you think that I am insane? Do you suppose that some stupid psychiatrist could even attempt to fathom the workings of my psyche?
— You could just rest, honey. You could write some stuff in your little copybooks.
— They would try to make me into a moron who liked television and new cars and frozen food. Don't you understand? Psychiatry is worse than communism. I refuse to be brainwashed. I won't be a robot!

JOHN KENNEDY TOOLE
-------------------------

A Confederacy of Dunces holds a unique position in the world of fiction. A concept novel, thought out in every single detail, does not leave anything up to the reader's imagination. The thematic flow is compact — closed and bounded. Entering the world of A Confederacy of Dunces, you are spoon-fed with all of the details, and there is not even a trace of digression, not even a hole in the door, nor a crack in the window, through which you might augment the book with your own thoughts, often risking putting the book down for a moment. This you shall not do, my reader — you will go on, unable to stop admiring, stop laughing, and of course — stop reading. This novel will grab you from the very first instant — hold tight!

The world of this book is the world of one Ignatius J. Reilly — a gargantuan-sized, sharp-brained highly opinionated individuum. The world according to Ignatius is one great abortion, which has nothing to do with geometry and theology. The life of Ignatius is one constant struggle with the adversity of his environment. Irrespective of the fact that his outlook might seem funny or even bizarre, we have to admit that it's consistent, complex, and well thought-out. More often than not, you will find wisdom in the Big Chief tablets of Ignatius's, or his trains of thought recorded live by J. K. Toole. Were he the only highly original individuum in this book, perhaps it wouldn't be as good as it is — for the book is full of full-flesh burlesque characters drawn precisely by Toole's skillful hand. New Orleans, the Quarter — having read the book you will feel an urge to go down there to see how different it is from the rest of United States, and perhaps grab a hot-dog from a 500-pound vendor with a green cap!

This novel is knee-slapping hilarious. Satisfying in every dimension. Such good books, full of essence and form at the same time — rarely get awarded. This novel is a Pulitzer you will immensely enjoy. I recommend it with all my heart.
http://www.literarymoose.info/literature/toole.html

[Forkboy]

228. Answer a question posed to you for once Carlos

what is a progressive?

[jiacinto]

236. The root of the word is progress

For me the definition is someone who believes in progess and bettering American society. Helping to elect Republicans runs counter to that goal.

[mitchtv]

152. not to mention their support of the Recall

in Calif. The jerks, as if they could win anything.they're trying to give us a puke Governor .

[Iverson]

182. wrong

from a May 8 press release:

"SACRAMENTO - In its trademark consensus style, the Green Party of California (GPCA) ended last weekend's state meeting with this unanimous decision: the state party organization will not join Republican efforts to recall Gray Davis. However, Greens say they will be ready with a candidate if the effort proves successful, and some individual Greens are already working on the recall.

"The Green Party wants to make sure this recall is not used by the Republicans to install a Governor who does not represent the will of the electorate," Peter Camejo, the Greens' candidate for governor in 2002."

This is basically the same approach as the Democrats, only arrived at earlier.

Don't worry: your masterful oratory "jerks" will carry the day around here, regardless of the evidence.

[IndianaGreen]

198. "No" on recall, "Yes" on Camejo is as defensible as

my own choice of "No" on recall, "Yes" on Bustamante.

Many Greens are supporting Kucinich or Dean for President. The irrational attacks on Greens and Green Democrats by people that were jerking off in favor of the war in Iraq a few months ago speaks volumes of the chasm that separates the Democratic grassroots from the panic-stricken Establishment of their party.

[enki23]

159. obviously

they've broken their oath to defend the democratic party establishment against all enemies, foreign and domestic. once you break that oath, you no longer have the right to call yourself a Democrat. DINO is a good name for it, but i'd call them TRAITORS. i wish we could make them wear tattoos on their foreheads, a big red DINO or "greenie" or something. maybe a green pot leaf, since they're all mamby pamby rich white kids with nothing better to do than sabotage democracy by voting third party. fuck 'em.

[He loved Big Brother]

162. Damn

You pull off sarcasm better than anybody I've seen in awhile. A toast! :toast:

[UnapologeticLiberal]

179. Wow, that is a good point!

I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, the answer is probably yes!

[ulysses]

184. DIE, THREAD, DIE

Ok, y'all know I'm not one to forego a Nader flamefest, and it's not like I'm going to kill this one, but let's at least acknowledge the fact that many Nader voters are, and were, Democrats. I know some folks don't like that much, but tough shit.

Beyond that, the thread originator hasn't even bothered to show up again. It's bait.

[Booberdawg]

192. You noticed!

"Beyond that, the thread originator hasn't even bothered to show up again. It's bait."

Yup. It's like - they KNOW what people are primed to take the bait for. All it takes is a little jump start ....

[IndianaGreen]

199. And the thread's author, mot78, is nowhere to be found

mot78 is probably back posting in Free Republic bragging as to how easy it is to get Democrats and progressives bent out of shape by merely invoking the magic incantation "Nader" and "Green."

[ulysses]

209. yup. n/t

[Ardee]

212. true as far as it goes,but....

this flamefest does illustrate what very well may be the death throes of the two party system that has ill served the american voter for years.

Time and again we note the knee jerk reaction by neodemocratic conservatives when asked to consider examining the ills within their own party. "What", they say," self examination is for left wing purists,its my party wrong or wronger!"

I believe that all this debate will either hasten or halt the rightward swing of the former Democratic Party, either solution will do frankly.By that I mean that if this death of my former party is inevitable, let it happen soonest rather than later, thus those moderates, leftists and such can leave the damn sinking ship and make considered and alternative choices.We are in desperate need of a voice of the left here in america, or we are all witnessing the emergence of the blatantly militaristic growth of a new american empire, one under which americans will fare just as poorly as will Iraqis and Afghanis........

There will come a time when the Green Party will find a new candidate to run for President, one who will be villified as much as has Ralph, and with as little reason other than the vichy democrats cannot heal themselves.

[Tinoire]

214. Hi Ardee

:hi:

I hope our party hears that message loud and clear.

If the DNC and DLC can't back the right horse, a true Progressive, in this one, despite all the anger and range of its base, half or which is so blinded by anger that it's ABB, then "let it happen soonest rather than later".


The PNAC agenda is wars, wars, and more wars. Terror in OUR land. Global domination.

Our Imperial Agenda - be it with Democrats or Republicans The Empire is dying and both parties have recognized us. The problem is neither has a plan other than war and exploitation

****************************************

In the 1990s, neo-conservative William Kristol joined with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others to set up a think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This group’s prescription included dramatic increases in military spending, putting weapons into space and establishing a global military presence that could enforce American economic, military and political hegemony in geo-politically strategic regions like the Middle East and Central and East Asia.

PNAC Agenda for the Middle East
Aside from putting weapons in outer space, the most disturbing and ambitious element of the PNAC foreign policy blueprint was the plan to “democratize” the Middle East through military conquest. The project’s dream scenario called for running the table in the Middle East by first imposing regime change on Iraq and then proceeding to take out the regimes in Iran, Syria and eventually moving on into Central and East Asia, culminating with regime change in China. This strategy is explicitly recommended in the PNAC documents (www.newamericancentury.org), and the neo-conservative architects of the plan brazenly call for being able to wage war in multiple theaters simultaneously.

<snip>

In fairness to the hawks, their plan ostensibly calls for reshaping the Middle East with democracies in place throughout the region. If the plan actually succeeded at bringing about full-fledged democracies throughout the Middle East, it might merit careful consideration, especially if it could be shown that few innocents would be killed, maimed or displaced in the process. However, the plan is based on so many flawed assumptions that only the most naïve could judge the best-case scenario as even remotely plausible. Furthermore, it appears that many of the policy architects themselves recognize that the plan is a recipe for regional chaos and interminable bloodshed on a truly grotesque scale. However, the potential for disaster, rather than discouraging the neo-cons, actually emboldens them to support the plan, because by creating chaos they actually create the conditions that might make it appear necessary to occupy the region militarily.

<snip>

Where Are They Taking Us?
An article by Joshua Marshall in the April issue of Washington Monthly titled “Practice to Deceive: Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario—it’s their plan,” explicates the perverse logic that underpins the Bush administration’s twisted plans. With the intention of toppling one regime after another in the Middle East region, the administration may actually tacitly welcome an increase in terrorism during and after the Iraq war because this will be used to justify further U.S. involvement in the region and provide the neo-conservative hawks with cause belli to attack Syria, Iran and other regimes in the region. In a sort of inexorable pattern of macabre inertia, each new crisis will draw more U.S. forces into the region, leading to further problems by inspiring counterattacks that require still more troops to be committed in a Sisyphian cycle of ongoing violence. Within a decade, we could be facing the bizarre prospect of trying to maintain a permanent occupation force in multiple Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries and a perpetual war on terror that creates more enemies, further alienates our allies, drains our economy and leads to a regional bloodbath too catastrophic to contemplate.

<snip>

http://peaceworks.missouri.org/homepage.html


For more about the Project for a New American Century, see the DU PNAC Archive

[AquariDem]

220. I grabbed the bait...

I usually don't.

[AquariDem]

218. Against my better judgement...

I'll throw in my opinion. I think Nader supporters are making the wrong decision when they vote against a Democratic candidate, but I do not believe they are "Dems in name only." Dems and Greens actually agree on quite a few issues. If only we could get the Greens on our team...

[Forkboy]

229. You're very right

There are many issues that the two agree on,but if you want to get the Greens on our team insulting them at every chance,marginalizing them at every chance (as Carlos does) is not the way to achieve that.

And I'm not implying that you're guilty of those yourself...your post is a welcome one :hi:

[Ein]

234. I disagree, to a point

The Democrats are centris, and Greens liberal. I'd like to see you join our team, or make your team liberal, or such.

I'll vote for a liberal with an (R) before thier name, if that is the case.

[AquariDem]

219. Against my better judgement...

I'll throw in my opinion. I think Nader supporters are making the wrong decision when they vote against a Democratic candidate, but I do not believe they are "Dems in name only." Dems and Greens actually agree on quite a few issues. If only we could get the Greens on our team when a big election is underway...

[Terwilliger]

230. No we should not...forget about it...fuck it

I'll stay a Dem through October 7th, then you people can have it