Who are the bigger "morans"? Freepers...or left-wing wackos?

[brentspeak]

Answer: both.

After reading some of the invective that the lunatic left-wing fringe posted on LBN's "Obama courts evangelicals" thread, it became clear just how clueless these people are. "How dare Obama court church-going people? I'm going to puke," sums up the bizarre posts blasting Obama on this.

In fact, for all I know, these left-wingers might just be Freeper-types in disguise, just trying to do more of the ol' "let's alienate the average Democrats on DU from the Democratic party" thing. Or, they're just Communist party members or LaRouche-ites or Independents who post here because they have nowhere else to go. No Democrat I've ever met in real life sounds anything like some of the wackier and radical people I read here. People who wander into DU and are taken aback by some of the left-wing/blame-America-first posts here: Don't worry, they are NOT representative of the average American Democrat, of whom there are millions.

Could you imagine FDR or Truman or LBJ not willing to speak to a group of evangelicals? They did quite frequently. How about MLK? You think he had a lot in common with the left-wingers?

BTW -- I'm not even much of a fan of Obama or the DLC.

[pooja]

1. You mean Rev. Martin Luther King

[wiley]

36. Jr.

[TheFarseer]

2. For the record I love Obama

I think he is dead on. We have alot to offer the church-going - I dare say more than the republicans. I believe some left wingers are "over-the-top". Some are intolerant of others who don't share their ideas. Of course the same is true of RWers. I hope most of this is just frustration boiling over and that they don't really mean everything they are saying. I know I can be over-the-top myself especially with the anonymity of the internet.

[welshTerrier2]

3. i'll tell you what's wrong with your post ...

i object to labeling people who don't want Democrats to speak to Evangelicals as "left wingers" ... what type of name calling bullshit is that???

why is it "left wing" to believe Democrats shouldn't talk to Evangelicals ... first of all, it's plain and simple a moronic political strategy ...

now, if what they're saying is that we shouldn't sell out our core beliefs in equality for each and every citizen and that we shouldn't change our positions and violate our values to win Evangelical votes, that's different ... we should honor our fundamental beliefs ... if you want to label that left-wing, and it's not clear why you should, fine ...

but to call those who oppose even initiating a conversation to improve our understanding of the Evangelical community and their understanding of Democrats as left-wing is nothing but name calling ... i do not consider close-minded refusals to speak to entire communities of people a position held by the "left-wing" ...

i see that sort of name-calling much too often on DU ... whatever "left-wing" is, it is NOT that ...

[brentspeak]

4. Well then they're "fake" left-wingers

Disruptors who post in the style they consider the most stereotypically left-wing.

Would you call someone who berates Obama for doing what all traditional Democrats have always done (speak to churches, religious groups) to be "moderates"? Or even "liberals"?

[welshTerrier2]

8. i would not call them either moderates or liberals

i consider the wisdom to be willing to communicate with other citizens to be appropriate for all people anywhere on the political spectrum ...

as a political strategy, it's moronic to refuse to even exchange ideas ... maybe no common ground will be found; i don't think that's likely though ...

my point was that i just hate to see the "left wing" getting blamed for this idiocy ... if i have to be plotted on the political spectrum, i guess i'll choose left-wing ... i certainly would not want to identify with anyone who believes no dialog is better than dialog ... and i certainly can't see how such nonsense would be measured along a political spectrum ...

if pushed, i would also probably define myself as an atheist ... but i don't think it's wrong for Democrats to talk to people who believe in various religions ... that would be crazy; not left-wing ...

[brentspeak]

9. Fair enough

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

17. ooooh, welshterrier pix ...

i would recommend your post if i could!!

thanks so much ...

[Pachamama]

39. Thanks Larissa.....

....Who Speaks for Me! :hug:

:applause:

[zulchzulu]

5. "Left-wing nuts" at least usually hold their nose and vote Democrat

The same is not true for Freepers. They are beyond any effort to persuade...

[jjrjsa]

6. A lot of anti-religious sentiment exists on the left...

But can you blame them/us? Look at what has been going on for the past years, it's a natural reaction.

[brentspeak]

7. If a Democrat were to say

"We're with you on abortion and school prayer and gay rights. Please make us do your bidding on those issues," then a person has a right to be alarmed. Anything else is simply making a social and political connection just as Democrats have done since the beginning of the party.

[welshTerrier2]

10. that's perfect!!

that's exactly the right way to look at this ... if we sell out our core beliefs to attract a new constituency, we are nothing but political frauds ...

but to exchange views with the hope of at least coming to better understandings, even if we still disagree, seems to me to be an obligation of participating in a democracy ...

[Solon]

14. Actually, 2 out of 3 ain't bad...

From good ole Joe "Go to a different hospital", "Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion" Leiberman that is. :sarcasm:

[Mythsaje]

12. Years? Try Centuries. Eons.

Revealed religion scares me.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Hatalles]

61. On DU, maybe. Not on the "left."

[Solon]

11. Problem is that panning the Democratic party as "anti-religious"...

or "failing to reach out" to religious(Christian) people either speaks volumes about his OWN perspective on the role of religion in government, or just defines his ignorance, either way it is NOT good. Besides, I think it speaks volumes that Democrats have to reach out to these "Good Christians" while at the same time telling us who are a BIT uncomfortable about all this pandering to fuck off because we have no choice. That REALLY pisses me OFF!!!!

[BayCityProgressive]

15. Freepers and some DU wackos

are equally creepy.

[Solon]

16. So Non-Christian equals Wacko?

Nice Generalization Slick, any other BS you want to put out there?

[BayCityProgressive]

19. Nice jump to conclusions

Since I am not a Christian myself I could care less who is or isn't Christian. This is the problem with DU. You say one thing and everyone jumps down your throat calling you a closet Republican or trying to tell you what you mean by your words.

[Solon]

21. Then who are the wackos here? n/t

[Quantess]

35. considering there are over 91,000 DU registrations,

Odds are, at least a couple of DUers are bound to be wackos.
Some liberals are annoying to me, a fellow liberal. Once, I took a ceramics class that was packed with liberals. Most were cool. But when I complimented a kooky woman's art, she said to me "here's one vote for your existence". WHATEVER, WEIRDO.

Not that I have encountered anything like that on DU, but chances are, there are a handful of annoying trippy-dippys. Chances are.

But as long as we are all speaking out against the Evil * Empire, then it's all good.

B-)

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[snowbear]

20. And guess what... those who you ASSume are "creepy DU'ers"...

... are more than likely FREEPERS.

I can't believe BrentSpeak of all people came out with such a lame thread as this attacking DU'ers.

Maybe you haven't been here long enough to realize how many Freepers are crawling around here like cockroaches responding to threads and skewing polls, but surely BrentSpeak has..

[BayCityProgressive]

22. I have no way of knowing

who is a freeper or who isn't. However, the things I would list as creepy are: people who constantly attack anything the US does just because it is the US, people who try to purge and decide who is a real Democrat based on one or two pet issues (sorry Dems aren't lock step Nazis), people who take every available post to bash religion especially christianity, people who support governments like Hamas or Maoists in Nepal,people who accuse posters of being racist, bigots, or freepers because there is an issue they don't agree on, and I am sure there are other strange strange thigns I have seen that I just can't think of right now. These people are a minority to be sure, but to me they are creepy.

[Solon]

26. You do realize that the United States is like the sole superpower...

in the world that projects its power on a whim, especially lately under Bush. I mean, the last time we actually projected our power off our shores that had a POSITIVE effect on others was during the Balkan conflict in the 1990s. Since then, and before then all the way to the Korean war, is really nothing to be proud of. As far as the second point, well, I don't really do that, just call people on their bullshit, whether they should be purged, I say its up to them, though I do believe ELECTED officials should be held accountable when they say or do stupid shit. Same for your second point, but only to a point, I mean, I haven't seen any non-religious DUers brag about "bashing" religious folks with baseball bats, gays can't say the same about homophobes. As far as Hamas, they are assholes, but legitimately elected, so we have to deal with them on SOME level. As far as Nepal, I take it you believe the King(Dictator) of Nepal over the people, fine, if you don't like democracy in other nations, that's fine, just hope you don't think that's good here. As far as the last point, it really depends on the issue.

[w4rma]

42. Evangelicals are a sizable proportion of the voting pool in America.

"we have to deal with them on SOME level" and that means communicating with them.

[Solon]

49. I'm not saying ignore them...

But don't insult us Non-Christians when you do it.

[paulk]

50. nepal

ok, this is not the subject of this thread - but you made a comment on Nepal that I think needs to be remarked upon.

There are three options in Nepal - not just the King versus the Maoists (who you have equated with the "people", which is really off the mark). The third option is the reinstatement of a parliamentary democracy, which, is in fact, the option the Nepali people have chosen.

fyi

[Solon]

51. OK, first things first...

The King of Nepal used the EXCUSE that Maoists were going to take over the country to get RID of parlimentary Democracy, calling him on his bullshit is called common sense. Even the PEOPLE in the country saw right through his transparent attempt at claiming absolute power, his propoganda failed, horribly. Exhaggerating threats so you can claim more power was ALL he did, the fact that the people didn't believe him to begin with should tell you how much of a true threat these Maoists were.

[paulk]

62. it wasn't an "excuse", it was a reality

that doesn't absolve him for his attempt at dictatorship.

Maoist control of Nepal would have been the worse outcome of this whole mess, and the o.p. of this thread is correct in castigating DUers who support the Maoists. Just my opinion, but it's an opinion based on having travelled to Nepal several times in the last eight years.

[Solon]

63. Umm...let me see...

castigating DUers who support the Maoists.

First off, I haven't seen that here, not outright support, more like derision that such a small group actually presented such a huge threat, especially when they mellowed out a little bit. Also, don't confuse critisizism of Nepal's King with support for any revolutionary radicals. That's just a logical fallacy.

[KaptBunnyPants]

47. Really, people here attack the things the US does just because its the US?

Sounds awfully anti-American to me. Care to elaborate further, perhaps with links to a few examples, of where anyone has criticized US actions based solely on the fact that America did it. I mean, I hear about it happening all the time, but usually only from Rush and his ilk on faux, so I’d like to see it for myself. Because I know you, a fellow DUer, wouldn’t resort to using a right wing straw man to attack others who have legitimate political differences with you. That would be almost as bad as insinuating that your fellow posters are NAZIs.

[treestar]

18. Maybe they are just blinded too by the RW hijacking of religion

They're thinking that appealing to these people would mean catering to RW types of sentiments. IOW, they think all religious people are RW nuts, which is something the RW and its media always insists upon. There are religious liberals, or religious people with a liberal bent, though I think they are probably already Democrats. The leaders don't insult them even if some of the more militantly anti-religious liberals do. Referring to the type of post that goes on about "fairy tales" and such.

[kestrel91316]

23. Have you ever considered the possibility that some of the more

LW "whackos" on DU might be RW saboteurs deliberately posting fringe views to make us look bad???

[Sam Odom]

24. So do I have to have 'Faith' in a fairy tale to be a real Dem?

Will any fairy tale do?

[Solon]

28. Apparently not, only Christians need apply...

Note, I have faith in fairy tales myself, just not the "right" ones as Christians.

[maxsolomon]

59. by their post count ye shall know them

n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. The group Sen.Obama was speaking to is actually left-wing on foreign

policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.



Sojourners is the group they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) on Democracy Now - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204


"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

[Alcibiades]

27. How can the answer be "both?"

That's silly. You're asking us to make a comparison. If both groups are equally "wacko," then the answer would be "neither." You cannot have "both" be greater "wackos" than the other. It's silly.

BTW, the answer is the Freepers are bigger wackos, and the evangelicals (some of whom are also Freepers) to whom you also make reference are even bigger wackos. They think that God has granted them magical powers. If I start babbling in a strange language with my geeky friends in my local game shop while rolling dice, and everybody knows it's just a game. I start babbling in a congregation of a church of a certain type, and it's frickin' magic, granted by God, to be sure, and everybody there pretends to think it's not simply babbling.

Evangelicals are not wacko because they go to church. They are wacko because they believe in magic. They also believe in things such as the end times, human resurrection in the flesh, angels, and that what Thomas Kinkade does is art. They make folks who believe in leprechauns and unicorns look as rational as John Stuart Mill.

[Sam Odom]

29. but the non-believers are the crazy ones

:rofl:

[Placebo]

30. It's so true.

I think some people are just so wound up with hatred and angst from 6 years of republican rule that when they run out of things to attack the republicans on they start going after democrats! And going after them with insane rants that make no sense and get us nowhere.

And I also agree with you that there are a lot of people on these boards who simply aren't democrats. They're communists or "greens" or "independents". I remember a recent poll in this same forum which asked people to name their party affiliations and self-professed democrats were in the extreme minority.

Also, add to that that the demographics of the blogs and the members they attract tend to be middle-class white people, and you've got an extremely unrealistic representation of the "left". I mean, did you see how many white people were at netroots HQ "YearlyKos"?

[Solon]

33. Then again, some of us are uncomfortable with ANY mixing of religion...

and politics in ANY form.

[RDU Socialist]

31. will you have my babies?

[snowbear]

34. LOL...

[wiley]

37. I agree that Obama was spot on speaking to that group of Evangelicals

So were Dean and Clinton. You shouldn't ignore people just because of their religion. It's arrogant and closed-minded. So our beliefs might not be entirely similar. Our political agendas may be different in a few or many ways. This Evangelical group cares about a lot of issues that Democrats deeply care about. Many of them could be Democrats. It's always important to remember that people who might wander onto a Freeper website or even the official RNC website would probably be equally appalled by the wackier and radical people they encounter. Your generalizations are not very helpful, however. We're all aware that DU has quite a few people who are nothing but political operatives whose mission is to divide us, and provoke discussions that get joined by other groups of freepers and poseurs, making them appear to be "left-wingers". Those who honesty believe what they believe as members of the left wing are entitled and welcome to express their views, even if some interpret them as "Blame America First" posts. That's simply ridiculous. We blame CORRUPT, LYING, SELFSERVICING(!), Criminals of the Republican crime cartel that is running this country.

[martymar64]

56. What bugs me about Obama's speech

was that he was telling us to surrender on the "small" issues like prayer in school, the pledge of allegiance, etc. He didn't tell the evangelicals that they should also try to reach out to those that have been alienated by 6+ years of marching towards theocracy that * and the Rethugs have been shoving down our collective throats. That's not compromise, that's capitulation.
When I start hearing McCain or people in that other party that they should start courting liberals, then maybe I'll reach out.
As an atheist, I have good reason to fear evangelicals. In my state of Texas, I'm not allowed to serve on a jury and in Arkansas, I wouldn't be allowed under law to serve in a public office. If you need another example, just ask Madeline Murray O'Hare and her family.
I don't "blame America first". I believe in the principles this country was founded on, as a nation we just need to start walking the walk.

[wiley]

58. Valid Points.

Why can't you serve on a jury in Texas? If you declare yourself an atheist they prohibit you?

[LibertyorDeath]

38. Freepers of course

You should know that by now.

[rman]

40. By your own admission they might very well be the same thing

It's hardly news to most here that pretending to be left-wing and making outrages statements that discredit the LW is a common RW tactic. They're conmen, deception is their main tool. So what else is new?

There's documentation of them doing that on a large scale to:

Operation Gladio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio
The short version: Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) / Bader-Meinhof Gruppe (among others) were RW (covert CIA) creations.
BMG killed a some bigshot German capitalist supposedly for the LW cause. To this day it is cited by RW-ers as an example of militant/terrorist tendencies of the "radical left".


Also see COINTELPRO for similar tactics in the domestic arena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[wyldwolf]

41. close race, but I'll go with "freepers."

At least left-wing wackos don't usually have a selfish agenda.

But Brentspeak, your post is another example of a trend I've seen here on DU of late.

The "left-wing wacko" vitriol has gotten so shrill on the internets, its nudging some in the direction of the DLC and Obama types if only to escape the wackiness.

[depakid]

43. The people who are truly whack

and self-defeating are those who repeatedly advocate losing "strategies" like appealing to the far right- enabling them and legitimizing their policies- while at the same time alienating the base and the many independent and non-voters out there.

Instead of standing up for traditional Democratic principles- they go after the ephemeral "center," punting away popular progressive issues in the vain hopes of getting a few Republican votes.

The argument can certainly be made that Barak Obama's in that camp, based on several of his actions and statements over the past year and a half.

You talk about right wing plants? I think people who advocate following the same "strategy" that's lost us 6 straight congressional elections- and brought people like Alito onto the Supreme Court- that would be the place to look.

[KaptBunnyPants]

44. Here is what I don't understand...

Every Democratic nominee for president that I can think of is Christian. Every candidate for office that I have ever voted for is Christian. Al Gore is born again, and Kerry's Catholic views led him to declare that abortion was immoral. After the "under God" scandal, practically every Democrat in the Senate joined with the Republicans to announce their support for the phrase. And the only thing referenced more than Kerry's military service in the 2004 convention was how much we all loved God.

I didn't mind any of that, (except the "under God" thing which was the basest form of pandering), but Obama did something different. His talk of secularists trying to drive God from the public sphere plays into the hands of a very dangerous movement which far to many people in this country don't pay enough attention to. There is strong support for theocracy among far too many people. Maybe it's because I'm from Texas, but I don't take these people as lightly as you all seem to.

These people call for a biblical based legal system. That means execution of homosexuals, heresy laws, religious litmus tests required for office, and the revocation of all advances in political and civil rights made in the past several thousand years. And how do they justify this? Because evil secularists started it with their Satanic attempts to cleanse America of all Godliness, something even one of our highest political figures freely announces that we do.

Now I admit it, I'm one of those evil secularists who scare all the good people away from our party with my secular lifestyle. But I still don't see how I'm as bad as a freeper for criticizing a statement which will be seized by those who wish to subjugate us as further evidence of our Satanism. I don't care what religion you are, I don't care what church you go to, I don't care how you want to decorate your property, but I do care deeply about trying to preserve my own religious liberty. The ruling Party of my state just announced that God was their political leader, that’s how far gone we already are; don't think it won't happen to you to.

edit - typos galore

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Exactly.

Our candidates already pander to the religious voter - disgracefully in my opinion - and Obama gets up and says we must do even more to reach out to these voters, and tosses in two out of three of the buzzwords of the theocratic agenda: prayer in school, god in public, while carefuly nuancing his position to retain a veneer of progressivism as well - the full clintonian triangulation, and those of us who are totally fed up with this sort of bullshit say 'no thanks we prefer to keep religion and politics separate' and we are denounced as left wing fruitcakes.

Great. How about we keep religion and politics separate? How about we stop pandering to the right, how about we stop trying to be the right of center corporate party in opposition to the far right corporate/theocrat party, a strategy that has been followed for thirty years and has taken us from majority to minority status, and instead try to be the party of working people? How about pushing issues that unite the natural Democratic base, rather than pushing issues like this that clearly divide us?

[alvarezadams]

48. Don't bother

"Vanilla" dems vote the shirt. If the DNC is to be an actual opposition to the excess of the GOP it cannot pander to the vanillas - it has to make a stand. The GOP realized this and framed the political argument in a way that was inclusive of many market segments that were initially and superficially compatible.

Yet the GOP, like the DLC, can care less about "values". They have an agenda which is based on the meat and potatoes of politics - economics and foreign policy. Whatever stance either makes with regards to any given parochial and minor platform issue plays second fiddle to the former - which is why the likes of the Bradleys and Olins can support Dubya AND the DLC at the same time with nary an ideological twinge.

The powers behind the GOP and DLC can care less about abortion, creationism vs evolution, prohibition, sodomy or capital punishment. Flag or fag burning are bunk to them - they're out for a profit, a means to pull the strings... and if this means pandering to insane or archane voter blocks from the right or left, they can give a flying fvck.

Liberbush, Cheney, Kerry, Hillary, Bush.... from the perspective of the string-pullers they're the same. Neo-liberal economists, foreign policy hawks... they don't care if they vote in favour or against minutia that doesn't affect THEIR interests. Some are green, some are pro- or anti-abortion? Panem et circensis for AEI, Heritage and their funders. Thus their willingness to support whomever they think has a chance at winning, be they of the GOP or DLC. Murdoch's support of Hillary should be a dead giveaway.

Obama is courting the fundies - even if what the fundies represent is anathema to democracy as the founding fathers outlined? I can't wait to see who is funding him now.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Agreed.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. are you aware that the group Sen. Obama was addressing is left-wing?

The conference that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean was speaking at was sponsored by the Sojourners movement.

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.




Sojourners are the group they were speaking to:

Link for Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) on Democracy Now - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204


"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm


.

[martymar64]

54. Nice to see you'd sell us out for RW voters

Since you are denouncing all of us left wingers, does that make you a Right Wing wacko?
What principles are you willing to sell out to court the fundy crowd? Abortion? Gay rights? Separation of Church and State? Due Process? Equal Protection under the Law?
There's nothing wrong with speaking to them, what I object to is how willingly Obama is trying to dump the liberal base overboard to court people that wouldn't vote for him anyway. As an atheist, that means he's willing to throw me under the bus without a second thought.
If you want to call me a freeper, come to Austin and say it to my face and count how many seconds til you hit the ground.

[newsguyatl]

57. i'm a PROUD left-wing whacko

[maxsolomon]

60. WHO are you talking about?

members of the SWP?

cuz there AIN'T NO LEFT WING IN AMERICA. they got killed in the early 1900's or driven underground after HUAC. people are labelled 'socialist' in Murka who don't even know who Marx is. there is not a single socialist with any position or power in this country.

we're the rational center of political thought. if you think we're 'left wing wackos', you lean right.

[Solon]

64. Bernie Sanders, future U.S. Senator...

Then again, if HE is a "Left Wing Wacko" then SO AM I!!!

[maxsolomon]

65. oh... that's right

i thought i vaguely remembered one. vermont, right?

OH, WHO WILL STAND UP TO THE POWER OF THE LEFT WING WACKOS?! THERE'S NO STOPPING THEIR EVIL EGALITARIAN DESIGNS!

[The Magistrate]

67. Locking

Flame-Bait.