question for leftists

[William Z. Foster]

There is clearly a split within the party, and it is reflected here, between left-leaning and right-leaning people (trying to put that as diplomatically as I can.) It is so pervasive and acrimonious that it is difficult to even discuss without starting another spat.

Clearly, the explanation of the rules today favors one of the factions over the other. The membership knows this, since those from one of the factions are applauding and people from the other are criticizing that explanation. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter of the rules "really" favor one faction over another. That discussion would no doubt become yet another cause for bitter feuding. If one side is happy and the other unhappy, then the members think the rules are not neutral and their perception of them is the only way to tell what they "really" are. The people on the side that it happy can say "well the others should be happy! They have no reason to not be happy!" but "should" in that context is itself yet another salvo in the ongoing battle.

This has created an intolerable situation for those of us on the left. Several times today I went to post, and then stopped because I realized that what I had to say - the opinion I was about to offer - would run the risk of being a violation of the rules. As the day went on I could see that almost everything I have to say, and have been saying, can now be interpreted as a rule violation. I have to believe that there are dozens of people, maybe many more, facing the same situation today.

I think that the rules are being used as a tool to enforce message discipline. That being said, whatever the rules are going to be is OK with me so long as we all have clarity, the owners have the power to make up the rules and enforce them any way they choose and I am not challenging that, and I also think that is message discipline is the goal that is within their power and if they want to do that they should go ahead and do it. All boards impose some sort of message discipline. I don't go to a Fundy board and argue for atheism, for example.

Wouldn't it save a lot of grief and drama if it could just be clearly understood that certain opinions are welcome, and certain others are not; if the split were acknowledged and it was made clear that the board was for the people on one side of the split and not for those on the other? The, everyone would be clear, everyone would be happy, and we could all go on with our lives instead of watching the same drama play pout over and over again.

I don't know why the people on the other side do not do this. Perhaps they think there will be some sort of blowback, perhaps they don't want to appear to be "censoring" or "suppressing" people or stifling free speech, or don't want to be accused of those things. It is an odd sort of thing to be told several times a day in various ways that you are held in contempt and not wanted, but then when you say "it seems we are not wanted," that is denied and you get attacked for saying that. Crazy.

My question is this: can we just let the owners and their core group of supporters have what they want? As it is, our opponents think they have been vindicated and that they now have new power and validation, the upper hand, judging by their responses on the rules thread and in the BOG group. I think they are right. That means we are in a strange position. We either refrain from posting, as I did for the most part today, or we are certain to encounter ever-escalating feuding and drama. I think the owners and those who agree with them should have their board exactly the way they want it. That is fine with me. Clearly, we are an irritant, a barrier, and interference and are not welcome. For some reason they can't bring themselves to say that, but I think we can overlook and forgive them for that as well and just go ahead an act on the reality of the situation ourselves.

I don't want to get into a debate about what the left "really is" who is "really on" this side or the other, how the word should be defined, etc. Everyone here knows there is a split and knows what I am talking about. I am calling the side I am biased toward "leftists" but if there are some here who want to call us fringe, whining, purists, whatever, I don't care. We know who we are talking about on the two sides and we know the issues that are causing the divide.

Leftists - can we let go of this, let our opponents win and move on? Is there anything more to gain by continuing the feud here?

[Starry Messenger]

1. I think we all know the score William.

It's time to shake the fatal embrace here, agreed.

[live love laugh]

342. If every post I considered violated the rules I might rethink being here at all.

But that's just me...

[William Z. Foster]

492. that is what we are doing

But that is just us.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Catherina]

3. I was with you until your last sentence. No. I can't let our opponents win and move on

This is my party too.

I didn't spend years working for social justice just to have Reagan Democrats come back and tell us to move over and move on. This is worth fighing for because it would take us years to rebuild. That's why you see so many Republican talking points infiltrating this site instead of building their own new party.

I'm sorry, they can't have my party.

[inna]

9. Excellent post.

[TheKentuckian]

19. You speak my mind. Thank you

I wasn't reared to go silently into any goodnights.

[highplainsdem]

48. +1

[William Z. Foster]

57. thanks

Understood. I am not unsympathetic to your view. But may there not be more than one way to get there?

What is the party? The name? An empty shell hijacked by people who oppose everything we stand for? Or are we the party, regardless of the name?

My great aunt was born in 1898, and was a "Lincoln Republican," as were her parents and Grandparents. She lived to age 98, and right 'til the end I could still not convince her that the Republican party had changed, and was no longer the same party from her Grandad's era. Sometimes institutions change faster than we do.

[icymist]

190. I hear you.

I only hope many FDR era people hear you as well.

[hootinholler]

75. Should be an OP

:D

-Hoot

[Mithreal]

138. +1 well said

:applause:

[Lorien]

174. +1. there are more of us than there are of them. nt

[NorthCarolina]

715. There may be more of us, but DU's new rules are clearly pegged against us.

The conservatives have won another small victory here. Nothing that anyone can really do about it, other than to let them enjoy their victory. For me, I am looking for an alternative, a more progressive friendly site. Haven't found that alternative yet, but I have to assume there is something lurking on the web.

[Sherman A1]

194. +1, Agreed & Well Said!

I absolutely agree with you. That said... DU isn't life, it's a discussion board about topics. The debates can get a bit heated from time to time, yet, it still is what it is and no more and "ignore" is our friend.


As to the current/recent issue of whatever new rules and the "segments" of the party or that discussion.


It's all opinions and everyone is entitled to theirs, the leftists, the moderates, the rightist, the neighbor's cat, whatever.

[YOY]

247. +1

n/t

[Mimosa]

266. ^ Good stuff! ^ n/t

[disillusioned73]

274. x 1000

[Smashcut]

361. BRAVA!!!

"I didn't spend years working for social justice just to have Reagan Democrats come back and tell us to move over and move on...I'm sorry, they can't have my party."

Ugh I've felt like I'm on crazy pills lately reading some of the conservative tripe that has passed as "Democratic" now that the establishment is all for it. Thank you for this post.

:applause:

[sabrina 1]

371. I agree with you. I will support only Democrats who

are not afraid to stand up for what this Party is supposed to stand for.

I see the point the OP is making but, and s/he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think s/he is talking about this Forum. If so, and if it is true that this is a forum only for people with right-of-center views, then I do agree that it should be made clear that is what it is.

[defendandprotect]

504. Don't think they are ready to say that for whatever reasons . . .

the administration that is --

think they need to continue to be seen as a "liberal/progressive site" --

anything else would raise eyebrows, I think . . . ???

[William Z. Foster]

627. correct

Thanks for your great posts recently, sabrina 1.

I was talking about this forum, yes, but I see the same battle going on here locally within the party.

I am not sure whether or not fighting to control or define the label or brand name "Democratic" is worth putting all of our efforts into. There were at one time many progressives in the Republican party, led by Teddy Roosevelt, who said "they can't have my party! I will fight for it!" But the tycoons were able to take over the Republican party. That does not mean that those progressives went home or quit or gave up. The brand name "Republican" was not the thing of value, not the thing to fight for. Likewise many anti-slavery Whigs said at the time "they can't have my Whig party! I will fight for it!" But capturing and controlling the brand name "Whig" was not the goal, ending slavery was. When people found themselves under attack from other Whigs as much as they were from the pro-slavery people in the other party, they said goodbye to the label and then really started moving forward.

A brand name is all that "Democratic" is. You cannot be loyal or disloyal to a brand name. Why can we not be loyal to the cause, and loyal to those who share the cause? If people with money and power are going to enforce the use of that brand name to fight against the cause and against those who share the cause, are we not squandering time and energy battling them over who should and who should not call themselves "Democratic?"

[sabrina 1]

666. If you think of it that way, that the party names are

brands, and that those with money have bought the brands, then it makes even more sense to do what you suggested, to start a movement or several for that matter, like the Labor and Civil Rights movements to put pressure on the party, to choose and back candidates for the Party. The Republican Party is hopelessly lost to the Corporate world, so it would be less work to concentrate on the Democratic Party.

As you pointed out very clearly elsewhere, we are following the party right now, grateful for a few crumbs every once in a while, instead of them following the people. And the fact that the Party feels powerful enough that they can now trash the Teachers Union and Labor, means we have waited far too long to take control of the situation. They have reached a point where they no longer fear the people. The challenge 'where else are you going to go' was a real clue as to how they view their position as opposed to that of the people.

So yes, I think the only way to get back some power for the people is to focus on movement politics as party politics has failed completely. They are meant to serve us, they are not doing that obviously so something needs to be done.

[bobbolink]

677. I agree with that except for one thing..... as you can see from all the "priority" lists at DU,

poverty never rates a movement of effort.

What becomes of us?

[William Z. Foster]

700. one point if I may

In order to start a movement to put pressure on the party does not require us to be "in" or "out of" the party. That debate is a futile and irrelevant one. It is not really hat it pretends to be - "so what are you going to do then, leave the party or vote for Palin??" - is not about being in or out of the party, rather it is an attempt to control what others think and say. That is clear from the context within which those sorts of remarks appear.

For example:

Person A: "I am opposed to what is happening in Afghanistan."

Person B: "What are you going to do, vote for Palin?"

or...

Person A: "I am disappointed that DADT has not been repealed."

Person B: "Third parties never work, and it violates the rules to advocate that here."

Those are actual examples, and although they are extremely obvious ones, they represent a pattern of posts conveying the same message. Clearly those are not about voting, or third parties, or loyalty to the party. They are an effort at controlling the discussion so as to control what people think and say.

[bobbolink]

674. Yes, movement politics is what it is about. BUT.... poverty is left out now, so where does that

leave people like me?

The only movement I am interested in now (because it has been ignored) is POVERTY. Yet, even when I ask people to do a simple thing in support of the poverty cause, it is ignored.

Again I ask.... where does that leave poor people?

We have no party.

We have no movement.

[sabrina 1]

687. Yes, it is left out. There is no support for those who actually

do care about it, like ACORN eg. Even here people were initially willing to believe a few far-right wackos that ACORN had done something wrong, rather than an organization that actually was helping the poor. If it wasn't for a relative few people online, even the small amount of vindication they've had would never have happened.

How do you eg, get the media to cover the truth about ACORN, as enthusiastically as they covered the lies? Writing to them doesn't work.

And how do you get those Democrats in Congress who voted to defund them to apologize for their egregious behavior? Calling, writing, emailing gets no response. So the poor have lost one of the few organizations that were working to help them. If there was a strong movement that supported such organizations, this could not have happened.

If there were strong movements with good leadership who could deal with these attacks from the right when they begin, it might not have gotten so out of hand. But individuals like us have no power alone to change anything. Which is why I am interested in this idea of building movements to fight for the people, the poor, the disabled, minorities, children, the elderly.

I thought Democrats were the ones who would defend and work for the poor. So did many others, which is why people chose to be democrats. We have seen now that this was a wrong assumption. Just looking at the list of Democrats who voted against ACORN told the whole story on where they stand on the issue of poverty.

And that is what people are wrestling with now. What to do next since we can no longer depend on the party to do what they were elected to do. Meantime I know, as I have many friends who are in dire need of help, there is very little available for them.

[bobbolink]

689. Great post!

:applause:

But I must take issue with your contention that individuals like you can do nothing.

I have had some very workable ideas. BUT, I am expected to carry them out alone, which everyone should know is impossible. Even Rosa Parks did NOT stand alone when she refused to move!

Time after time I have asked DUers who say they care about poverty to do one simple thing, and time after time I am met with either silence or a speech on why poverty is neglected, and maybe one or two who actually DO the simple thing.

And you know what..... it hasn't killed them (or even caused a broken fingernail) to do that one thing.

So, it comes down to ALL of you. This passing the blame must stop. It IS about each individual taking action.

[sabrina 1]

693. Well, individuals can do some things. They can

help individuals who are in need, and many have and do. But clearly that is not enough. The problem is so huge that it will take a huge, powerful movement to address it.

Boards like this could play a role in building such a movement, but we are distracted by party politics most of the time and other distractions, as you can see.

And it needs leadership. Few people have the qualities necessary to lead a powerful movement but many have the ability to be a part of it, to support and promote it, if the right leadership comes along. Until that happens, anything we do will be a drop in the bucket.

The whole culture needs to change, just as it did to get Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Workers' Rights. That is a big task and it's clear this Party we are all a part of is not up to the job, or doesn't care.

I am frustrated, I see no reason why we have poor people at all in this country. How do we stop the outrageous spending on destruction of other nations, money that should be going to build this country up?

I, like so many others, am at a loss. We thought that by electing Democrats we were going to see some real changes, at least a beginning. I really do not know the answer other than working where I live with others who are doing so, to help those we know are in need.

[MissDeeds]

410. I'm with you

Excellent post

:patriot:

[readmoreoften]

423. I respect your chutzpah!

I have little hope for seeing a progressive perspective on this website in the future. This site could become an embarrassment to the Party in the near future if the informal polls on here are correct. Many seem to be veering toward running challengers to incumbents or splitting for a 3rd party due to administration's perceived position reversal on so many issues.

I've given up on thinking politicians within this system can save us.

[patrice]

4. Funny, I'm about as Left as it gets and I don't feel uncomfortable with DU at all.

Maybe I should try harder, or maybe I wouldn't pass whatever the conventional litmus test is for Lefty-ness . . . ?

I just don't feel as though my opinions are unacceptable here.

Does it have more to do with HOW something is said?

I'll go read Skinner's post today more carefully and see if I can imagine what it is that I want to say but mustn't.

[William Z. Foster]

25. yeah

Well, that just fans the flames. We can argue over what "left" really means, but as I said in the OP that is not what I am looking for.

[patrice]

45. I only suggested that if someone happened to think that I don't have the problem you describe

because I'm not Left enough, not because I want to "fan the flames" and therein lies a hypothetical hint on the issue of your OP.

[William Z. Foster]

72. sure

But your choice of words suggests otherwise -

"...whatever the conventional litmus test is for Lefty-ness..."

"Does it have more to do with HOW something is said?"

"...if I can imagine what it is that I want to say but mustn't."

I don't care who gets to call themselves "left," but those phrases you used are pejorative and prejudiced against one side in this ongoing feuding.

"Who gets to say what left is and what is the litmus test" and "it is not what you are saying it is how you are saying it" and "you are imagining this" are the phrases that are so often used against those who criticize what we see as conservative tendencies ion the party.

I am not calling for any litmus test, I am not saying anything in a "wrong way," and I am not "imagining" the split. That does not make me immune from the same treatment that I would get were I doing any of those things. They are phrases used to discredit and malign people, from my point of view.

[Tailormyst]

237. Your choice of words says otherwise. Very transparent

[sabrina 1]

376. It isn't about 'left' or 'right'

It is about 'right' or 'wrong'. You know, like torture is wrong. Illegal wars are wrong. Denying civil rights to Gays in the military and in civilian life is wrong. Bailing out corrupt Wall St. banks is wrong.

That's where the division is coming from. Many of us are Democrats because we KNOW the Republican Party thinks all of the above listed issues are right, 'torture is right' etc.

Now we are finding members of the Democratic Party telling us that we have to be 'pragmatic' and turn a blind eye to some of these issues, like torture. Those people have apparently taken over the leadership of the Democratic Party. Democrats and Independents who voted for Democrats in 2008, are angry about that.

Sometimes there are not two sides to a story. Like murder, it's just wrong. Or torture, no two sides to it, it's just wrong. That's not a 'leftie' position, it is a humanitarian issue agreed upon by most decent people in the world which is why we have laws against it.

[RobinA]

548. I Would Disagree

It isn't about left, right, right or wrong. It's about allowing all opinions, which it would seem that this board is not inclined to want to do. Third Party versus Mainstream Party is a legitimate issue philosophically.

[William Z. Foster]

722. is there a difference?

You say it is not about 'left' or 'right' bur rather about 'right' or 'wrong.'

What is the difference?

The political right wing is nothing but a bunch of cobbled together excuses and rationalizations for doing immoral things for personal gain.

The political left wing is the resistance to that.

Left versus right is moral versus immoral. Were it not for that, I wouldn't be a leftist. Who cares about politics or ideology? I care about people and doing what is right by them.

[jgraz]

39. "As far Left as it gets" would be a militant communist

Are you a militant communist? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[defendandprotect]

Hardly ... militant = totalitarian ... that's right wing ... and as

J. Edgar Hoover always used the term . . . "totalitarian Communism" --

Anything kept in place by oppression, sword, militancy, violence, coups --

that's totalitarian -- fascist -- right wing.

[readmoreoften]

315. As "left as you can get" is revolutionary socialist. Are you that left?

Because of the lack of proper education in the US and the privatization of news, many have little familiarity with the concept "left."

[Individualist]

5. I agree with you.

"if the split were acknowledged and it was made clear that the board was for the people on one side of the split and not for those on the other?" That would be the fair thing to do. However, the elephant in the room will never be acknowledged here.

[inna]

6. "Leftists - can we let go of this, let our opponents win and move on?"

Where?

ETA: serious, and critically important, question.

[William Z. Foster]

78. where to go

All successful movements for social justice worked outside of partisan electoral politics.

[KoKo]

556. I just read an article on Open Left this a.m. by Chris Bowers who says

that we are better off staying and reinventing the Dem Party than going for a third party. He saw the Primary Runoff win in NC yesterday as an example of "working within the system" to promote change. NC Secretary of State Elaine Marshall backed by Progressives and not the Dem Party heirarchy WON.

I think Chris Bowers is onto something. We have small victories at first, but then that gives more people courage to run and make a difference. Elaine Marshall was ignored by the Dem Hierarchy who picked and funded Cal Cunningham. She had the most experience and wide support amongst older voters, women and civil rights activists. She should have gotten money from the DNC...but noooo they went with their Iraq Veteran who was young and inexperienced compared to Marshall. (nothing wrong with Cunningham as a person but he was pushed to run by Dem Leadership.)

[KonaKane]

7. While I think DU veers more toward the centrist Democratic position,

It's still the best game in town as far as the Left/Progressive element being able to air their views with relative freedom. I gotta give Skinner that. I have been on so called "Democratic" forums where they are much less tolerated or outrighted cherry picked and ostracized.

I know leftists here hate to hear this, but we have to sometimes just back up and count our blessings at the time and stop worrying about having all of our candy just yet. We need to find some kind of common understanding and work together to even see a modicum of this change we still want.

[Forkboy]

10. Common understanding begins when equal rights aren't equated as "having all our candy".

[KonaKane]

16. You made that connection, not me.

Frankly equal rights under the law is just one of the goals that need to be attained. I can think of many others, including getting off oil and on to sustainable alternative environmentally friendly energy sources, an end to military interventionism, and health care and shelter being recognized as basic rights.

There are many more, but I think you get the picture.

[Forkboy]

22. Gay rights are a big issue to me. I have many, many gay friends, online and offline.

That's why I made the particular connection. It's one of the very few clear cut, black and white issues we get to deal with. Gay rights, and the other issues that you mention, are all crucial, and equating wanting these things fixed with not getting our candy is condescending, at best. If you truly want common ground then there's surely better ways to achieve that.

[KonaKane]

38. And evil military interventionism is to me. That doesnt mean that if I dont get that solved

I'm willing to ignore everything else, or alienate others who could ally with me and come together for a greater platform of change that could benefit us all.

Again, you have to step away from the personal because this is about all of us.

[Forkboy]

47. It is about all of us, and that's why your comment is counter-productive to the goal you want.

[KonaKane]

49. Which comment, and why?

[Forkboy]

349. Sorry to take so long getting back to you.

This is the comment....

just back up and count our blessings at the time and stop worrying about having all of our candy just yet

The reason I see it as a problem isn't your intent, which I think wasn't bad at all, but the way a term like that comes across for those fighting for those issues that are vitally important, either to them singularly or us as a whole. You're equating wanting things like wanting an end to torture, wanting equal right for all, etc. to not getting candy, as if these things are a treat to be celebrated instead of expected. You're telling people who are second class citizens to yourself to chill out, and be glad for the crumbs they get. It displays an enormous lack of sensitivity to the people fighting for these issues to have you reduce it to a Halloween type treat. Equal rights isn't a Gummi Bear.

I don't think you mean it to come across the way it does to some people, just pointing out that it does come across as highly condescending. And my point is that if you truly want to build coalitions among the Left to help us all (as do I), then a little more sensitivity to how things are phrased will make a difference.

I truly feel like gay people are my bothers and sisters, and this downplaying of their very real and very valid concerns, whether you intend it or not, is highly counter-productive, to their goals and mine, and I'm assuming yours.

[KonaKane]

353. I agree with you that Gay rights are very important - but so are many other things

And when we allow ourselves to get focused too much on a single issue, the ego gets in the way and before you know it, everything someone says that slightly diverges from your viewpoint or agenda is seen as an attack. This is not an accusation of you or anyone else, because I have done it myself. So much so that I have really tried hard to keep a broader perspective. In fact its a daily struggle to do so.

I have my personal crusade issues too. Things that are extremely important to me. But I realize that unless I can work with others on issues of their concern, mine will certainly not get remedied anytime soon. We need each others' brilliance and strength to get the whole job done. Yes, so that we can all have our candy no matter what specific treats we wanted in our bags.

I remain committed to cooperating with those of my ideological bent, in any way I can. But it's going to take a constant vigilence in keeping our view broad and inclusive, and most of all realizing we are on the same side. Or, so I would hope.

[William Z. Foster]

370. it is not an either/or situation

Equal rights is not a "personal crusade" by anyone.

On the issue of equal rights, what are the various points of view that you think we need to "take a constant vigilance in keeping our view broad and inclusive?"

I am not willing to take an "inclusive" approach to equal rights. I am not willing to work with those of various views about that. One supports and fights for equality or one does not. I will not "include" those who do not. They are, by definition, not on the same side no matter what they call themselves - Democrat, liberal, whatever.

If we are to say that equal rights is the special interest of a few, with the danger that they will "get focused too much on a single issue," then we are not talking about equal rights at all nor are we on the same side as those fighting for equal rights.

[KonaKane]

375. Equal rights is one very important issue among many.

Here are some others:

Energy consumption

Health of the environment

War and peace

Labor

Justice



If I focus on one to a point that I start playing down or ignoring the others, I help none. They are all intertwined, and a solution that befits all will definitely befit any one of them.

[hfojvt]

417. of course equal rights is a "special interest of a few"

some people have skin in the game and some don't.

Put in on a scale

+2, +1, 0, -1, -2

those really in favor, those somewhat in favor, those who are neutral, those somewhat against, and those really against. If you want to win, you need a majority. Which means convincing people who are +1 to -1 to come over to your side. Your determination to exclude those not as passionate about your own issue seems like some kind of political death wish.

[KonaKane]

430. I couldn't disagree more.

When a minority is not free, none of us are. We could be included in a minority at any time for a million reasons and suddenly find ourselves in the same boat.

[hfojvt]

444. many people do not agree with that

at least they don't think they have skin in the game and are quite willing to restrict the freedom of others.

[KonaKane]

453. That's pretty tragic. I think MLK and Pastor Niemuller had it right

when they spoke about how an oppression on one, is an oppression or threat to all.

[sabrina 1]

402. It isn't about a single issue.

It is about many, many issues.

When the party you support neglects nearly all the important issues they claimed to support, which is what is happening, what exactly are we supposed to be waiting for before we start asking for a little of what you so dismissively call 'candy' or 'ponies' or whatever?

1. Gay Rights ~ DADT and Gay Marriage
2. Torture
3. Offshore Drilling
4. War funding
5. Absolving War Criminals from all responsibility
6. Bailing out corrupt Wall St. Banks while allowing Main St. to collapse, lose their jobs and homes etc.
7. Not fighting for real health care reform
8. Not restoring Habeas Corpus but instead using the abhorrent MCA which removed it, and which we were told would be 'fixed', to prosecute a tortured child soldier.
9. Giving immunity to the telecoms who broke the law to assist the Bush administration in spying on the American people.

Just a few of the issues off the top of my head.


We aren't talking about someone's 'single issue' as you claim, we are talking everyone's issues.

[KonaKane]

407. Actually some ARE talking about a single issue. And I agree with your post.

Nice list of concerns there, I can agree with every one.

[bobbolink]

681. I live for the day when POVERTY is always ON THE TOP OF THE HEAD when it comes to these lists.

I ask you to do one thing.... think of your life being badly curtailed because of poverty, then see how ignored it is by people who claim to "care".

It hurts.

But, knowing DU, I will get attacked for saying that it hurts.

Walk in the shoes.

[William Z. Foster]

686. it should be, and here is why

Politics is about wealth and power, who does and who does not have access to resources and therefore who does and who does not have power over their life. Politics is not about beliefs or personal choices - "don't get me wrong, I oppose poverty and I believe the same things you do, but (we have other priorities right now, it isn't practical, you can't get everything you want immediately, the way you are going about promoting your cause is wrong.)"

Nor is poverty and homelessness merely one of many issues on some laundry list of correct liberal and progressive positions and causes. It is a foundational component of the one and only issue - who has power and access to resources and who does not, and why and how that is happening.

[bobbolink]

688. Absolutely CORRECT! So, why are we constantly left out?

My guess.......most "progressives" are afraid of losing the power they have.

[William Z. Foster]

697. your guess is a good one

The inequalities and injustices in the society permeate our social arrangements and interactions at all levels. It is not merely a matter of what is happening in Congress, nor what the powerful few are doing or saying.

One faction in the constant and bitter feuding here is siding with power. They will argue that they are siding with the "good" power - the Democrats - and that the only alternative is the "bad" power - the Republicans. But the divide here reflects the divide in the country, and that is not between D's and R's, it is between the haves and the have-nots. Whether it is that people have not a voice, have not power, have not food to eat, have not a job, have not equal rights, or have not a home these are all types of being a have-not, and most of us are have-nots.

The voice of the haves, their arguments, carry more weight and are giocve3n special consideration. This should not be a controversial statement to make nor should or surprise anyone that this would be the case. One side in the feud here speaks with the full might and authority of those in power, and that gives them a disproportionate advantage even were there nit a double standard here.

At all times and in all ways we should be siding with the have-nots. The haves already have plenty of representation in the government and in the national political discussion.

[bobbolink]

699. The Haves and the Have-nots --- "The Gift Of The Poor"

The Gift of the Poor
The people with the best sense of what is essential to a community, of what gives and maintains its spirit, are often doing very humble, manual tasks. It is often the poorest person - the one who has a handicap or who is ill or old - who is the most prophetic. People who carry responsibility must be close to them and know what they think, because it is often they who are free enough to see with the greatest clarity the needs, beauty and pain of the community.
- Jean Vanier, Community and Growth, p. 262


Again I ask.... why are we ignored?

[William Z. Foster]

701. reading Black Agenda Report today

The constant calls here for "civility" and "politeness" are salt in the wound for those of us speaking for the powerless. "Civility" and "politeness" are not politically neutral ideas. Those siding with power can afford to be polite, and at the same time can be malicious and cruel with absolute impunity. Those speaking against power are the ones who always must temper their remarks, lower their voices, who are held to an extreme set of standards about what they can and cannot say. Those defending power will try that phony civility at first - they can afford to do that - but if people continue to speak out, continue to oppose the voices speaking for and as the "winners, and refuse to be cowed and silenced, out come the knives.

Read the comments in response to Glen Ford's excellent opinion piece here:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/america-cant-solve-crises-because-its-company-owned-town

Contrast those with the phony standards for passive-aggressive "civility" and "politeness" that are enforced here.

[bobbolink]

680. You feature Martin Luther King in your sig line...... and yet you then say--

"And when we allow ourselves to get focused too much on a single issue, the ego gets in the way "

If anyone focused on a single issue, at least for a long time at the beginning, it was Martin Luther King.

So did many others, like Cesar Chavez. The list would be very very long of those who worked for a single issue, and what they achieved is legendary.

But here is the deal.... as I have said many times, I have come to be a single-issue person for one reason only.... because the issue that affects me and my life the most is NOT important at all to the rest of you.

WHEN all of you start also working for the eradication of poverty, and WHEN that is on your list of priorities, THEN and only then will I "step back from the personal".

Deal?

[bobbolink]

678. "You have to step away from the personal"? Poor peole are literally dying, and that may include

me and people I personally know.

I'm supposed to just get intellectual about it and not feel it as personal?

ALL of the successful movements in the past were very personal, from Abolition and Women's Rights, to Civil and Gay Rights.

Rewatch "Milk" and then tell me he succeeded because he "stepped away from the personal".

[QC]

721. You recently told a gay poster here to "suck a bag full of dicks."

That sort of behavior could easily give people the impression that you are not very concerned about equality.

[QC]

716. Thank you.

It's strange that one would have to explain that, over and over and over, on "one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet."

[demmiblue]

15. Nope... the DU membership is far more leftist than centrist.

This has been exhibited in poll after poll.

[TBF]

303. seriously?

nt

[bobbolink]

698. Polls, Schmolls...........

If you poll the American people as a whole about what their priorities are, it always comes up liberal.

Yet, that is not how people vote.

So, DU polls are just about as meaningless.

[Mathilda]

20. You probably have not visited TPMCafe

In TPMCafe, anyone is guaranteed to have their diary posted without any interference whatsoever from anyone.

You can say the Mossad was involved in the 9-11 attacks, to cite an example and nobody will disappear your post or your account. Try it.

[nashville_brook]

24. i'll have to check that out. i didn't realize TPM was for the rank and file.

thanks for the heads up.

[KonaKane]

63. Didn't know that area existed. But no thanks, I'll steer clear.

If I wanted that sort of rancor there are a hundred other webforums I could habituate.

[William Z. Foster]

83. understood

I appreciate your comments, and they represent a reasonable view of things.

Some of us have been "counting our blessings" for a long time - we see that as "settling for" - and think that it is the cause of the problems. Maybe we shouldn't think that, but we do. That is a key component of the split that is leading to all of the feuding.

[TheKentuckian]

108. A less racist and moderately more secularly oriented corporatism

can scarcely be defined as the kind of change I'm looking for.

I think it is more of a stick together for the success of certain personalities and whatever changes they can tolerate and that's a mile high pile of rubbish to me.

We went from fighting for a seat at the table to hoping those at the table would bring something back to patiently waiting for scraps to begging for crumbs and now we are being asked to simply HOPE for some crumbs to fall because asking for and more so expecting them is too demanding to allow our dear, dear leaders the latitude required for their "pragmatic" decisions.

[William Z. Foster]

125. yep

You expressed the position of the people on one side of the split very well. Thanks. I happen to agree with you. The question is, are we on a level playing field here and is it worth it to keep battling under these circumstances, or could the energy be better spent in other ways or in a different direction?

[TheKentuckian]

147. I went to the kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight/Die with your boots on school, myself

[William Z. Foster]

153. yes

So did I.

But where are the battle lines now, where is the action the hottest, where are we now going to be most effective? Maybe we can flank them. Maybe there is a massive potential reserve force we have yet to recruit. Maybe the tactics and strategy need to be reassessed. Maybe we are expending all of our ammunition on a diversionary feint. Maybe while we are obsessed with sniping at a few corporate raiders hiding among the civilians, there is a powerful corporate army about to flank us.

[TheKentuckian]

167. Oh, of course it's never wise to keep all the eggs in one basket

Sometimes to avoid getting caught up between the lines the appearance of being in many places at once is required. Chasing shadows and attempting to kill ideas are supreme wastes of energy.

There are untapped resources, cynical but there.

[democrat2thecore]

611. That's sayin' it like it is --- but it's true!! - nt

[PassingFair]

287. It doesn't in ANY WAY "veer toward the centrist Democratic position".

DU is FAR lefter than it is right.

EVERY poll will show you that.

That's the reason for the crack down.

:crazy:

[Bluenorthwest]

383. gee, I'm sorry but the 'candy' crap is just old and tired

People need jobs, equal rights, peace. You call that 'candy' and I do not agree, additionally, in my view your choice of lexicon is intentionally dismissive and condescending.
If health care is candy, then what should I call this seeming need on the part of the righties to hear only a low hum of constant praise? What sort of priority is that? They can not bear opinions on an opinion board? And that is more legitimate a need than jobs in what way? How is that a more legitimate issue than basic human rights?
The rightists here seem to need a monolithic agreement to support them. And I do not see how that is important as a priority at all.

[sabrina 1]

394. Could you define 'leftist'? n/t

[Bluebear]

8. Of course you are right. We really are crashing a website where we're not really wanted.

Who could interpret today's announcement any differently?

[Individualist]

14. +1

[inna]

18. +

[slay]

44. It seems like that to me too

you're either with us or against us i guess is how i took it. i'd say more but i don't want to get banned. :x

[amborin]

90. +1

[G_j]

95. I'll wait until my day of the sacred banning arrives,

until then, I will continue posting. :-)
:hi:

[burnsei sensei]

391. I've made it very clear

from the start-- I'm not a Third Way liberal.
I don't believe that everyone is exactly the same, I don't think people should be made to think and say the same things.
That fairy land is not for me.
I'm going to post truly and if I'm banned so be it.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Lorien]

176. Yep. We Leftists need to go underground, apparently.

[donco6]

331. Yes.

I've found myself hesitating on posting anything at all ever since the announcement. Besides being attacked by Boggers anywhere I dare show my face, I never know if this is the post that's going to get me banned. And with so many rules, it's easy to find one that I'm violating any day of the week.

[RobinA]

549. Frankly,

why care? Post away. Why worry about violating thought rules here anyway? What, the thought police are coming to your house to take you to Quantanamo? You get banned you get banned. Take your business elsewhere. Nobody NEEDS DU.

[Moochy]

392. they want our stars

but not the truth

[MissDeeds]

422. +1

I read the announcement several times to make sure I hadn't misinterpreted. Unfortunately, the message is clear.

[mix]

603. I am struck by the clearly partisan and ideological nature of the "new rules."

It's as if after 8 years of Bush-Cheney many have forgotten what democracy and debate are and have never recovered.

But whatever, I won't change my opinions, but being respectful is the most important thing and that is something we all need to work on, progressives and moderates, or however this divide is described.

[amborin]

11. agree!

but as one poster wrote, "the elephant in the room will not be acknowledged." the new rules benefit one side and not the other; and i feel silenced

[William Z. Foster]

91. yes

You touch on an important point. There are debates about whether anyone is or isn't "really" being silenced. It does not matter. If people feel that they are being silenced, there is really no other measure for it. When there are a set of rules, and when those rules are attached to what a person says or doesn't say, and when it is not clear how that will be interpreted and the punishment is banishment, being ostracized from the community, of course people will watch what they say.

Were the rules all about "behavior" it would be one thing. But once there are also rules that relate to the content of the posts - is it not OK to describe a person's opinion as conservative, while it is OK to call them a communist or a violent revolutionary or make insinuations along those lines? Is it not OK to say that the administration has taken a conservative position, but it is OK to say that "Kucinich is a flake (or fringe, or a lunatic?") And then Lieberman - he can be criticized apparently. We have a very narrow framework there of whom we can and cannot criticize. And then I have very often seen people criticize an action by the administration, only to have that seen by others as an "attack on Obama" or as aiding Palin. The people who do that, who make that connection and those accusations are applauding the rules explanation. And then we have "constructive" versus "nonconstructive" criticism. How are we supposed to pre-determine which is which? Obviously, with two factions with deep disagreements here, an opinion could seem constructive to one faction and "nonconstructive" to the other.

I don't know how it could be made any more clear. The safest way to avoid being disciplined is to refrain from expressing certain positions and from criticizing Democratic party politicians. I think we all know that, people on both sides know that. At the same time, there is virtually unlimited freedom to attack the critics, dissidents and left wingers.

[amborin]

126. excellent post!

There is obvious equivocation.

And the consequence of all this, as you said, is that left wingers wil refrain from criticizing, responding, posting. Not unintended, imho.

[Qutzupalotl]

136. Lieberman's not a Democrat

and he ran against a good one, so yes, he can be criticized.

In fact, any politician can be criticized. What I took away from Skinner's post was that he doesn't want to provide a forum for the level of Obama-bashing that you'd see on FR, LGF, et al. So no calling him "Barry" or a fraud. If that's an essential element to your premise, then you don't have a good premise. Substantive criticism is what's left when you take out all the name-calling. It can be done, and it's not hard.

I think you are misrepresenting Skinner's call for civility. To claim that he means you can't criticize Democratic party politicians is disingenuous. Likewise the claim that one faction of our party is helped by the new rules; both sides have to be civil.

[William Z. Foster]

154. it cannot be that

Feuds erupt everyday, bitter feuds. I have never seen it be about anyone calling the President "Barry." I have very, very rarely seen those feuds caused by any "name calling" of any kind. Therefore, almost all of the criticism here is, in your view, substantive criticism. Therefore there would not be a problem. yet there is a problem, or otherwise why would it need to be addressed and be of such interest to so many?

I have to object to your mis-characterization of what I said. Where did I defend name-calling, or even hint or suggest that I was?

I am still not clear as to whether or not, and under what circumstances, one is free to criticize Democratic party politicians. Your post muddies those waters, and reinforces my strong suspicion that one faction of our party is helped by the new rules.

People on each side of the fight see what is and what is not "civil" differently. It is OK for example, to bash a person by insinuating they are a communist or advocating violent revolution. It is not OK to suggest that a person is promoting a conservative agenda. So it can not be about civility, and cannot be seen as equal.

[Qutzupalotl]

286. Wrong.

You said:
It is OK for example, to bash a person by insinuating they are a communist or advocating violent revolution. It is not OK to suggest that a person is promoting a conservative agenda.

Exactly the opposite is true. Countless posts calling other members "conservadems" and the like do not get deleted. Personal attacks, on the other hand, are deleted routinely.

Also, I never said you were defending name-calling. I don't know you or your posts. I was using "you" in the general sense, so perhaps I should have substituted the word "one". I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Much (not all) of the criticism of Democrats here, especially Obama, is little more than name-calling. People here skim headlines and jump to conclusions, mostly unfounded, saying the president is a fraud or a stealth Republican. When asked for evidence, they simply rattle off headlines of articles they never bothered to read or read with a critical eye.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that my two sentences about substantive criticism was intended as an all-encompassing definition. As you well know, substantive criticism relies on evidence, and requires critical thinking to separate hyperbolic opinion from fact.

There, now you can criticize Democrats freely.

[William Z. Foster]

341. "exactly the opposite is true"

We see it differently. "Opposite" is the right word, because the two points of view are that far apart.

You say that "much (not all) of the criticism of Democrats here, especially Obama, is little more than name-calling." I don't see that happening at all.

These two statements are confrontational and are bristling with hostility, and are not accurate in my view -

"People here skim headlines and jump to conclusions, mostly unfounded, saying the president is a fraud or a stealth Republican."

"When asked for evidence, they simply rattle off headlines of articles they never bothered to read or read with a critical eye."

If you see it that way, and are determined to fight for that point of view about critics of the party, I cannot see any possibility of resolving the feuds here. You are presenting a judgment of people as though it were merely a neutral observation - trying to present an opinion as fact. That makes it difficult to discuss what you are saying.

[RobinA]

550. Here's Some Banning

I could get behind - uninformed opinions. But there wouldn't be much of a board. Or much political discussion anywhere, for that matter.

[amborin]

12. dupe

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. "I don't go to a Fundy board and argue for atheism, for example."

And that's a great example.

But let's suppose some atheists formed a group called the "Christian Leadership Council" and started infiltrating churches, with the goal of eventually replacing all the priests, nuns, ministers, etc. with atheists errr... I mean "New Christians" as they would rebrand themselves.

Would the fundagelicals be right not to want to surrender to these infiltrators who clearly intended to undermine their organization from the inside?

Why would someone who did not believe in traditional Christian values want to be a priest or a minister in a church, unless their goal was one of internal sabotage and disruption?













DISCLAIMER: This post is not meant as any sort of rant against atheists. Just posting an allegorical example.

[Mathilda]

17. Fundamentalists are extremely religious people

I don't think we should strive to be as intolerant as Fundamentalists.

[KonaKane]

40. I agree fundamentalism in any ideology is usually a formula for disaster

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. It's not about "intolerance"

Continuing with my example, I'm sure a fundamentalist would be happy to invite an atheist to attend church, in hopes that they could convert them to their religion.

Likewise, a Democrat could discuss politics with a Republican, hoping they would see the light.

THAT is tolerance.

A hostile takeover of a church by atheists or a hostile takeover of the Democratic party by Republicans is not about tolerance. It's about undermining the very purpose of the institution in question.

And that is the mission of the DLC and/or so called "New Democrats".

[William Z. Foster]

157. heh

It is an analogy. It has nothing to do with religion.

[Mathilda]

232. An analogy must meet certain requirements for it to be effective

It's the "don't compare apples to oranges" principle that make that analogy weak. There are southern Democrats, liberal democrats, social liberal democrats, etc. who may clash, naturally, within the party. Fundamentalists in a group would agree with each other.

[William Z. Foster]

347. it wasn't perfect

But it got the job done.

The analogy may not have worked for you because of the way you see things in the party. Each side sees the other as fundamentalist, and sees fundamentalism as the problem. You say that there are "southern Democrats, liberal democrats, social liberal democrats, etc. who may clash, naturally, within the party," so therefore it is not like fundamentalism, but perhaps would see the critics as "purists" - fundamentalist, in other words. But from our side, we see party loyalty as the fundamentalism, and know that we critics and dissidents are a diverse group and not fundamentalist.

[loudsue]

263. I think that is at the heart of the problem: rigidity prevails these days.

I haven't posted anything in a long time without getting ganged-up on by a bunch of rigid assholes. I even got a thread deleted! Accused of being anti-south, when I'm a southerner!!

Sheesh! The terrorists have won.

[William Z. Foster]

98. good analogy

You are right. That is the question. "Would the fundagelicals be right not to want to surrender to these infiltrators who clearly intended to undermine their organization from the inside?"

I think they would be right not to want to surrender, but I also think that being right is the booby prize in politics and is no substitute for results. If these "New Christians" successfully took over the church, it might be smarter to move down the road than to submit to their rule. Were any and all opportunity taken away from them to have any power and influence anymore - "it is not that Christian doctrine you are espousing that is the problem - don't get us wrong we agree with it BUT - it is the way you are doing it, and you are criticizing our church leaders and helping Satan. If you do not obey these rules, we will call the cops and have you removed" - it might very well be time to go somewhere that you can speak, where you can organize, where you are free, where you can gain strength rather than always surrender it.

[nashville_brook]

21. yes -- i self-censor too, b/c there's never anything to gain in feud -- only in dialogue

but dialogue happens only in where there is openness and liberty to speak one's mind. commodiousness is important, but not at the expense of true exchange on a discussion board, where exchange can be the only meaningful activity.

i work with critique all day every day in my line of work as a designer and an editor. when critique is shut down the outcome is always degradation in the quality of work produced. if there can be critique within the confines of a feud, then maybe there's something to be gained. these aren't monoliths we're talking about here. i believe you've got one small group organized against another group. most DUers aren't in on the particulars. there's still people to dialogue with who aren't party to the feud. so...i guess my answer is yes...there is something to be gained...leading by example, and reaching out to those who want to converse.

[Luminous Animal]

23. I too, stopped myself from posting today.

But I'm not ready to let my opponents win. The fight has been made more difficult, for sure; but, for now, I still feel it is worthwhile.


By the way, I find your posts some of the most informative ever posted on DU. I do hope you stick around and that you can navigate the new restrictions.

[nashville_brook]

26. oh boy do I agree with this...your posts are some of the most informative ever posted here.

without a doubt!

[socialist_n_TN]

122. I agree with you BOTH.............

I feel INFORMED and challenged when I read William Foster's posts and I hope to see MANY more of them in the future. Even the few times we've disagreed, I've been informed and challenged in a good way.

[William Z. Foster]

127. glad to hear that

Thanks. I feel the same way and have gained much from your posts.

[glitch]

260. Absolutely agreed. nt

[Qutzupalotl]

114. Who are your opponents?

Are we not all Democrats here?

Sure, we can disagree among ourselves, but ultimately, aren't our true opponents the Republicans?

[socialist_n_TN]

128. I think that's the problem..........

There are a few posters who seem to take delight in taking "Republican Lite" positions.

So, I guess the question is, "What does it MEAN to be a Democrat?"

[William Z. Foster]

217. for some, yes

Some see themselves primarily as Democrats and see the opposition as Republicans. They see this as the battle, and worry that criticism of Democrats will help the Republicans and then all will be lost.

Others see the divide as being between the haves and the have-nots, and see themselves primarily as advocates for the have-nots. Those who do not have power, do not have jobs or job security, do not have homes, do not have equal rights, do not have health care, do not have a voice. They do not see the haves as the enemy necessarily, but rather are fighting against the system that creates the economic inequality and injustice.

Ironically, those in the first group are not necessarily reliable advocates for the have-nots, and the second group may well do more to help the Democratic party than any other group. There are very few - if any - infiltrators from the left who have as primary purpose the destruction of the Democratic party, but there are some among the loyalists whose primary purpose is to promote conservative politics within the liberal and Democratic party circles. Many of us see this - professed loyalty to the leaders and to the Democratic brand name, while promoting conservative politics - as much more destructive to the party than any people from the left could ever be.

[bobbolink]

684. "Who are your opponents?" I would like to answer that one.

My opponents on DU are the ones who misrepresent poor people.... in much the same way that the RW does, by labeling us as "mentally ill" and saying that the majority of us are alcoholics and drug addicted.

My opponents are the ones who love to follow me around and claim that when I speak about poverty "It isn't all about you", when they would never dare to say something like that to a gay person who is upset with prejudice against gays.

My opponents are those who demand that I prove to them, on a public board which is NOT safe, that I am homeless. There is no such proof demanded of black people, gay people, etc.

Yet, NOTHING in those rules spoke to the need for poor people to be able to speak out without being attacked.

NOTHING.

[Lorien]

178. +1. nt

[Greyhound]

727. The irony of this comment is too rich not to point out.

Another eloquent leftist is gone.

So sad, a little less reason to bother.

[scheming daemons]

27. The internet is a really, really big place

Find a place where you can express what you want to express.

If it is DU, great. If not, that's cool too.


This isn't the only game in town.

[William Z. Foster]

123. right

That is it, yes.

[SidDithers]

241. +1...nt

Sid

[Smashcut]

363. Translation: If you don't agree with "us," LEAVE

[bobbolink]

685. Exactly. But, its not against the rules to say that.

Isn't that interesting.

[William Z. Foster]

696. clearly, there is a double standard

However, even if there were not a double standard, or even if there are some here who cannot be persuaded that a double standard exists, the fact that a large number of members believe that to be the case is still a problem.

Failing to be alert to existing inequalities is tantamount to promoting those inequalities. It is not sufficient for people to merely "feel" that there should be equality, and yet then get defensive when anyone points out the double standard.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

[bobbolink]

702. We no longer live in times where "progressives" look out for each other in that way.

They feel the need to ridicule and demean anyone who dares to see it differently from them.

You feel you are the recipient of inequality? Well, them obviously you are just crazy... and "don't let the door hit you...."

And then they walk away from someone who is hurting who they just hurt further, and feel ever so smug for having done so.

[JTFrog]

28. Can you identify what substantive criticism you are no longer able to share due to DU rules?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5524913

It is our intention that ALL substantive criticism of Barack Obama be permitted here. If you believe there are any issues on which you are not permitted to criticize Barack Obama (or any Democrat) please post in this thread and tell me the specific issue -- I will gladly address your concerns. Similarly, if anyone persists in spreading the falsehood that criticism of Barack Obama is now forbidden on DU, I believe it is not unreasonable to ask that person to please identify what substantive criticism they are no longer able to share.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151

As you know, the DU rules explicitly state that "Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted." But that comes with a caveat: "When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here." I know many of you believe that any attack against Democrats, no matter how inflammatory or divisive, should be permitted here, but that is not what I believe and it is not what the DU rules say.

[Bluebear]

30. LOL what a lovely project! How long did that take you? :))

[JTFrog]

35. About 80 seconds.

:shrug:

[NYC_SKP]

60. You do realize, don't you, that the two statements you cite are not inconsistent?

The first statement is qualified with the term, "substantive criticism".

The second statement is qualified with the terms, "inflammatory" and "divisive", and "that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents".

The meaning and intent of the two statements is clearly the same.

:patriot:

[JTFrog]

228. Of course I realize that. You do realize my question was sincere?

And that there doesn't appear to be anyone answering the question?

[RobinA]

551. I'll Answer It

off the top of my head. Not being allowed to advocate voting for third parties.

[JTFrog]

562. This isn't Third Party Underground.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

That however, does nothing to stop one from posting substantive criticism about a Democrat or the Democratic Party.

:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

606. no one is

No one is advocating third party. Insinuating that people are is a dishonest way to discredit them, and to increase tensions and start feuds.

[JTFrog]

609. "Not being allowed to advocate voting for third parties."

The poster I responded to listed this as a "substantive criticism" that he couldn't share due to DU rules.

I'm not the one starting feuds around here.

[William Z. Foster]

614. no one advocated third party

You said "this isn't third party underground."

In response I said no one is, and insinuating that they are is a way to discredit them. If you aren't doing that, then great.

Where is the controversy?

[JTFrog]

617. What don't you understand about RobinA's reply to my original question?

The poster's "answer" had nothing to do with substantive criticism. Read what they posted again. Read my original question again. If you still don't get it, then so be it.

You're the one tossing out accusations.

:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

622. not a thing

I understand it all perfectly well.

I have made no accusations.

I reiterated that no one is advocating third party here, just as you reiterated that it would not be allowed.

[JTFrog]

624. You made a specific accusation.

"Insinuating that people are is a dishonest way to discredit them, and to increase tensions and start feuds."

We must have learned from different dictionaries. :eyes:

[William Z. Foster]

629. this is crazy

Accusing people of accusing people of accusing people.

I did not accuse of accusing people of advocating third party. So don't accuse me of doing that.

Did Fox news do this to dialogue in this country?

Guest: "You are avoiding the subject of racism in this case."

Talking head: "How dare you call me a racist?"

Guest: "I did not call you a racist."

Talking head: "Well you certainly implied it! Would you deny that?"

Guest: "You are just trying to discredit me and what I am saying."

Talking head: "Now you are making an accusation. I resent that. Can you back that up?"

Guest: "I did not make an accusation."

Talking head: "Oh yes you did. You accused me of discrediting you!"

Guest: "You are avoiding the subject."

Talking head: "You are the one name-calling and making false accusations, and you have the nerve to criticize me and accuse me now of avoiding the subject?"

[JTFrog]

654. You started backpeddling above, should have just coasted the rest of the way.

:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

659. read back through the subthread

You will see that there has been no backpedalling or inconsistency.

[William Z. Foster]

115. some see it

Some don't.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Real Leftists are few and far between in America. What you're really talking about are traditional

Democrats.

[KonaKane]

41. What most of America calls "left" is moderate or center right in Europe.

So yeah, its an extremely relative thing.

[Nikki Stone1]

46. I think the European Left would scare the ever living crap out of most Americans

if they ever had a chance to speak on the TeeVee.

[KonaKane]

61. You're absolutely right.

They woke my shit up the first time I visited Europe, I can tell you that.

[TBF]

338. LOL if we can't even talk on DU you can be damned sure they're not

going to let us talk anywhere else.

[fascisthunter]

354. it's why right wing nationalists always put down Europeans

at least they have been conditioned to...

[AnArmyVeteran]

567. Absolutely right... (no pun intended)

[leftstreet]

79. +100000000000000000

Very few and far between

[SidDithers]

311. Are "Real Leftists" the ones who like their porridge with sugar...

or without?

Sid

[Nikki Stone1]

365. Sid!

Missed ya doll.

[USArmyParatrooper]

31. Yes, because as we all know the "right" supports Obama

:sarcasm:

[William Z. Foster]

111. good example

See, there was no call for that, and I didn't say anything that could be fairly characterized that way.

Those who agree with you will see what you just did as within the rules and not a problem.

My post does not argue one side of the feud, it describes the split. That you rekindle the feud in response supports rather than refutes what I said.

I didn't criticize Obama, and I didn't say the right supports him. I talked about the split here and within the party in general. If by "right" you mean Hannity and Beck et al, they would be criticizing any Democratic politician, no matter what. Reagan could come back to life and get elected as a Democrat and they would be calling him a Socialist.

I said the split was between right-leaning and left-leaning people. I don't care what we call it - say it is between practical-leaning people and fire bomb throwing lunatic radicals if that is how you see it. The point is that there is a split.

[USArmyParatrooper]

252. This is a Democratic blog (capital D)

We all know what you were talking about, those who support Obama and those who don't. As a Democrat who suppots Obama I reject being referred to as "the right"

[Raineyb]

271. Just because you haven't paid attention to how far right the party has been pulled

doesn't mean that the party hasn't been pulled to the right. Your objection to the facts of political discourse doesn't change the reality of it.

And there are right wingers in the Democratic party I'm not about to pretend otherwise.

[USArmyParatrooper]

278. It's pulled to the right of what?

The terms "left" and "right" titerally refer to which side of the isle they belong in Congress, the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right.

The right does NOT support Obama. They want him to fail to clean up their mess.

If the OP had simply said Liberals and Moderates that still would be an oversimplification, but at least the language wouldn't be objectionable on a Democratc blog.

[Raineyb]

288. I'm talking political spectrum. And today's Democratic party is

to the right of the Republican party of the 70's. And it's being pulled even further to the right. Words have meaning, and there is a meaning when one is talking political spectrum and there's not much that's "left" about the Democratic party these days. Not that that stops people who think the party needs to win at all costs from demanding fealty from voters who are more left of center.

I'm sorry if the truth is so objectionable to you. But the party has been pulled to the right and those who have stuck with traditional Democratic principles are derided as "left baggers" and the like and talking about how the even further right doesn't mitigate the actual move to the right of the party.

[RobinA]

552. So...

do ya think this would make my warning to a friend a year and a half ago that Obama is to the right of Nixon a statement of fact or "divisive" by recent DU nomencalture? Maybe both.

Just askin'.

[Raineyb]

578. I would say that there are those who would characterize it as divisive.

Because unless you're saying how perfectly wonderful the president is, they consider it bashing. However, I would characterize it as a statement of fact. How such a statement is treated by the mods in light of the new rules will determine if people's concerns were correct or not.

[Mimosa]

576. ...to the right of the Republican party of the 70's.

How true. Nelson Rockefeller, Edward Brooke and John Lindsay come to mind.


They would all be left of, say, Mary Landrieu. They might also be less supportive of the infringements of corporations over the political functions of the nation.

[Jamastiene]

522. How can you argue you are not to the "right" if you do not even know

what "left" and "right" mean in this context. It has to do with supporting liberal or conservative ideals. That is not something that is defined by party. They don't call the Democratic Party the "big tent" party for nothing.

Left and right do not mean Democrat and Republican. There are right leaning Democrats and left leaning Republicans. Yes, believe it or not, left leaning Republicans do exist. They are not well supported by the national Republican Party, but they do exist and get reelected in their areas of this country. Check around and you'll see them.

Likewise, there are right leaning Democrats. They have some views that are in line with the platform listed on the Democratic Party web site, but they tend to vote with Republicans and agree with Republicans when it comes to their stances on the issues. Where you fall in that list or to the left or wherever is entirely up to you. I cannot define you as I do not know you, personally, but those conservative Democrats that I am talking about, in general, have the same stances on issues that Republicans do on either a few, some or ALOT of the issues at hand.

Also, nowhere in the OP did I see any reference to any group that does not "support Obama." That is not what the issue is here.

Where you fall politically on any of this is your gig. That's your thing to figure out and debate, but nowhere did the OP say that being on the left automatically means we don't support Obama.

One thing you have to remember is that, although you disagree with us sometimes, we voted for the man too. I believe his heart is in the right place much of the time and that he wants to do right, but that doesn't change the fact that I strongly disagree with him on his open ear to the Republican Party. I think he has a really gullible streak in him to always listen to them so much. They are NEVER going to work with him in good faith. That's just a fact. We BOTH know that.

One thing you need to know right now is that President Obama is not only your president. Dammit, he's our president too. We voted for him too. We want him to step up on the issues that are important to us and quit trusting the Republicans too much. That doesn't mean we don't support him or won't vote for him again. We just want him to freaking listen to the left instead of the only listening to the right.

Wait until he fucks up and listens to the Republicans on something that matters a lot to you and you'll understand where we are coming from better. Only then, will you get us or where we are coming from. Imagine your most near and dear issue then imagine President Obama working too damn closely with the Republicans on that issue and not making any real progress on that issue because he tries too hard to compromise too much. THEN, you will get our frustration.

Until then, he's our president too and don't you forget it. This isn't about those who support the president against those who don't. This is about those who cannot stand even the slightest criticism of some of Obama's policies against those who see that those policies are right in line with what Bush did as compared to what he said he would do.

He's our president too. When will y'all finally start to try to understand that? Or will you ever?

Like I said, I do believe President Obama wants to do right in his heart. I just disagree with how he trusts the Republican Party too much and how much he gives in to them. For fuck's sake, President Obama is made of greatness, and has THE MOST potential of any president in years, but he does some fucked up things sometimes. He is the one who said hold his feet to the fire. Some of us are taking him at his word on that.

[Swamp Rat]

523. Yeah you rite!

"He is the one who said hold his feet to the fire. Some of us are taking him at his word on that." - This is exactly correct.

:hi:

[Jamastiene]

524. Thank you.

:hug:

[Swamp Rat]

525. I forgot something...

:hug:

[William Z. Foster]

357. you are right

I believe that is how you see things. You are expressing the view on this issue taken by those in one of the two factions. You see left versus right, and everything else political, as being "support Obama or don't." The left - by definition - are those who support Obama. The right - by definition - are those who do not. If a person says they are a Democrat and says they support Obama, then they are on the left, period. From your point of view, it would not be possible for anything you supported or promoted to be right wing, because you are on the left, by virtue of your declarations of being a Democrat and supporting Obama.

That is one way to look at things.

[USArmyParatrooper]

655. That's not at all what I said

I said labeling us into groups of "left and right" is wrong. That's the opposite of what you accused me of saying.

[bobbolink]

690. Well, that explains a lot. When people, in response to *any* criticism of Obama, say "So you

would rather have Palin?", that is a :wtf: moment for me. Whiplash time.

Now that you make it clear that they consider themselves "left" just by virtue of being loyal to Obama, it makes sense.

You wanted to not have definitions of "left", but I'm not very good at obeying rules :hi: so here goes:

To me, "left" means WE, THE PEOPLE and "right" means being "pragmatic" about corporate rule.

As you say, its all about where the power lays.

[TransitJohn]

560. It's not a blog, it's a message board.

:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

577. I was careful not to do that

I was careful not to say that supporting Obama means a person is on the right. I don't think that is a meaningful statement in any case. I don't think a person declaring themselves to "be" a Democrat tells us anything about where they stand on political issues.

I don't "support" any politician. I support some things that some politicians do and opposed other things that politicians do. I am not saying anything any differently then I would be saying no matter who were in office.

I didn't refer to you as being "on the right." Funny how so many people think I was referring to them. I am saying that those who lean to the right lean to the right. What is controversial about that statement? Why would a person who is taking more conservative positions object to someone saying that they are taking more conservative positions? Why would that be an insult? I also said that I was using shorthand to identify the two groups, said that most people here know what I am saying and that this is the important thing, and I asked people to please not get into yet another mindless food fight about who is and whop isn't this or that, what this or that word "really" means. I said call my side purists, fringe, lunatic, whatever if that makes you happy.

[obxhead]

32. It seems to me that the party is getting dragged further and further

to the right and I post more and more fighting to not allow that to happen.

My only complaint of late on DU is you can't seem to be against anything Obama. It was the same thing we saw on FR during the Bush admin. My pres right or wrong I must support him. WTF happened? If it was ok to tell freepers they were idiots for saying I had to support their pres right or wrong, why am I supposed to suddenly follow that rule with a new president I don't always get along with?

Thing is I do support him and the rest of the party. There has been policy made/continued that is right of center and not what was campaigned on by the Pres that I do support. I point that out from time to time (admittedly not always as constitutively as I should) and I get trashed for it.

To me it seems these rules lean harder toward love it or leave it. Every time I hear that phase I instantly think you miss the whole fucking point of a democracy if thats your attitude, because what you are saying is in fact, love it my way or get the fuck out.

Admittedly, this is a private site and the owners can do as they please. I fear they will not achieve their goal of a productive discussion board in the new process though. A room full of people all saying the same exact thing is hardly a discussion of the issues.

[joe black]

246. Yup.

Support Obama but blast FDR, christ.

[bobbolink]

691. "It was the same thing we saw on FR during the Bush admin. " Precisely!

As they say in the psychology biz, it is a difference of content, not process.

And here I thought, all along, that what we really wanted was a Change of process.

[Lilith Velkor]

33. Not letting bullies win is a powerful motivation for many leftists

Sometimes they do, though, and we'll just have to see if this is one of those times.

Even if we do all leave, or are made to leave, the center and the center-right (for lack of a better term) will be at each other with switchblades and tire irons within a week. That's how bullies are, they just can't stand it if someone dares to attempt an adult conversation in their presence.

It is possible to have such conversations on a public forum, but it has to be very heavily moderated.

[paulk]

96. +1

[mkultra]

249. Many feel these rules are an attempt to quash the bullies

[Kermitt Gribble]

445. That's relative

to who you view as "the bullies".

[fishwax]

34. I would imagine there are many on the left who aren't uncomfortable with today's statement

Personally, I'm interested in seeing how things develop from here.

[bobbolink]

705. You might want to read post #87 from Skinner.

[slay]

36. I guess I'm going to continue to speak my mind and see what happens

if i get banned i get banned. i'm not out to thumb my nose at skinner or anyone else, but i'm not out to censor myself either. i guess we'll see how that works out - or if i end up needing to move to a more progressive board. :shrug:

[BeFree]

37. Funny me

I take it as a victory of sorts.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight, then we win.

Real progress in this country is made because of radical leftists winning at all levels.

Civil Rights.
Environmental measures.
Health care reform.
Women's voting rights.

The hippies were right. The hippies are right.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[slay]

52. Ouch

sometimes the truth hurts - and the truth is there is a lot to criticize about the Obama admin and how they've handled the last couple years. there really is and that's the just the truth. i would hope we don't get banned for telling the truth.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[KonaKane]

70. There is a lot to criticize, yeah. But there is much to praise as well.

And when thats all done, the bigger question is, will our critique or our anger at Obama better serve our party or not. See, I'm not willing to help republicans take power back. So, I want to make sure my criticism helps us more than it hurts us.

[William Z. Foster]

143. those are the questions, yes

Does criticism of the party hurt it, or help it?

Will the party be more successful if we put principles first, or party loyalty first?

Does criticism from the left help the Republicans, or hurt them?

Some of us think that criticism from the left and putting principles first is more important than party loyalty and will do more damage to the right wing. Others see that as conflicting with party loyalty, and think that it is helping one partisan political party over the other, and that this is tantamount to going backwards. That is causing a split.

[Oilwellian]

236. Indeed, the right wing made that exact mistake

They abandoned their principles and blindly followed a corrupt leadership. It didn't help the party and it was disastrous for the country. I hope DU takes note of that historical fact.

Thank you for touching on the core of this issue.

[scarletwoman]

50. I'm already preparing myself for letting go. Seems like the writing's on the wall.

I've always wanted to stay on DU no matter how rancorous it got, because I had hoped that maybe once in awhile someone might find something useful or meaningful in what I had to say. I wanted to do my bit, no matter how small, to rouse people out of their resigned acceptance of the political status quo -- never mind those who enthusiastically defend it.

But after reading the "new rules" today, it's clear that almost all of what I would most wish to say will not be allowed.

As I posted on that interminable thread:

I'm wondering if non-partisans will survive here anymore - those who put principle over party.

Used to be, DU was a place where one could take pride in the fact that it was about small "d" advocacy, and NOT an arm of the big "D" party.

I'm not particularly interested in the fortunes of the Party, I'm interested in promoting the empowerment of ordinary people to resist the depradations of the wealthy elite and the government institutions and policies that cater to this elite.

Only a naive fool thinks that serving the interests of the moneyed class is solely the province of just one political party. Is DU going to become a place where such an observation is forbidden because it's not sufficiently "supportive" of the Democratic Party?

If so, I think I will have to sadly bid farewell to this place which has been my online "home" for 9 years.

sw

[inna]

55. You're one of my most admired posters of all time. Always wanted to tell you that,

this might be the last chance.

You rock.

[scarletwoman]

97. Such kind words, thank you.

:hug:

[Individualist]

59. Same here, scarletwoman

The message to leftists today was quite clear.

[Tailormyst]

239. I just wanted you to know that I really like your posts

[glitch]

259. I agree with Inna.

I hope you don't go and this can all be worked out.

[Mimosa]

269. Scarletwoman, I empathise and agree

You said it the way I wish I could:

"Used to be, DU was a place where one could take pride in the fact that it was about small "d" advocacy, and NOT an arm of the big "D" party.

I'm not particularly interested in the fortunes of the Party, I'm interested in promoting the empowerment of ordinary people to resist the depradations of the wealthy elite and the government institutions and policies that cater to this elite.

Only a naive fool thinks that serving the interests of the moneyed class is solely the province of just one political party. Is DU going to become a place where such an observation is forbidden because it's not sufficiently "supportive" of the Democratic Party?"

[donco6]

333. Ugh - that's a punch in the stomach.

I've always admired your posts greatly.

[Hydra]

389. Hey SW

I suspect your reading of this is quite correct(Especially with Skinner himself commenting further down regarding the issue).

I've always posted most when the heat was on- the Military Commissions Act of 2006, FISA destroyed, TARP...while most of my posts were left to stand, I always felt my input was not appreciated because I was more interested in the issue and making it stop than attempting to assigning blame(BP's failed cleanup efforts was just the latest).

I'm going to miss your comments, and I'll probably go back to reading and not posting.

My big fear is that as people disappear or go into lurk mode, the news that I originally came to DU for will not be here, because it will be deleted or people will be afraid to post it...and DU will become a huge echo chamber.

It's ironic, because when the changeover of power was about to occur, many questioned why there was even a need for DU any more.

DU is needed more than ever, but in the end, it's going to take something HUGE for various people to realize it.

As if the Deepwater Horizon was not big enough.

[Skinner]

51. Would you mind telling me what substantive criticism of Obama or Democrats is not permitted here?

I think if you were to read the actual words of my post, rather than inferring what you think you might have read, you might be pleasantly surprised.

The big secret is that almost none of these "new" rules are actually "new." It's just a re-telling of the exact same rules we've had for half a decade.

Granted, there are some fairly superficial limits on common rhetorical flourishes: Calling Obama "Barry," or saying Obama=Bush and the like. But no actual substance is off limits (except substance that has always been off-limits, like third-party advocacy). The intent here is to get everyone on the same page, so everyone understands where the limits are, so we can keep this website as open as possible to the broadest range of viewpoints. If anything, we are trying to tighten and even pull-back a little on the way we enforce the rules.

Once all these changes are phased in, I think you might find that you are able to offer more criticism than you were able to in the past, and do so in a slightly more respectful atmosphere. That is the hope, anyway.

If you are interested in being part of a Democratic Underground that remains open to a wide range of progressive viewpoints, and is more consistently moderated and more transparent, we'd love to have you.

[scheming daemons]

56. Apparently people are upset that they must now be civil

Basically, my reading of the rules thread is that you are saying that civility must come first and foremost.


People who want to bash have a problem with that, I guess.

[demmiblue]

62. That was not a very civil response (IMHO, of course).

:shrug:

[scheming daemons]

71. Really, why?

It doesn't identify either side of the debate. Just seems that people, in general, are having a hard time with being told they must play nice together.


That's my reading, anyway.

[KonaKane]

76. There is a lot of truth to what you say.

It sucks that there is, even here on DU a contingent of extremely aggressive and disagreeable people who want to fight with others so bad that they chaffe at any attempt at civility. I'd name some of them but the old and new rules prohibit that. Also, naming them would do no good and only reinforce their behavior.

They know who they are.

[Skinner]

66. I don't think that's it.

I think many people have genuine concerns and they are not certain what this all means.

(FWIW, Obviously civility is important, but I would not characterize my post as saying "civility must come first and foremost." I would characterize it as an effort to "get everyone on the same page" by drawing clearer lines than we have in the past.)

[donco6]

334. Typically dismissive. Not surprising.

And this type of post is fine - but defending yourself against it is not. We get it.

[William Z. Foster]

441. exactly

That is the double standard. It has played out on this thread today in full view. I don't think the double standard is so much the problem, the problem is that we are all required to pretend that it doesn't exist. That will surely drive people crazy - it is driving people crazy. Clearly, there will always be a double standard. people overtly expressing racism and those identifying themselves as Republicans will be treated differently than others - they are not welcome here. The question is this: are those who place principles above partisanship welcome, or are they not? People are responding by saying in essence "there is no such thing as that group! There are just bad actors who are not welcome! How dare you accuse us of not having principles?" That is sort of the ultimate way to make people not welcome - "you don't exist, and you are terrible people if you do exist, and if you keep it up you are out of here, and don't let the door hit you, but don't you dare say we are trying to run anyone off."

[donco6]

449. Some may consider the jury still out on the "principles" question.

I, however, believe the answer has been provided in spades.

[aikoaiko]

428. +1

[NorthCarolina]

432. My take on it is you can still bash Liberals and Progressives, just not conservatives & DLC New Dems

[KonaKane]

569. I really don't know where you get that from. Can you elaborate?

[nashville_brook]

74. i think that's unclear, and it's causing much anxiety -- people are reacting

to actions taken this weekend and in the last week, and that is coloring the words that you wrote today.

i'd like to say that "no one is sure where the line is" but that's not true. posters who lean right seem sure that your missive was not directed at them. so much so, that many actually took your role in that thread answering other posters' questions about the rules as if they owned the board. i don't have a problem with that -- anyone can take whatever role they like, but you have to admit it's revealing.

[Skinner]

87. I think some of those posters who "lean right" (your words)...

...might have been similarly inferring things that I did not say. I think some of them might not fare so well under the new regime once it is phased in, but we shall see.

But look, I'm not going to tell you that my OP was absolutely "fair" or "equal" or whatever, because it wasn't. I suspect many people who are generally supportive of President Obama appreciate the fact that we aren't going to continue to let people refer to President Obama using the same ugly names that get tossed around on Free Republic. And the fact that we reiterated our policy against third-party advocacy would also appeal to them.

[notadmblnd]

99. Thank you, Brook

I made a comment a couple of weeks ago about when you own the website you get to make the rules to a particular poster who appeared to me to be coming in fairly new, taking over and suggesting new rules ( one that can be pretty snotty himself at times). Course at the time there were a couple comments like mine and Skinner wondered out loud why this posters request was met with such a reaction. I let it go at the time and didn't respond. Over the years, I think many of us have developed an eye for disruptors. We can feel when someone is being disingenuous. Time and time again we've watched them come and go. I'm going to continue to sit back and watch like a fly on the wall. Sooner or later, this person is going to out himself. And I won't even say I told you so when it happens.

[highplainsdem]

80. Skinner, I think some people may be worried that you will not accept them

connecting the dots between specific criticisms, or drawing conclusions, or even reacting honestly when upset by some action or statement of the president.

I think some people here are inferring that the new rules wouldn't let them say, for instance, that they're disappointed in the president, that they feel he's failed to follow through on much of what he promised. Or that he's continuing some Bush-era policy that was reviled here during the Bush administration.

I'd guess, from reading some of the responses in your thread about the new rules, that this is how some of the president's most reliable supporters are reading the new rules. That they feel you'll allow only muted criticism of isolated, specific actions or statements, but not more general criticism. Or expressions of disappointment or skepticism. And if so, that would put DU to the right of much of the liberal/progressive Net as well as many liberal pundits and journalists.

[Skinner]

92. The rules do not prohibit saying any of this.

And if some people are reading the rules in this way, they are going to be very disappointed.

[leftstreet]

100. Frankly I think the president's...uh, ardent supporters may be disappointed

Maybe I'm reading the new rules business wrong, but this is what I get:

You can say the Obama administration is clearly continuing a specific Bush Administration policy, and you can say you don't like it, that the policy suckz now just as much as it did before and it's an absolute travesty to continue it.

What you can't say is 'Obama = Bush!!!!111'

:shrug:

[mkultra]

251. Im an "ardent" supporter, i read the rules that way, and im happy

I just get tired of the overt slamming of Obama and other democrats. I don't come here to fight for my party.

[bobbolink]

703. Some of us come here to fight for our COUNTRY and its people.

[highplainsdem]

325. I hope you're right about that.

[scarletwoman]

86. I'll tell you what's already clearly not welcome here: any talk of looking beyond partisan politics

I had an entire thread locked and deleted last week because it questioned the utility of looking solely to partisan electoral politics for a solution to social and economic injustice.

A couple days later I had a post deleted that also advocated looking beyond partisan electoral politics -- to stop thinking in terms of voting for Democrats and start thinking in terms of organizing the working class and building a movement from below.

Neither my OP or my post advocated voting for another party, neither my OP or my post were agressive, rude, or insulting to anyone. What I did was raise the question of how best to create REAL change in this country. I mentioned NO politician by name, I merely laid out a broad critique of the conventional partisan paradigm.

The message from the mod who locked my OP said something to the effect of "this is not particularly supportive of the Democratic Party." No, it wasn't. But if what I post is going to be restricted to being "supportive of the Democratic Party", there's obviously no place for me here.

I haven't spent 9 years here discussing politics and analyzing the state of our country simply to "support the Democratic party", especially when so many of the elected members of Democratic party are so obviously part of the problem. I thought I was "underground", I never signed on to be a party loyalist.

And that was my takeaway from your careful elucidation of how the rules will be applied: don't bother questioning the overall implicit goodness of Democratic partisanship. "Constructive criticism" -- but don't stray too far off message.

I've already learned that questioning the message itself will get deleted.

sw

[amborin]

94. +1

i had the same experience; as an OP, I posted someone's note about the folly of the "us" vs "them" partisan mentality, and the thread got locked....

[scarletwoman]

110. Interesting. Enforcing the "correct" dualistic frame.

It works out very well for the elites; they keep the ordinary people fighting among themselves on behalf of which of the two teams they identify with, instead of uniting to oppose the elites altogether.

sw

[amborin]

145. exactly

i think c. wright mills spoke to this, in _the power elite_.

he hypothesized three levels of society, with the ruling power elite at the top, firmly in control; the middle level consisted of politics as we commonly understand the term: politicians and parties slugging it out; only Mills realized this was merely a charade, the appearance of democracy; the bottom tier consisted of the 'inactionary' masses. Mills believed the masses could effect change, but only if they renounced their torpor.

[William Z. Foster]

186. you nailed it

Enforcing the "correct dualistic frame" - even if it hurts the Democratic party - is what some are trying to do. It is constantly reinforced by the media, as well. Many are frightened into it, thinking that if you stray from it you will have Palin because you were not paying attention, or that if you fail to promote party loyalty you will have Palin because her fans cheered louder.

Also, the "correct dualistic frame" is closely interwoven with our ideas about social arrangements and conventions, about the winners and losers and how they become winners and losers. People are reluctant to challenge that, even though no serious social or political change will ever be possible if we don't do that.

Breaking out of that straitjacket will always lead to people questioning more and thinking more, and that is never good news for the right wing, or more importantly for the people who fund and direct them.

On a more practical level, I have found from years of canvassing that the best results are achieved when people see that you are willing to criticize the Democrats. That makes your criticism of Republicans - and more importantly criticism of right wing politics and the agenda of those funding and directing right wing politics - far, far more credible.

[Skinner]

101. Two points.

First: The intent of your post might have seemed obvious to you, but I just looked at it and to me it didn't read as questioning "the utility of looking solely to partisan electoral politics for a solution to social and economic injustice." It just looked like a "Democrats have no use for us so let's leave" post.

Second: Your thread was posted two weeks ago, so it pre-dates our current effort of tightening and clarifying the rules. It is going to take some time to get the moderators up-to-speed on what these new rules mean in practice. I'm not promising that your post would have fared any better two weeks from now than it did two weeks ago. But my point is that simply because something was shut down two weeks ago should not be given too much weight.

[scarletwoman]

621. Skinner, I regret not being able to respond sooner - my 'puter crashed & I couldn't get back online

until this evening.

I did not intend to let your post go unanswered.

Regarding the first of your "two points" -- I am at an obvious disadvantage of course, since that thread was deleted and I have no copy of what I wrote to refer to. I do know that I made that statement in my opening paragraph as a call to move outside of partisan politics and put our energy into organizing ourselves into a movement to put pressure on those in power.

I was advocating for *thinking* about political action in a different way, as something outside of simply supporting a party -- especially when the party isn't standing up for the interests of ordinary people.

My intent was to enjoin people to step away and consider seeing politics from a different perspective, to think about what kind of new approaches we might take to bring about the changes we want to see.

I bashed no one, I never even mentioned Obama, I didn't say "don't vote" or "vote third party". I was trying to convey a spirit of joy and creative play and empowerment -- that we don't HAVE to be stuck with settling for what we don't really want.

I still believe that my thread was unfairly and arbitrarily locked, and that it violated no rules. However, that's all water under the bridge now, of course.

As to your second point -- yes, I'm aware that the deletions of my posts pre-date your "current effort of tightening and clarifying the rules". However, to me it was symptomatic of a certain *climate change* on DU becoming increasingly evident, and your latest "clarifications" feel like they are travelling on the much the same air currents.

All the years of people being able to freely post their disgust with the Dem party, all the hundreds and hundreds of posts saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me" -- and now when I said much the same thing it gets deleted.

I will stick around and see how well the "tightening and clarification" works. I hope that it turns out that I am being unjustifiably paranoid and that I will be able to speak as freely as I have always done for the past 9 years.

Thank you for listening and responding,
sw

[KonaKane]

112. Fair enough, but can you tell me how apartisanism is supposed to help us

keep any sort of power in Washington, so that at the very least we can stem the damage done to us by unchecked years of GOP rule? I am with in wishing for a day when partisanism is replaced by issues and values, but until that day, we are still Democratic underground.

Please explain?

[William Z. Foster]

163. good question

I think I understand what you are saying.

As you see it (correct me if I am wrong) positive social and political change will come in the wake of victories by the Democratic party, and you resent people suggesting that because of that view that you do not share the same goals or honor the same principles as they do.

You then think that the critics are mucking things up and causing dissension and confusion and hurting the party's chances, which will therefore set back all chances for positive social and political change.

Now, I would say (and you don't have to agree with me) that the party moving to the left, and having more success, as well as a lot of other good things happening will come in the wake of there being a powerful and militant voice from the political left.

I then think that putting party loyalty first leads to us being co-opted and compromised and becoming weaker, which will therefore set back all chances for positive social and political change.

As I said, I am not asking you to agree with me, but do you think I have accurately described the thinking of those taking the two different approaches?

[KonaKane]

309. Fairly accurate. A winning Democratic party that is moving left

is what I'd like to see.

What the critics of the partisan system do not get is that we are stuck with parties at the moment. Regardless of how much we weep and wail and gnash our teeth that the USA is not a multiparty coalition system, it's not. The raw reality is that there are two main parties that vye for power. We have to choose the one that is closest to our shared vision and support that as an immediate tool to help get our work done. The longer we can keep Democrats in power, the more capability we have of pushing that group left. If we can push it left, we can achieve all or most of our aims. That's a win.

I hate to bang on practicality here, but it's constantly being lost in the raging back and forths.

[William Z. Foster]

378. we are not stuck

We are "stuck with parties" so long as we see that as the only form of political expression.

The Abolitionists were stuck with the two party system. The Labor organizers were. The Suffragettes were. The Civil Rights movement was, too. They didn't let that stop them.

The Abolitionists did not say "we have better not criticize the Whigs because the Democrats are worse." They did not say "we have to choose the one that is closest to our shared vision and support that as an immediate tool to help get our work done." They did not say "the longer we can keep Whigs in power, the more capability we have of ending slavery." They did not see supporting the3 Whig party as "practical."

If you truly want to see a winning Democratic party that is moving left, then history tell us that if you move left first, and always, and you get both. If you move toward party loyalty first and you may well get neither.

[KonaKane]

411. Labor, Civil Rights, Suffragettes did not create new viable political parties.

They alligned their efforts with the powers that were friendly to them, and fought the rest. Take for instance the civil rights movement. It did not become a party, but it did find a home in the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, and used that to achieve much of its successes.

If we do not help maintain the preeminence of Democratic power - which remains the closest big power organ to our views - we have almost no chance, especially in our liftime, of affecting real change at all.

[William Z. Foster]

426. so what?

Is that the goal? To "create new viable political parties?" Again, there is a faction here that does not agree with that at all, and of course there is another faction that does. That represents a profound split.

The Civil Rights movement never "found a home in the liberal arm of the Democratic Party." Some liberals found a home in the Civil Rights movement - a small percentage - and some Democratic party politicians responded to pressure from the Civil Rights movement. Some Republicans voted for Civil Rights legislation. That could not happen today, when all politics are held within the straitjacket of partisan politics. You say that we must see all politics as held within the context of partisanship - you say it is our only hope.

The Abolition movement did not find a home in either of the two parties. A new party emerged and found a home in the Abolition movement and responded to pressure from the Abolitionists.

The Labor Union movement did not find a home in either of the two parties. In fact, midway through the struggle the two parties switched positions, the Republicans going from the pro-Labor party in Lincoln's day to the anti-Labor position. The Democrats went from the pro-slavery party, to the pro-Union party. That all came from militant outside non-partisan pressure.

It is not true that Dr. King could never have accomplished what he accomplished without Lyndon Johnson. The reverse is much closer to the truth - Johnson never could have accomplished anything without Dr. King. And beyond that, the achievements were the work of a movement, not individuals.

Saying that we need the people in power in order to accomplish anything is a certain way to insure that there never will be or could be any change at all.

[KonaKane]

436. Without a new Democratic Party, the civil rights movement would have remained underground

for a long long time. They wisely allied with one of the big parties, the one closest to their ideology, and got things done.

I guess you and I have a typical chicken/egg disagreement about this one.

[William Z. Foster]

459. no we didn't

We did not "ally with one of the big parties" nor did we look at "ideology." We looked at racism, not as a matter of people's beliefs or ideologies or feelings, but rather as measured by actual harm done to actual human beings. There were many Republican-voting people who became allies, and many Democrats who never did.

We confronted and threatened and then negotiated from power with the politicians. It had nothing to do with party. Yes, some of the strongest allies, such as Humphrey, happened to be in the Democratic party. But so were some of the most antagonistic people, such as Democrat George Wallace.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 H.R .7152 was passed by the House on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. A higher percentage of Republicans favored it than Democrats.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

[KonaKane]

469. I beg to differ.

The post CRA Democratic party was a huge engine for the civil rights movement, which had a long way to go even though it had just become law. The lingering racists in the Democratic party were chased out (some of course going to the GOP) and the likes LBJ suddenly turned into champions of the movement. Surely you remember how close Bobby Kennedy was to it, and he was on the fast track to the presidency before he was gunned down.

The civil rights movement had a powerful ally in the Democratic Party, in fact many opponents of the Democrats called it the auxillary of the Civil Rights movement, if memory serves. It is very wise to use power where you find it, and to your own ends. Better if its not a conflict of interest, of course.

[William Z. Foster]

475. religion played a bigger role

Religion played a bigger role in the Civil Rights movement than the Democratic party did.

[KonaKane]

478. It did. That doesnt decrease the importance of the Dem party in the struggle though

It actually reinforces the concept of allies where you can get them (see my sig graphic)

[William Z. Foster]

638. an affect, not a cause

What the politicians do is an effect of social and political change, not a cause. You don't give the swaying tree branch credit for the power of the wind. Wiggling a tree branch will never create a powerful wind. Social and political change needs a powerful wind.

[KonaKane]

669. Correct. The political party is a tool, not an end.

But a major party's force is one hell of a tool to wield.

[William Z. Foster]

672. agreed

Whom is wielding it? Certainly not us, and certainly we could not wield anything by being loyal to it or "working within it" when we cannot even get a seat at the table. Rather, by beating down criticism of the party and the politicians and arguing for party loyalty we are assisting the powerful in wielding that powerful tool against us.

[KonaKane]

676. But when considering all factors, at what point are we shooting our own foot off?

I agree with what you say about assisting a party to no benefit to ourselves, but what if the big party we are "aligning" with to varying degrees, is our only practical chance at realizing anything we are after, given the depressing dynamic of our two party system and the overbearance of conservative-rightwing power in the USA?

Is it wise to fold our arms and chew away at our only practical chance to get much done, or can we find creative ways to bolster our working "engine" just enough for our own ends?

[William Z. Foster]

683. that argument could go both ways

The fear, I think, is that by arguing with each other or by criticizing Democratic party politicians we are "hurting the cause." The recommendation then is that we all align with whatever is deemed "practical" - something less than we say we want - and this is then called "being pragmatic." People say they "are" leftists but see that as "impractical" so they must therefore for the sake of pragmatism support or express views at odds with this supposed state of internally "being" a leftist - as a matter of a personal belief system - in order to have unity and in order then to win.

If unity if essential to winning then why don't we all align with what we supposedly "are," with what we claim to believe, rather than insisting on unity by all of us rallying around things that are at odds with what we are and believe?

If we are not going to speak and act on this "being" a leftist, and are going to object to others taking and expressing ideas from a left wing point of view, what good is "being" a leftist? Of what practical impact could "being" a leftist ever have?

Which way should the flow go:

1.) Where public opinion already is > party politicians then being pragmatic and compromising > we then support the politicians in doing that and say we are being pragmatic > we demand that all do the same for the sake of unity

2.) We seek unity with consensus on left wing ideas > we strongly advocate left wing politics > the public is influenced by that and move left > then politicians are pressured to move to the left

[KonaKane]

692. I would prefer number 2 - but reality in America doesnt.

The inertia of American politics is center leaning, right, as much as none of us here like that. It means that we on the Left are constantly on the uphill fight, demanded more from, demanding more energy and more effort in general to get the same thing done that those on the right do. As such, we should use our alignement and allies to our best advantage. We need the help, because I have watched as decades of pressure from the Left to influence public opinion has had only spotty, and short lived, successes.

I see nothing wrong with riding the back of a beast, the one who is more amenable to us, rather than face an impossible journey which never makes it to the destination. One day I believe that most people will adopt our principles, because they are in the peoples' interests. But until that time, we need all the assistance we can find.

[sabrina 1]

450. Excellent post ~

We've been blinded by eight years of Bush and I don't think we were wrong to work to get rid of Republican rule, but that wasn't enough as has become clear.

I think what Scarlet Woman was trying to say was that building a strong movement outside the party system would give us enough power that we could then influence the party. I think that's what she meant but she can correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem we have is that we are no match for big corporations. The people are the only ones in DC who do not have lobbyists, because we cannot afford them. So the field is clear for Corporate America to influence our elected officials.

I don't think we can get the necessary changes, ie, campaign finance reform, as long as the balance is tilted towards those with money. We first need to get some power on our own and a movement such as the Labor Movement or the Civil Rights movement is missing today.

The very fact that the COS of the administration we helped elect can so dismiss the people and with no repercussions, so far, shows how powerless we are. What disturbs me is how many people are willing to accept this and just keep doing what has not worked, over and over again. That has to change.

[TBF]

532. Exactly -

and most of us are not advocating third-party candidates or any of that rubbish. I'm certainly not. Why form yet another party within a system that is not working for most of us?

I worked on the campaign, donated to Obama. I also consider that one of the things I did that was very minimal in nature. Of course I worked to help him... within the confines of political parties it was the best I could do. But will I spend 24 hours a day promoting electoral activities? Not when I see higher levels of unemployment, my beloved gulf coast being destroyed, education being privatized, BP being bailed out ("limiting liability" for BP is not going to help the clean-up of the Gulf or prevent such "accidents" from re-occurring), bail out of financial institutions, the list goes on and on.

Rather I am going to work towards building movements to influence what the elected officials are doing. As others noted, President Obama challenged us to hold his feet to the fire. The way for us to do that is to be on our feet, rallying for clean water, an end to homelessness, health care for all, etc... There is only so much an elected official can do within the confines of electoral politics. We need to help, and our help is going to be shouting from the left. If we are silenced he has no leverage. The only thing that can happen at that point is the folks with money are the only ones heard. Is that what y'all really want?

[William Z. Foster]

605. exactly

I criticized Johnson, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton far more than I have ever criticized Obama - the problems run so much deeper now that talking about the administration seems like a waste of time to me. However, I don't ever remember so much resistance to any and all criticism of an administration. That is what has changed.

People are insisting that we think only within the framework of partisan electoral politics - that would have meant no Abolition movement, no Suffragette movement, no Labor movement and no Civil Rights movement had people taken that approach in the past - and insisting that we make no criticism that could even vaguely be considered to be "disloyal" to one particular politician. People are unreccing any and all threads now that have any bad news in them, even if they do not mention the administration, the party, or any of the Democratic party politicians.

This is not about "supporting the President" or the party, it is not about "stopping Palin, it is denial of reality.

[scarletwoman]

610. Yes, that is what I was saying, thank you. (nt)

[bobbolink]

708. We are MORE than a match for the corporations.

Yes, they have the big bucks, which makes our system sick.

BUT... they need us still, because they don't have the votes without us.

We can change that equation by being more assertive about raising the real issues, and educating people. I brought that up many years ago, but people couldn't see the value in that.

That is where we are.... we CAN organize our thoughts to get the issues clear to others, and we CAN do that as individuals, and we CAN come together in small groups to get it done. We CAN then merge those small groups together into ever larger groups, pulling in others as we go along.

To do that, though, we have to get over the idea that we need to have some magical leaders. WE are the leaders we have been looking for, and be better start flexing those leadership muscles.

I, too, sat on my ideas for years, waiting for leaders to come along who would start the action and I could then join in. I was like Moses..... "Not me, Lord, send Aaron." Well, that slacker Aaron never showed up, and things got so tense with me that I finally had to say, "What the fuck", and just dig in and start it. I went to total strangers with a very big idea, which got bigger and bigger, and found, much to my surprise, that they were just waiting, too, for something good to hitch their wagon to.

I went to another meeting on something else, and came prepared and stood up and said my piece, even though it sorta derailed them, and found later to my surprise, that two people were taken with what I had to offer, and stood up for me, and are now wanting my experience and my knowledge. That has led to just a tiny bit of support, but enough to go back and demand that my original idea I had years ago be given a decent hearing, and that has built into a small but very potential project involving some quite disparate groups of the local community.

Yes, I don't know if it will fail... yes, it is a risk.

But if it does, it will provide the learning necessary to take it in the right direction, and it sure beats waiting for Aaron, that slacker.

You are more than welcome to join me in this task! I would love to have your vision and your energy involved with what we are doing!

:hi:

[MessiahRp]

625. Holy shit this is an amazing post in itself.

Absolutely hits the nail on the head and the historical references pretty much hammer home the point that we never really do accomplish anything worth accomplishing without an uphill fight against the status quo. In history, I can't recall a single moment or time where things of value were just handed to the oppressed or suppressed voices in society.

[KonaKane]

633. And certainly not without compromise.

For instance, getting George Mason to sign the Constitution. They needed his signature in order to get it ratified. He said he would not sign it unless the Constitutional Congress take up the issue of slavery. They said they would take it up later, but gave him an olive branch - the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which was Mason's contribution to the document and something we treasure today.

The slavery issue was not brought up later, but resulted in a civil war. The BofR, however, did surface - as a testament to the power of what compromise can produce.

[MessiahRp]

639. Sometimes, but it seems today compromise = total capitulation to monied interests

And that's why so many of us are tired of compromising. When Republicans mean "Compromise" they mean, "We're not budging one inch so take our position or we'll smear you in the media." When Democrats mean "Compromise" they mean "let's work as hard as we can to give what corporate lobbyists want... even if that means pretty much bending all the way down to the Republican positions because in the end we care more about their money than the base."

If compromise meant really compromising we would start on the left of any issue and work our way towards the true middle. We start at the center and work our way towards the right.

Rp

[William Z. Foster]

658. of course compromise always happens

But first you must have a strong position to negotiate from. It never makes sense to say that we should not take strong positions because compromise is always necessary. The reverse is true - we should always take strong positions so that when we do have to compromise we won't lose as much.

[bobbolink]

709. Neither Malcolm X nor Martin Luther King (nor the original Martin Luther, as far as that goes) were

much into compromise.

They had the self-confidence in their rightness to stand their ground.

Yes, they suffered for it.

And I think that is part of the problem today.

We aren't as willing to suffer.

[William Z. Foster]

723. "We aren't as willing to suffer"

The concepts people have about leadership and about political action have really changed over the last 40 years.

We are inundated now with the politics of "personal beliefs" and "personal choices," and at the same time we are always being told that we need a charismatic larger than life figure to rally around, and to see partisan electoral politics as all a matter of personalities and their supposed "personal beliefs." There is no talk anymore about self-sacrifice, and no sense that leadership will emerge in the course of the struggle and will be valuable to the degree that the leaders facilitate the participation of everyone, and not to the degree that they are some sort of guru figures or celebrities.

All of this works against - sabotages and undermines - solidarity and collective action.

If politics are to be based on "personal beliefs," then we will have 50 million movements each consisting of one member. If we are to place the individual above all and look for charismatic leaders, then of course we are going to be biased toward following and emulating the powerful and domineering, and the powerful and domineering always want to discourage broader participation because that is a threat to their power. So we now have leaders everywhere who are constantly telling us to not worry our little heads about things, because they are "handling it" and we are "getting there," and their sycophants echo that.

[bobbolink]

707. Pretty much like it worked for the Abolitionists, who pushed both parties to

abolish slavery.

[Mimosa]

272. Sad to hear that

Scarletwoman, I don't read all posts and all topics. DU is too big for that. But your posts and topics stand out and are worth following. I've often felt the working class have been sold out by Dem policies, especially NAFTA and job outsourcing. Now the health care bill which may benefit the insurance corporations.

We need to be able to discuss this somewhere and be able to influence those who run for office or else all we will get is 'top down' governance.

[bobbolink]

704. I would really like to see a reply to your well-worded post.

I think it sums up for many of us exactly where we are now.

This is where it is, Skinner, and if this is NOt OK with you and the party, then you need to realize that this is where much of the country is.

Wanna throw them all overboard too... all those potential voters who have this view?

Because in the end, that is what it comes down to.

The direction the COUNTRY will take, not just the party.

[Jamastiene]

118. The Obama=Bush belief is actually a viable belief.

Sure, just saying "Obama=Bush" without backing it up with any reasons would be silly, but the fact is President Obama has carried quite a few of Bush's policies forward and kept quite a few people from the Bush administration on-board his own administration. He has also worked to stifle many attempts at prosecuting the Bush administration for possible law breaking. He also spends an awful lot of time listening to the Republican Party's viewpoints at the expense of the left. He has even gone so far as to go to a retreat with the Republican Party not long after his own Chief of Staff called liberals "retards."

These points I made here have all been in the news. We would have to literally stick our heads in the sand not to hear news like this. We have tried to discuss the parallels and how some of us feel put off by these parallels only to be met with insults, wild off the wild claims of racism for pointing any of this out, and other wild claims that made no sense.

When that happens, usually, OPs show up in the Barack Obama Group to rally the troops and threads attempting to discuss those points get swarmed. Some posters tried to alert those troop rallying posts in the BOG and were banned from the group. Yet, those troop rallying posts stood, sometimes for days, in the group.

I honestly do not see how you think we are supposed to see the collective actions of mods and admins any other way, except to say the left is no longer welcomed here unless we march in lockstep. Sure, people on both sides of this split act up and break the rules from time to time, but there is a concerted effort by many posters to silence any criticism of President Obama, even when he probably deserves some criticism.

Can we or can we not point it out when Obama's own policies parallel Bush's policies. You don't expect those of us on the left to just pretend not to notice, do you? It is kind of hard NOT to notice at times.

[Skinner]

120. "Can we or can we not point it out when Obama's own policies parallel Bush's policies. "

From the LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS:

- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)

[coti]

161. Skinner, if what scarletwoman says is true, and there is a forum that has been cordoned-off and

organized around a single person (a forum I didn't even realize existed), and that sub-forum is systematically attacking threads deemed contrary to the interests of that person- rather than the interest of Democrats more generally, and our country- that would seem to be not only an unfair but an extremely unhealthy dynamic that has been created on this board.

Again, I don't know if what she said is true or not.

My own personal take on the rule changes is that everyone should have already been following them, for the most part, as they are now written. I don't see how they apply more to those further left than those further right at all.

The issue is civil discussion- it's a matter of the forms arguments take and rhetorical flourish. Position on the issues should not even come into play.

Anyway, if there really are "insurgent" tactics being used on the board by groups splitting themselves apart from the rest, it's not going to help the situation at all, even with the new rules.

[bobbolink]

710. Thank you for bringing up the swarms. It is indeed quite undemocratic, and obviously power plays.

Those of us who have been targets of this action lose much of our ability to trust our fellow Dems.

However, there is no mention of this kind of negative gang-attack being against the rules.

[William Z. Foster]

152. thank you

I appreciate you taking the time to write this clarification.

I think people do have fears, and I hope that I was able to create a calm thread for them to express and explore those without starting another battle.

Speaking for myself, I don't know what substantive criticism of Obama or Democrats means. I think it would be hard to define, that there would be a variety of opinions about that, and that it would be almost impossible to enforce. Some are taking a party loyalty first stance, others are taking a principles first stance, and those two groups will never agree as to what is substantive criticism of Obama or Democrats and what is not. Those who are taking the "party loyalty first" stance are not insincere, I don't think. They feel that party loyalty leads us in the direction of action that will be in alignment with shared principles, and are frustrated and angry with those of us who seem to be calling that - and them - into question.

There is a certain lack of clarity - whether there should be or not. For some of us the issue is this - will this be a left-friendly site or not - not left-tolerant, but left-friendly. There is a big difference. Others see that as "wanting it all our way" or even as trying to purge them, and "hear" personal attacks, extremism, "tearing down the President," and other offensive things which are very often not there. Similar and parallel debates have arisen within the party over other issues - is the Democratic party going to be a gay-friendly organization, or is it not - not gay-tolerant, but gay-friendly. Again there is a big difference between the two. Is the Democratic party to be a friend to Labor, or not? A friend to teachers and to public education? A friend to the environment? To the peace movement, to those fighting to protect the Bill of Rights? These are legitimate questions, which will not go away by us merely saying "well they are better than the Republicans."

It is almost impossible to write and enforce rules that will handle this, especially if the membership is "dead weight" or not being cooperative, or even gaming the people who are trying to run things. This thread is an attempt to get the membership to talk about this - I addressed my "side" rather than presuming to lecture those on the other side of the split, and have tried to avoid the chronic and bitter feuding - because ultimately the board will be what the members make it. It is impossible for the admins and mods to hold everyone's hand and run around policing everyone. Some sort of working informal consensus and basis for the discussion has to come from the membership.

Thanks again for weighing in.

[noamnety]

180. Skinner, I could take a crack at that.

When I look at things that are specifically spelled out as forbidden now, the new additions all have to do with "giving due respect to the office of the president" - and one poster, I forget who, was pretty explicit about phrasing it that way.

I haven't been here as much lately, but I haven't seen a lot of disruption over whether he's called Barry, Barack, Obama, Mr. President, etc.

There are things I have seen coming from the bog folks I do see as disruptive, and I see them daily - but there's no mention of them at all in your big post. For instance, I view it as trolling to counter actual criticism of policies with "So I guess you want Palin to win" or "so you're going to vote repulican than." Those comments read to me as "FU, if you aren't with us you're a freeper" with no good faith effort to discuss the thread topic. I have a similar concern when someone posts frustration about the occupations in Iraq or Afghanistan and the response is a veiled (or not) statement that you must be a closet racist, even when race has nothing to do with the thread, even when most people here held those exact same positions long before the primaries.

For me to have faith that you want to promote discussion of policies in a way that is nonbiased to either faction here, I would have to see that sort of trolling comment addressed to at least an equal degree. I can't imagine that you find DUer's calling Obama "Barry" the larger more pressing problem to address. It's in part because of those one-sided callouts that you opted to cite that there's a perception that in your mind the problem is criticism of the president moreso than trolling and uncivil behavior in general.

[glitch]

265. Good point. nt

[Skinner]

281. A couple things.

I'm not going to justify any uncivil behavior, and I am not going to justify questioning anyone's motives. But the issue here is what are reasonable lines to draw that would be fairly clear and enforceable.

Calling the President "Barry" could not possibly be more clear. You either violate that rule or you don't. No gray area whatsoever. That makes 1) following the rule, and 2) enforcing the rule extremely easy. Furthermore, no legitimate substantive discussion is forbidden by that rule.

I'm glad you brought up the "racist" example. That is against the rules, and has been for years. It is against our rules to call someone a bigot, either directly or by veiled insinuation.

It is also against the rules to insinuate that someone is a conservative. So if the snide comments were actually accusing you of being a closet conservative, that would be forbidden.

But I do not think it is remotely realistic to forbid people from pointing out that choosing not to vote for the Democrat in a general election helps the Republican. I know that sounds biased and unfair. But think about it. That is an *actual issue*. If someone says "I regret ever voting for Obama", how can we possibly forbid people from pointing out that the alternative was much worse? This is the absolute crux of the disagreement here on DU. The split is emphatically *not* progressives vs centrists. The split is, roughly speaking, idealists vs pragmatists. If we had a rule like that, a "fair" counterpart to limit the other side would be something like "Do not disparage real-world policy proposals because they fall short of ideal proposals that are highly unlikely to be enacted into law under the current political environment." I'm sure you agree that such a rule would be utterly anathema to discussion. It would not be remotely realistic to try to have a rule like that.

[noamnety]

289. I couldn't disagree more strongly with this:

"I'm sure you agree that such a rule would be utterly anathema to discussion."

I believe it IS utterly counterproductive to a political discussion board to have people shut down/shout down (valid) criticism of Obama by continually stating, in so many words, too bad, you don't have another choice. It's the intellectual equivalent of shutting down criticism of the US occupation of Iraq by saying "you must want the terrorists to win."

[Skinner]

294. My "anathema" statement was referring to the hypothetical rule I proposed.

I was trying to provide am analogy that would be personally relevant for you.

[noamnety]

295. Perhaps the reason I had a problem with your statement

is that I was complaining about criticism of a POLICY being met with "so you must want Palin to win."

You altered that slightly to be a generic "I regret voting for Obama" statement.

I maintain that if criticism of a specific policy is met with derisive comments about wanting republicans to win, or "perhaps you think McCain would have been better", that's a disruptive trolling technique designed to derail a topic. It's not the sort of comment one allows if their goal is to allow genuine discussion of a thread topic. Can you see why I might consider it trolling if a conversation goes like this?

Person A: Dammit, 15 new offshore permits with environment exceptions have just been approved by the Obama administration.
Person B: Perhaps you'd be happier if Palin wins the next election.

[William Z. Foster]

337. common

Your example is a common occurrence.

Person A: Dammit, 15 new offshore permits with environment exceptions have just been approved by the Obama administration.

Person B: Perhaps you'd be happier if Palin wins the next election.

Person A: So are you supporting the Democrats when they do the same thing the Republicans did on this issue? I don't.

Person B: Perhaps you don't belong here then if you are not going to support Democrats.

[datasuspect]

398. but it isn't "idealistic" to want social justice, economic justice, for the mass of everyday

people in this country. The people have to have a say in the matter.

"pragmatism" is being used as a blank check to continue the corporate state, as if there are no other options, as if bipartisanship and centrism actually benefit the majority of working class people in this country.

the democratic party, in and of itself, doesn't have the moral or civic authority to set the tone, nor should the values be pronounced from the top down--this should all come from the people, the body politic, to inform the debate and the values of the democratic party. the people who constitute the democratic party justify any moral basis it might have.

the whole "idealism vs. pragmatism" gambit is insulting, it is a ruse, and it discounts and diminishes the real goals that should be in place to benefit the common weal.

anything less than that is kowtowing, anything less is obedience to corporate sponsored politics.

[Bluebear]

318. 'The split is, roughly speaking, idealists vs pragmatists' - - and idealists "only wanted Palin".

That's how it's come down, sorry...

[Skinner]

327. That's not what I said at all. (nt)

[Bluebear]

332. Well, from the recent bannings one can only infer which "side" has won the day.

Articles from other well-known Democratic sites being locked as "over-the-top" criticism of Obama. Hey, it's your site, I would never presume to tell you how to run it, but you asked for input! :)

[spoony]

682. Your version of the statement was, shall we say, idealistic

The reality is that people don't say, "at least it's better than McCain." They say, "So you wanted a McCain White House?" followed by thirty or forty exclamation points.

To be frank, your entire framing of some of these issues reveals a certain blindness to the unending insults cast by DUers of a particular stripe, and focusing solely on those of the other.

[EFerrari]

350. If that were true, "pragmatists" wouldn't have been posting

thread after thread bashing liberals and progressives that were left open for hours because a pragmatist would see the damage those posts would do to DU even in the short term.

[Individualist]

355. Hear, hear!

[Hydra]

396. "The split is emphatically *not* progressives vs centrists. The split is, roughly speaking,

idealists vs pragmatists."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you have misjudged the type of problem we're having.

If I am an "idealist" for advocating for legal and reasonable behavior by our government, taking care of our own and not creating an entirely spun dialogue both at home and abroad...I think it's time we start waving our white flags right now.

As another poster said, you did ask for input.

[KoKo]

558. +1

[MessiahRp]

647. Jumped into a bit of a boiling pot on this one old pal...

"The split is emphatically *not* progressives vs centrists. The split is, roughly speaking, idealists vs pragmatists."

I couldn't disagree with that assessment any more.

Let me say it this way. I have served a couple of terms here as a Mod under Skinner. Including during the rather heated Dean vs. Kerry primary debates in 2004. I always have thought you were an incredibly patient and fair person... especially considering the heated climate that tends to exist on these types of boards. Many of us may not even realize how difficult it is to decide on whether a post warrants removal even when there are 20-30 alerts on it. Sometimes the outlines of the rules and basic courtesy of free flowing discussion makes it hard to see a post removal as a simple slam dunk.

However I don't think the crux of this disagreement is pragmatists vs. idealists at all. Many of Obama's policies are not pragmatic in the least. Nobody twisted his arm to keep Bush's wiretapping in place. Nobody forced him to start the Health Care debate in the center so he had nowhere to go but to the right. Nobody asked him to continue the wars and pretty much Bush's military policies.

Sure, on some bills compromise seemed pragmatic. Not on all of the things that get heat here. He makes many of these choices without even caring to consider a left wing or dare I say usually Democratic alternative.

Those you would call "pragmatic" seem to circle the wagons to protect his every move. We know their names. They're in every thread proclaiming every thing he is doing as the right move and flushing any policy critiques with the same sort of blind cheerleading dismissal that Bush Supporters gave.

Asking for an alternative is not "idealist", it is actually practical considering the electorate purposely voted for change. Also Obama didn't even try to move the needle on those aforementioned issues to the left. He started at the Republicans (and most notably corporate lobbyists) most acceptable position and ended up giving them more and more of what they wanted until he had botched the whole thing in some cases. That isn't pragmatic. That's capitulation to corporate interests who just happen to be aligned more closely with Republicans. And thus the Hope and Change President becomes the Status Quo Continuation.

Pragmatism doesn't mean recognizing that Washington is tough and will require compromise so we automatically give in on all demands. Pragmatism is recognizing that we want certain things and if we start with everything we should totally want, negotiating our way back to the middle gives Americans a much better bill in almost all cases. Not to mention it will ultimately cost us less due to the miserable failures we're likely to endure with the poor structure that is intact to protect the Corporations that won the lobbying war.

That's it in a nutshell to me.

Nobody said passing a damn thing in Washington is easy. It just would work a lot better for our side if we didn't automatically give in to the Right on every negotiation for fear of conflict because that my friend, is not pragmatic in the least.

Rp

[tekisui]

675. Thanks for addressing that framing.

Idealists is a condescending term for anyone who asks questions of the administration or wants better decisions.

[William Z. Foster]

679. pragmatism

Pragmatism is the fulcrum point for people to balance two contradictory ideas. On the one hand people say they "are" a leftist, but for the sake of pragmatism they are expressing or supporting a conservative idea. This idea of "being" something - claiming that there is some internal state of being that is the most important thing is more akin to how people hold their religious or spiritual beliefs than it is related in any way to politics. Imagine if we all declared that we "were" leftists, but we all then embraced the "pragmatic" approach - "be" leftists, but don not express left wing ideas whenever they conflict with "pragmatism." Nothing would change and "being" a leftist would be of absolutely no value. The only way it could be seen to be of any value would be if and when a "choice" of a left wing candidate was presented to them on the ballot, and furthermore only if a majority or close to a majority of the people in the country already supported that candidate. That is a set of circumstances that could never happen if we all followed the "pragmatic" approach.

[TransitJohn]

561. It won't go down like that, though.

The moderation team removes posts all the time, including some of mine which were non-inflammatory, asking when the center and right of the party would honestly pay attention to the left of the party. When I asked why, they referred me to you. You never answered. As long as the moderation team consistently supports one side of the party, the DU will stay as it is. I hope this post doesn't break any rules.

[Divine Discontent]

724. A very well worded reply. It is the essence of remaining civil despite offering up sharply worded

comments - and thus being respectful to the office and person. One can rip the WH choices and say, "this is not what I voted for", or, "not what the President should be doing for our party", or, that "he's failing us, because....", and still be civil. I think that's the problem with many who have been shown the proverbial door - they don't just say those things - they throw in things like harsh name calling or outright incendiary rhetoric.

I hope many read this post of yours, because it is succinct and gets the point across.

[depakid]

53. I think it remains to be seen how the rules are implemented

How much of a chilling effect they have over time- or how many folks are prompted to leave on their own depends a lot on whether discussion is actually stifled- and who and how many people are banned- and for what.

The rule of reason and transparency would make a difference here. As would standards of objectivity and fundamental fairness- which it's been alleged haven't been followed in the recent months.

[William Z. Foster]

67. maybe

Does a split not exist? Is it not the source of all of the trouble? Is not true that many people on one side of the split applauded this, and many on the other side objected? Did not the split in opinions about the rules match up with the split over almost everything? Hard to ignore that.

[Individualist]

69. You're right; however,

it's more of a deep chasm than a split.

[NYC_SKP]

54. I'm going to chime in here, for what it's worth.

This is as good a place as any to say my piece.

Everyone is welcome at DU, and the rules haven't really changed for anyone who is intimately familiar with the existing rules.

From my perspective, there has been a great deal of anxiety brought about what appears to be infighting, and the resultant violations in the existing rules only serves to ramp up the tension.

The violations don't come exclusively from one side of an issue or the other, but often that is the impression many are left with.

It's quite fair to offer constructive criticism, even harsh criticism, of the president and other democrats without violating any of the existing rules or any of what Skinner wrote about today (a reiteration for the most part of existing rules).

So, from my point of view, it's about observing some simple basic rules of civility and mutual respect.

It's not that hard.

Anyone from across the wide spectrum of Democratic/Liberal/Progressive politics who can follow the basic rules, the same rules many of us might expect from guests in their living room or in a public forum, is welcome at DU.

My two cents.

NYC_SKP

[William Z. Foster]

64. thanks

Appreciate you weighing in.

Yes, that is one point of view - that it is a matter of "observing some simple basic rules of civility and mutual respect." I understand that, and believe that you hold that view sincerely. Some of us do not share that view.

[Nite Owl]

65. Look if the right leaners

want the board to themselves, they can have it. I'll come to see if there is any news and check in but the DU habit is leaving. If there aren't other places right now I'm sure there will be, I know I'm not the only one around who is missing all the promised hope and change. There are forums that are very good here besides the big boards and it just isn't worth trying to change minds that won't and have no intention of listening to any facts. I'm not all that surprised. Many of DU's greatest and long term voices have been lost or will be.

[lonestarnot]

73. Eeeek. My electronic home is experiencing tornados and I predict deaths in the near future.

[Bobbie Jo]

164. I've never been referred to as "right-leaning" in my entire life.

While I agree there are indeed "factions" represented here, I would consider the "right-leaning" characterization inappropriate. That is, unless it was intended as a slur.

[Nite Owl]

420. No, it was in no way intended as

a slur and I am sorry if you saw it that way. There are factions and the right leaning faction seems to find whatever the left leaning faction has to say as an affront, there is a group that does not want dicsussion of policy. I am not including you at all, I really don't know you but I am sure it would be nice to.
I used right leaning because President Obama leans to the right of the party and this group cannot accept disagreement (peacefully) with any one who sees differently.

[notadmblnd]

68. I don't consider myself far left.

However, I do consider myself left of center. I've learned to ignore those who consider themselves centrists or conservative democrats. Not because I can't disagree with them and play nice. But because they can't. Seems if you post something they don't agree with, instead of disagreeing, they bully. They're just as clannish and cultish as any bunch of nut jobs on the right. In fact, I think some of their comments are meant to provoke those that are more liberal, just to get us thrown off. I've been a member here since before 2003, I've seen a lot of people come and go. Many of their own volition. Myself, I've probably had between 5-15 posts deleted over the course of time. Sometimes I've said stupid things, sometimes I've taken their bait and responded to their personal attacks in kind. I guess I'm still here, because I love the collection of liberal sources for information. Sure you've got Truth out, Huffington Post, Salon, Raw Story, but no where else do they all come together like they do here. As far as those mean, nasty, demeaning, name calling anonymous bullies go; they have no affect on my life whatsoever.

[Nite Owl]

84. Absolutely agree with you about

the tactics used, the being clannish and cultist. they come together like a gang to supress any opinion that is different and make people feel like they are the ones who are 'aren't real democrats'.
Thing is they are allowed to stay. What's that supposed to mean? I've been a dem for 38 years and spent a lot of time working to build the party wherever I have lived. I'm a committee member, doing petitions this week and to them I don't support the party because I disagree with President Obama over many issues. How do we make change happen without being vocal about our disagreements over policy.

There are parts of the rules that I couldn't agree with more, like the "Barry" issue. It's digusting to hear and following right wing action. It's disrespectful to any duly elected President no matter what party.(This does exlude Bu$h as he was appointed in '00 and '04 results will always be in doubt.)
I hope that these rules will be applied equally to both wings of the party. Time will tell.

[bobbolink]

711. Provocation. That is it, exactly, and it is an organized effort.

[Autumn]

77. There should not be a feud.

It seems to me the whole problem is the lack of civility. As I understand we are still free to criticize the Democrats that we disagree with, and the Administration. Calling people fringe, whining, purists, that's just a lack of civility.. You just need to remember that the ones who start in on you, instead of the point in question are doing that to shut down the discussion.

I was always told by my Mother not to feed the pigeons, because if you do they are always around shitting on everything. Don't feed them.

[Dappleganger]

81. My heart is torn asunder...

I feel like a jilted lover. In the past that's generally resulted in me throwing things and getting a stupid tattoo.

I am really trying to listen and to learn, but at the same time am pulling my hair out by the roots. Does that make any sense?

:shrug:

[Coyote_Bandit]

82. Ummmm......

Make Lobby instead of Latest your default DU page. Avoid that Latest page. My experience tells me that doing so makes it easier to avoid entire forums/groups since you have to choose to go there instead of being led by a link to a thread. Make liberal use of the ignore function and the hide thread feature. If you do these two things you can censor much of what might offend here at DU. Add self-censorship to the mix and forego any critical commentary. It's amazing just how easy it is to appear civil and unified. Works for everyone. Doesn't matter what side you're on or what issue is being "discussed".

[volvoblue]

85. I am not sure, being fairly new, what is the problem here but,

I find the rules to be so much. a long list.
I think skinner is right about the core problem with our side, we dont' have a boogey man to hate.
Many need one to feel the rush, the high of a fight.
For a long time I've looked for a reason for the general anger and Skinner hit it in a few words.

That said, not sure about what is going on here but, I know from another blog I go to, that our blogs have gotten filled with people who need to be mad at someone and have a reason to be in a rage.

I suspect that is what is going on here as well.

[leftstreet]

88. Your OP title should probably be 'Question for Democrats,' not Leftists

You state you don't want to get into a debate about what is or isn't "left," but it's critical. It sounds like you're talking about a split within the Democratic party, and the way it's played out on internet boards.

In the five years I've been here, informal polls and member sentiment have placed the majority in the fairly far (American) left, but most members still identify with the Democrats. At the same time the reality is the party apparatus has moved waaaaay further right. That's the split you're talking about.

I don't see many Leftists here on DU the last few years

[William Z. Foster]

132. I think you are right

Good points.

Yes, the membership is probably more to the left than it appears, and the leadership is moving to the right. This creates a conflict between party loyalty and principle.

However, I do notice that many of the same people arguing for party loyalty are also arguing the more conservative positions on many of the issues.

[fascisthunter]

615. a very good assessment

[johnaries]

89. I am Leftist, and I totally disagree with with your basic premise.

I am insulted by your insinuation that because I disagree with you, that I am any less Leftist. This is exactly what Skinner was talking about, and a large reason for the "new rules".

The whole reason for this forum is so that "Leftists" like you and I can discuss our differences as well as our similarities. But that requires that each of us recogonize that the other is "Leftist".

If I agree with you on 99% of the issues but disagree on 1% and therefore you choose to "pigeonhole" me as non-Leftist, then you don't fit my idea of a Leftist. Because a Leftist SHOULD be willing to listen to any conflicting ideas.

So, what do you suggest we should do? You claim that you are a Leftist and I claim that I am a Leftist, and yet we have trouble agreeing what that "label" means.

Perhaps we should be more careful with our labels. Or perhaps reject them, completely. A True Leftist would vote for rejecting the labels, BTW. :)

[EFerrari]

105. The OP explicitly said arguing over labels was not his interest. n/t

[johnaries]

113. And yet his post specifically deals with labels.

it's impossible to answer his questions without arguing over labels.

[EFerrari]

129. Not really. You self identify and self report. nt

[William Z. Foster]

156. too late

I asked people to not obsess over this very thing and not use it as an excuse to re-open the war. It is too late to go back and edit the post, but I could take out "right-leaning" and "left-leaning" without changing anything of substance that I was trying to say. I tried to describe the two factions in the most non-controversial and neutral terms I possibly could. I also said that I am convinced that everyone here knows exactly what the two groups I am talking about are, and I asked people to not get hung up on the labels.

My post does not "specifically deal with labels." If you find that it's impossible for you to answer without arguing over labels, I would suggest that you have a need to argue over labels.

[Radical Activist]

496. Of course you don't want to defend your false premise.

The fact that this isn't about a left/right divide is a at the heart of the issue. The fact that you assume anyone who doesn't vehemently attack Obama as much as you do must be more conservative than you is part of the problem. It's a destructive and inaccurate attitude.

[William Z. Foster]

502. I have no such premise

We have been over and over this issue. Call the two factions whatever you like.

[Radical Activist]

507. So no one gets to discuss what the two factions are

and you refuse to define them. But, you're sure that some people are in one and not the other, even though we aren't allowed to figure out who or why. :hurts:

You've made your post so vague as to be meaningless. Why not just write what you really mean?

[William Z. Foster]

510. it has been discussed

Look through the thread if you don't understand what the two factions are, and then name each of them anything you like, and then put yourself in one of them, or neither of them, or both, or make up a new one just for yourself.

[Radical Activist]

508. So no one gets to discuss what the two factions are

and you refuse to define them. But, you're sure that some people are in one and not the other, even though we aren't allowed to figure out who or why. :hurts:

You've made your post so vague as to be meaningless. Why not just write what you really mean?

[William Z. Foster]

554. correct

"Defining what they are" is part of the feud. It is going on all over the board so you have lots of opportunities to engage in that. People can define themselves. You are free to do that. If the OP does not apply to you, ignore it. IF you want to engage in the to-the-death battle between the two factions you are off topic in this thread. If you want to deny the existence of factions, make a calm and rational case for that rather than going on the attack, but that too is off topic and at best a peripheral issue to the topic of the thread.

Yes, I have intentionally been "vague" and "coy" about labeling, defining or targeting people so as to avoid the repetitive and mindless arguments about who is "really" this or that and what this or that word "really" means. That always leads to hostility and acrimony and an uproar.

Apparently, you have a problem with this discussion happening at all unless it is on your terms, using your definitions, and accommodating your unique self-identity. I am not going to get into a pissing match with you about that here, no matter the provocation from you.

[Radical Activist]

559. Every paragraph of your OP refers to factions and a split.

So, this is hardly a peripheral issue. It's at the heart of your argument that a supposedly alienated left faction should separate itself.

It seems like you retreat on every point when challenged. You claim I have a problem with the discussion but I'm discussing the topic of your thread. You've denied the topic so many times I'm not sure what you think the topic is supposed to be anymore.

It's amazingly hypocritical for you to write anything about being divisive or starting mindless arguments. The suggestion in your OP, that Obama supporters are not left and that they are some kind of "opponents" to you and the left in general is extremely divisive and insulting to many people on this board. You should stop backing away from your comments and apologize.

[William Z. Foster]

571. your error there

I posted about the existence of a split that already exists, that is already observable. Most here agree with that - a split does exist. If you don't see it, you don't see it. I am not theorizing or imagining or trying to create a split.

I did not say and do not think that "Obama supporters are not left and that they are some kind of 'opponents' to the left in general" no matter how many times you insist that this is the case.

I object to your attempts to rally the troops and rekindle the bitter feuding here by telling people that I am "insulting to many people on this board." I object to your attempts to characterize my effort at discussing the trouble here as the cause of the trouble.

I have not retreated on any opinion, I simply refuse to get into this pissing natch with you on your terms and using your definitions. Pick this fight somewhere else. I cannot defend positions I did not take and your demand that I do that is merely a provocation.

[Radical Activist]

582. You're a slippery one. Let's quote your OP.

You wrote: "As it is, our opponents think they have been vindicated and that they now have new power and validation, the upper hand, judging by their responses on the rules thread and in the BOG group."

Yes, you did refer to Obama supporters as your opponents. Most of your post was carefully worded but you revealed your mindset in that line. You also stated that your own opposing faction is the "left." I think it's very unfortunate that you consider a group of progressive Democrats to be your opponents. That's the sort of remark that encourages an "us v them" mindset and it's clear that you believe Obama supporters are "them." So please drop the pretense.

I welcome fair criticism of Obama. But frankly, maybe you're right that Democratic Underground isn't the right home for those who feel obligated to campaign against Obama no matter what he does and who view his supporters as the opposition. Those people aren't really most concerned about the issues anyway.

[William Z. Foster]

604. huh?

You are really working hard on this.

Let's try some logic here - just because some attacking the left claim to be Obama supporters or post in a particular section of the board, that does not mean that all Obama supporters are opponents. Obviously.

No one here is "campaigning against Obama."

You rally want to pick at this scab until you draw blood. How come?

My post was "carefully worded" to avoid exactly this sort of inflammatory and provocative post and the pissing matches that it could lead to.

Please stop with the "you hate Obama" and "maybe you don't belong here" and "you have a secret agenda you are trying to foist on people." Really. All of that supports and validates my OP, of curse, but you seem not to care about that. So you attack the OP as you validate it. Very weird. That is all so poisonous and is the very problem here that people are trying to address and resolve. You are determined to throw gasoline on the fire and get the flames roaring again. Why?

[William Z. Foster]

135. I apologize

I tried to avoid the "who is and who isn't a leftist" debate. I asked in my OP that people not get hung up on that and that it not be the cause of more feuding.

My point is that you do disagree with me, in the same way that the two factions here disagree with each other. It doesn't matter what we call each of them in this discussion on this subject. Call yourself a leftist. We are still far, far apart politically.

[fishwax]

304. I don't think the debate is purely (perhaps not even primarily) political

Your OP suggests that "This has created an intolerable situation for those of us on the left." While I take you at your word that it wasn't your intention to get into the debate about how labels are defined, I think that language is bound to raise hackles with some on the left, because it defines the attitude towards the rules as political and suggests the conflict is basically ideological, which I don't think it is. There are certainly people who are politically left who are fine with Skinner's statement. I think there is another dimension (or more) to the conflict. In post 196 EFerrari identified it as "people who organize mostly around principles/ideas/goals and people who organize mostly around individuals/personalities/politicians." I think that might well be part of it. In 291 Skinner suggests it's pragmatists vs. idealists. There's truth to that as well.

Clearly there is an ideological struggle going on within the party. But I don't think that alone is what is driving the conflict here at DU. Because clearly it's possible to recognize and be concerned that the party is moving to the right and to be disappointed in those actions by party leaders that reinforce those trends, but to do so without resorting to the kind of rhetoric ("Obama is just like bush," "there is no difference between democrats and republicans," etc.) that will get a post deleted. At the same time, it's also possible to believe that maintaining support for the administration/party is sometimes necessary in order to keep the country from lurching even further to the right, but to do so without resorting to the kind of rhetoric ("poutrage," "guess you didn't get your pony," etc.) that will get a post deleted.

By my reading, the new enforcement mechanisms are designed to ensure that more of that kind of discussion has the opportunity to take root amidst the overheated rhetoric from both sides. The fact is that there has been plenty of mudslinging from both sides, and there are plenty of people on both sides of this divide (whatever it may be) who think their own shit doesn't stink. I also think there are many people on either side who have misinterpreted Skinner's statement to mean that criticism of the president will not be allowed. There will probably be some opponents of the president who will get a "obama is no better than bush!" post deleted, and so use that to (mistakenly) confirm their worst fears. There will probably be some supporters of the president who will respond angrily to and alert on posts critical of the president, and then complain when their posts are deleted and the criticism remains. But it also seems plausible that the new enforcement strategies will make more room for thoughtful discussion and spirited debate, which has all too often been smothered by such rhetoric. (In some cases, of course, deliberately.)

Anyway, that's my take.

[William Z. Foster]

458. I was talking to one side

I said "the left," because that would get the people from the group I as speaking to - whatever you or others want to call them - to respond to my question. That was successful. It also drew people from the other group who have made a huge issue about what the real meaning of the word left is. So we have the group of people who when I say "left" arrive and say "present and accounted for" and answer the OP, and we have the group of people who when I say "left" say "how dare you this or that and I am insulted" and attack the OP. So there are the two groups.

The people in one group think that in order to get progressive change, we must work through the "two party system" and that means supporting Democrats. They see no alternative to partisan electoral politics. Therefore, they think that we need to put up with right-leaning policies and programs and compromises for a while or to a certain extent ("not getting everything we want right now") because if we do not, we could lose everything. So they argue that we need to be patient, practical and realistic. That is OK. Their point of view, while I disagree with it, is legitimate and they are sincere. They think that criticizing the administration is tantamount to placing everything at risk. Among them, however, are some who are not merely putting up with right-leaning policies and programs, but who prefer them. We know this because they argue the conservative side on many issues where the administration or the party are not involved or even mentioned at all.

People in the other group think that we must oppose right-leaning ideas and programs at all times unambiguously no matter where or how they arise nor from whom. Anything other than that places everything at risk.

That means that we have two groups of people who think that if they cave in to the other side, all will be lost.

[Radical Activist]

497. Then there are more people who don't see it as an either/or option.

Many of us realize that denigrating the efforts of those who work through the Democratic party doesn't help build support for taking action in other ways. Spreading cynicism about Obama isn't going to make anyone go third party or engage in direct action tactics. It's more likely to encourage apathy and total disengagement.

[William Z. Foster]

574. good for them

That is fine if people do not see it as an either/or option.

I was careful not to be denigrating anyone, I was not promoting third parties, nor am I intending to be spreading cynicism about Obama. My intention is not to encourage apathy and total disengagement, and I reject your premise that this is a risk. Just look at the interest in this thread. If anything, I would say that continually beating on people about what reality they must face, what they must accept, and about what narrow confines they must work within is the prime source of people becoming apathetic and disengaging.

[Jamastiene]

518. That is it, to a T.

It's not so much about labels or even "pragmatism" as it is about a certain unnamed faction here who actively support right wing leaning ideals right down the line. That group are not merely being "pragmatists." They actually support conservative values and ideals actively. I've seen it time and again.

[ProudDad]

93. I'm afraid that the "new left" is somewhere around Richard Nixon...

That's the last time we got major "Progressive" legislation.

The "New Democrats" can't even come close to the Clean Air Act, EPA, etc. alas...

Of course, at the time he was a right-wing New Dealer who was handed progressive legislation with a veto proof margin -- even some "old republicans" voted for it...

It's been a downhill slide since then...

Now what used to be bat-crap crazy, corporate suck-up, right-wing wacko is called "Centrist"... :shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

166. I think so

However, that doesn't help us here much. While the party leadership is somewhere around Richard Nixon, that is not true of 70-8o% of the people here. Those defending the party can see no alternative to party loyalty other than a return to the Bush nightmare. They are not completely comfortable with the fact that this is requiring them to defend some very right wing policies and programs, but can see no alternative.

I do think that there is a very small faction here that wants the party to move to the right, and that they are manipulating those who sincerely can see no other alternative to party loyalty.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[DCBob]

103. I think you are seeing this as a black and white issue which it is not..

Criticism is allowed, in fact, encouraged here. What would be the point of just cheerleading the administration all the time? The problem is with the extreme negative attacks which serve no purpose except to help the opposition. Many like you seem to think the administration is hopelessly corrupt and inept and should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. That attitude is wrong and should not be tolerated here. On the other hand criticism of specific decisions or actions that go counter to Democratic principles should be brought to everyones attention and discussed openly and vigorously and perhaps result in helping to fix a problem. To me DU was already doing that but there was so much negative churning that those good effects were being drowned out. The new rules should help resolve that.

[William Z. Foster]

119. thanks

That is the position of those on one side of the split.

"...extreme negative attacks which serve no purpose except to help the opposition..."

I deny that I have ever done that. I deny that there is any such problem.

"...you seem to think the administration is hopelessly corrupt and inept and should be tarred and feathered and run out of town..."

I have never said that, and I don't think that.

"That attitude is wrong and should not be tolerated here."

Exactly. That is the position people are taking. Certain "attitudes" - otherwise know as opinions - should "not be tolerated" - and that means "don't express them, or else." It could not be more clear. Yet others on this thread are saying "you are imagining this." No I am not. You just expressed it more forcefully and unambiguously than I did. You think it is a good thing. Those of us at whom it is aimed do not. There should be no surprise about that.

You have illustrated the split better than I could describe it, as well as the fact that it is intended to favor one of the two factions over the other.

[DCBob]

121. Well then if you dont feel that way and dont makes post like that then there's no problem..

All's well. Post away.

[William Z. Foster]

137. don't feel what way?

What way must I feel in order to be free to post?

[DCBob]

146. Read your post... if what you said is true then you should be fine..

dont fret it.

[William Z. Foster]

168. not fretting

And I was not looking for your approval.

[Individualist]

268. Bravo!

[DCBob]

455. WZF: "Several times today I went to post, and then stopped..."

because I realized that what I had to say - the opinion I was about to offer - would run the risk of being a violation of the rules."

Sounds like "fretting" to me.

[William Z. Foster]

462. I can live with that

OK. OK, I am guilty of "fretting."



on edit and upon further thought -

I am not fretting, I am in anguish over this, and every time I think about the Gulf it gets worse. I am not bothered by what happens at DU, but what is happening here is happening everywhere. The same debate is going on among local Democrats.

I will admit that I am now dead certain that something more powerful and effective must be done, that time is running out and that we are in great danger, and that what we have been thinking, saying, and doing has not worked. This has nothing to do with "supporting" or "tearing down" the administration and has nothing to do with how I am going to vote, or anyone else is going to vote. We are so far beyond that now.

[DCBob]

473. Then stop "anguishing".. the Rethugs are more f'kd up than us..

By comparison we are one big happy family.. just a bit dysfunctional at times. :)

[William Z. Foster]

477. stop lecturing

Anguish is the appropriate and sane response to the catastrophe in the Gulf, among many other horrors going on right now, and to our weakness and ineffectiveness in responding.

I think the Democratic party activists are very similar to a dysfunctional family, and I think many are acting like abused children and battered spouses, apologizing for and catering to and groveling before the abusers while telling themselves and others that "it is not so bad, it could be a lot worse. Best to stay here rather than take any chances."

I have no interest in being part of that "one big happy family"

[DCBob]

486. I thought you were fretting/anguished about the split here at DU.. now you on the gulf spill..

hard to follow the logic of your "anguish".. you just seem confused to me. I am done with this thread. Ciao.

[William Z. Foster]

488. so who's fretting

Don't bother worrying about me would be my suggestion.

[EFerrari]

133. That's only half of the story. The other half is that criticism

of any kind is also met with extreme negative attacks.

The "negative churning" by no means comes only from one side of this conflict -- as your post demonstrates.

[DCBob]

142. I generally agree with that.. some of us may be too defensive of the administration..

and that certainly adds to the negative churning.

[EFerrari]

151. I was once told I had a deep personal hatred of the president

because I defended another poster's right to post a title, four paragraphs and link without comment. The other day someone told me that I couldn't "scream" that Obama was a "corporate whore" without expecting a response -- although I've never used that expression about the president. I reserve that for the media exclusively, anyway.

lol

Yes, some of you "may be" too defensive.

[Starry Messenger]

173. I've been told I'm the number one source of denigration of the President on the board.

Honestly, I mostly post about education and in social justice threads. I can't even remember the last time I posted about the President.

[EFerrari]

177. I had no idea you were #1!

LOL!

:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

181. I know, it was me all this time.

:D

I wish I could bask in all my outlaw glory, but really, I'm more of a school-marm!

[EFerrari]

182. Oh, but those are ALWAYS the ones!

:)

[Raineyb]

279. What would be the point of cheer-leading the administration all the time?

I don't know but that would be a question better asked in BOG wouldn't it? They have a forum where not a negative word can be cast nor can anyone dare suggest that perhaps approaching people as though the Democratic party was entitled to people's votes regardless of how it governed was not wise, which I found out the hard way because someone posted a link in either a GD or GDP thread and I made the mistake of not checking the forum heading before I replied. I got yelled at for daring to say something contrary to the group-think of that forum then the post was deleted.

I'm not interested in worshiping any politician and I'm not interested in putting the party first. I don't like the concept of the party being an entity which is entitled to my vote even when it completely ignores what I want and puts the too big to fail bank, pharmaceutical and health care withholding companies interests before the interest of me and people like me. If the party is not supporting that which I stand for why should I stand by it? If progressive ideals are supposed to be foremost the party loyalty line ought not be entrenched in rules. If the party comes first then the phrase underground is clearly not apt at all and these rules seem to put the party's interest first. I'm a registered Democrat out or expediency but its policies have been far too often put the interest of corporations ahead of actual humans and that needs to be pointed out and dealt with. I don't see how that can happen anymore. It used to say Democrats and other progressives it would appear that the other progressives aren't so welcome anymore.

[DCBob]

352. It was a rhetorical question and of course the answer is there is no point..

As far a the rest of your post.. if you really feel that disconnected from the Democratic party then maybe you shouldn't even be in the party. I doubt you will ever be happy there. In fact I doubt you will ever happy in this country.

[Raineyb]

540. THAT is exactly my problem. So now because I think that the government ought to

actually live up to its platform and put people first *I* should the party? No. If anyone should go it's the Republican light DLC corporatists who are pushing the party in the wrong direction.

And I see no reason why anyone should have to be happy with the corporate interest being put ahead of humans in order to be happy with this country. So live with corporatist policies or get out of the country? Really?

You are exactly what is wrong with things around here and in this country.

[William Z. Foster]

467. the thinking there

From what a few people have posted here, it seems that they think that there are two and only two choices for any sort of political advocacy or action - support and promote and vote for one party or the other. They see this as a prerequisite for anything positive to happen. Therefore, in their view anything and everything that could reflect negatively on the administration or Democrats could result in contributing to the Republicans being back in power, and then there will be no hope and all will be lost. That means that they see it as a requirement, a necessary evil, to put up with some pretty conservative political things from the party for a while or at least to some extent. They see losing to Republicans as a far bigger danger than any danger coming from going along with conservative politics and programs from the party. I think that many sincerely believe that.

[SidDithers]

312. Well said...

I think you've summed it up nicely.

Sid

[TexasObserver]

106. We don't often call ourselves "leftists."

[William Z. Foster]

139. heh

There are no safe words to use.

[apocalypsehow]

107. Act III, Scene II, Line 230. n/t.

[G_j]

109. some thoughts

If there was a political paradigm shift away from the two-party lock, would DU be part of the shift, or in opposition to it?

My preference has always been for opening up DU to all of the progressive left, including Greens etc. When you have well recognized thinkers, writers, activists on the left who recognize and address the undemocratic monopoly of the two party system, you risk your ability to be a true home for progressives if you aren't willing to expand beyond
that monopoly to attempt to find, or create a better way.

I'll add that unless real campaign finance reform takes place, the two party system will remain an obstacle to real progress. The system itself has come to represent corruption. Clean elections would change the face of everything! But for now, that appears impossible.

But, I plan to continue posting as always, and if that becomes a problem so be it.

[Swamp Rat]

117. Never give up, never surrender!

[G_j]

134. never

[Swamp Rat]

144. One of our greatest Founding Fathers.

[glitch]

270. Wow, beautiful! that's your best IMO. nt

[dana_b]

306. I am saving this pic

to my desktop - I hope you don't mind. :)

[G_j]

446. The sacred Black Hills

forever desecrated to make a symbol for the dominant culture.

[Hydra]

406. Well said, Swampy!

How's my fav pic poster?

[Swamp Rat]

451. hi

not well..... my anger and sadness has turned to rage. I don't think I can take it any more... this oil volcano is destroying us and nobody can or will stop it. I guess I'll go watch the Daily Show to take my mind off of wanting to beat the shit out of Tony Hayward.

[Hydra]

472. I feel you

It's kinda silly, when you think about it. The world is going to hell in a handbasket(and look at all the drivers!), and here we are discussing how we need to be more polite about discussing it.

[Common Sense Party]

116. Diplomatically? LOL. So, you're saying if you support Pres. Obama, you lean right.

Make sure to tell Glenn Beck that he's a leftist.

[Oregone]

124. Now where is the logic there?

No one said that if you oppose the President for being too liberal, you are a leftist. I'm not sure where you pulled that out of

On the other hand, I think that there is a fair argument that if you agree ideologically with the president, you lean right of center. Of course, it all depends on where you define "center".

This is interesting:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

[Common Sense Party]

130. Of course it depends on where you define center.

For DU, Center is Dennis Kucinich.

For much of the general population of the U.S., Center is Joe Lieberman or Olympia Snowe.

I really don't think most of America considers President Obama "right of center." Slightly left of it, more likely.

[Oregone]

131. The political spectrum should be defined by established political philosphy

Not where a gullible population stands from one day or a next, or by issues a party adopts for expediency

Hence, that is why I pointed you to Political Compass, which doesn't define their center based on where the US currently sits.

Take time to browse it a bit. They cover a lot of western countries


"I really don't think most of America considers President Obama "right of center." Slightly left of it, more likely."

I really don't care what most Americans think. They are no authority to turn to. To look at a relative measure really means nothing, unless you examine first what context that measurement sits within.

[G_j]

140. that is regressive

try applying that to political climate of some other countries in recent history, and see how well it works for democracy.

[Oregone]

150. I have no idea what you mean

Look, Im merely stating that "left" and "right" should mean something, even globally, rather than some relative term specific to each country in each slice of time (which waters the term down to meaningless).

[BzaDem]

159. I think it depends on how it is being used.

If "left" and "right" are being used in a discussion of pure political philosophy, then it makes sense to anchor them to some reasonably fixed meaning.

But that is not how I see it being used frequently. I see it being used as a way of promoting one's own preferred policies and political strategies (and advocating against others). In other words, one person says their policy (call it X) is "left" and then someone else comes along and says "no your policy is right-wing, the left-wing policy is Z and the real center is Y. This means the Democratic party should aim for Z, accept nothing less than Y, and certainly should not accept X.

When used in the above context, I don't think it makes much sense to consider labels such as "left" and "right" without also considering the political environment in the current time in the country in question. The time interval should certainly always be "this moment" or "this year," but perhaps "this decade" or "the last few decades" depending on the specific question.

[Oregone]

162. Sounds silly

"But that is not how I see it being used frequently. I see it being used as a way of promoting one's own preferred policies and political strategies (and advocating against others). In other words, one person says their policy (call it X) is "left" and then someone else comes along and says "no your policy is right-wing, the left-wing policy is Z and the real center is Y. This means the Democratic party should aim for Z, accept nothing less than Y, and certainly should not accept X."

Those people should be put in the stocks in the village square for harassing sheep herds.

The "right-wing" policy on an economics would be one that advocates a privately owned, profit driven market (capitalism), and the "left-wing" position would be that advocating worker or government ownership of the means of production (communism). It doesn't matter who says what in the meantime, or how many people believe what. It doesn't even matter what the Democratic Party chooses. The Democratic party doesn't define "left", and should be judged by a context that they themselves do not influence.

You are essentially saying "left" and "right" should mean whatever whoever yells the loudest wants them too, which aims to say it means nothing at all.

Who would advocate that defining terms are completely arbitrary? Its mind-boggling.

[BzaDem]

170. I believe the way you define the terms is the arbitrary definition.

I could just as easily come up with different definitions, and then say things like "It doesn't matter who says what in the meantime, or how many people believe what. I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong." Looking at the terms in a relative perspective at least provides a somewhat constant, objective definition (that has the added benefit of being useful in a conversation about the current political reality).

"Those people should be put in the stocks in the village square for harassing sheep herds."

Regardless of our opinion of these types of arguments, they are very common here.

Look at your post for example. You say that it is "right-wing" to favor a privately owned, profit-driven market (regardless of how much government intervention, regulation, safety net, etc.) You are literally saying that the economic policy of most industrialized countries is "right-wing." You are certainly calling most of the modern Democratic party in America "right-wing." If you say that a poster here holds "right-wing" views because they don't favor worker/government ownership of the means of production, it doesn't matter what your intentions are. Odds are that the poster is going to feel that you are insulting them by doing exactly what the people do that you want "put in stocks in the village square." They are going to feel that you are calling them a closet Republican, and that it would be readily apparent if the mask of anonymity disappeared.

People here don't interpret "right-wing" as a term in political philosophy. They interpret it as an insult. Even if you don't intend that (and ridicule them in your mind for thinking that), words aren't that useful if both parties to a conversation have widely different interpretations of them.

[William Z. Foster]

213. correct

People here interpret "right-wing" as an insult.

I think we are saying that we oppose "the economic policy of most industrialized countries." I do. No question. Thoroughly and absolutely. What difference does it make what we call that? I don't oppose it because it is right wing, and I don't call that policy right wing in order to score debate points. I don't care what we call the economic policy of the industrialized countries, I am 100% opposed to it.

Historically, the "right" meant the interests of the wealthy - the owners, the bosses, the landlords, the investors, the managers - the "left" meant the interests of the working class people. That is why we use the terms "right" and "left." If people want to call themselves "left" yet defend and promote the interests the owners, the bosses, the landlords, the investors, the managers I suppose they can, but then there is always going to be a certain amount of confusion as a result.

When someone says that opposition to "worker/government ownership of the means of production" is to the right politically, that is accurate, and they are not saying that someone is "a closet Republican." They are talking outside of the paradigm of partisan electoral politics altogether.

I do not see anyone saying "I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" from the left - but of course I am biased. However, I understand that it sounds that way to you. I think that may be because one side is looking at things first through a partisan political lens, the other side is looking at things through a social and economic lens, particularly applying class analysis to those problems. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive or antagonistic, and the degree to which they are we should be able to acknowledge and accept.

I would never demand that you see all politics as class struggle. The question is can you tolerate those of us who do? Can we strongly advocate from that point of view? If we are going to do that, we need to able to talk about the ways in which the upper class has infiltrated and corrupted both parties, and that is going to step on partisan toes. That may not be tolerable for some people here.

[BzaDem]

224. It is the mark of a healthy board that multiple points of views are expressed and debated.

I think many others here think similarly (on both sides).

I just think there's a difference between someone saying

"Democrats and Republicans are both too deferential to corporations and the rich, and therefore we should work to change the Democratic party"

and

"There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and therefore we should sit out the election or vote third party."

Stepping on partisan toes is not a problem, and it is needed on many issues. But in the end (unless the Constitution is changed to remove winner-take-all elections), election day in November is a partisan event, and there is literally no way to productively step on all partisan toes on that day.

Primaries can work to make change, grassroots movements can work to create primary challengers, and protests, organizing, and issue organizations can be used to sway politicans in power. And these are just a few ways of many to influence the Democratic party.

But the point of view that consists of third party advocacy works against all of these goals. This is (I presume) why this point of view (and really only this point of view) is not approved of by the administration of this message board (as indicated by the rules).

[William Z. Foster]

298. a few observations

I think it is extremely rare for anyone to say "there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and therefore we should sit out the election or vote third party," although people are frequently accused of saying that when they have not. But is your contention that this would be damaging to the Democratic party even true?

What we would be talking about here is people saying they are going to vote third party or sit out - we cannot actually know how they will vote. For decades I have heard people grumbling about the party, frustrated and angry, and saying that they were going to do one of those two things, but almost always when election day arrives they do in fact go out and vote Democratic. I don't ever see that grumbling lead to some sort of mass movement of people doing either of those two things, either, nor people getting discouraged as a result of that kind of talk. Quite to the contrary, people are already discouraged and frustrated and getting that out in the open creates more interest and discussion and that makes it more likely that people will vote and vote Democratic.

In the 30's, millions were talking about voting Socialist - far more than actually did eventually vote Socialist. The threat from the Socialists caused the Democratic party to move to the left, and that led to many who had been saying they were going to vote Socialist voting Democratic. None of that suppressed turnout, nor did it hurt the Democratic party. People talking Socialism most certainly did not help the Republicans - far from it.

It doesn't always work that way. In the 1850's people were frustrated and angry about the Whig party because of the failure of the party to take a strong stand on slavery and instead to attempt bi-partisan compromise and accommodation and advocate incremental change and emphasize partisan loyalty. That led to a new party appearing. At that point, the Whigs had a choice. They could try to suppress the talk of third party, try to blame and argue with the Abolitionists and continue on the right-leaning course of compromise and accommodation, or they could have moved to the left and taken a strong stand on slavery. They made the wrong choice.

[BzaDem]

403. I don't think it is productive to make a post that has to be disbelieved to be correctly interpreted

when the subject is third party advocacy (on a board whose rules unambiguously disallow such advocacy).

While I agree that some people will change their mind in the short term (and many will in the long term), I don't think it is unreasonable to take someone's post at face value. This is especially true on a subject that is not allowed here and brings back painful memories of a recent election and its consequences.

[William Z. Foster]

409. whoa

I have to register a strong objection here.

There is no "third party advocacy" in the OP. Nor is there any on this subthread. Yet you say that "the subject is third party advocacy." You raised that subject.

You raise the subject, then discuss it as though I had, and then mention that it is a rules violation. That is entrapment. That is exactly what creates the hostile environment here that the OP addresses.

[BzaDem]

424. Huh?

Most of your last post was discussing how it may not be that bad a thing if many say they will vote third-party (in part because they might change their mind later). That was what I was responding to.

You never personally advocated it, and I didn't accuse you of doing so.

Sure, there may be a difference between publicly stating one is going to vote third party (which again I am not saying you are doing), and actual advocacy for others to do the same. But I don't think the difference is that huge. The implication is usually clear.

Yes, your OP didn't bring this issue up, but your OP was about how certain points of views are discriminated against here (or the perception that this is such). All I am saying is that the only substantive point of view (as opposed to style) I have seen discriminated against is the point of view that it might be a good thing to vote third party (or a general point of view that the Democratic party is worth defeating). And that point of view is specifically discouraged in the rules.

My point was that (originally in response to your post 221) as far as other points of views are concerned, they are perfectly tolerated and welcomed (though of course not immune to argument).

[William Z. Foster]

439. no, my post was clear

In no way was I "advocating third party." You, and others who agree with you, are making "advocating third party" an issue, using it as a weapon against critics.

Critics are continually accused of "advocating third party" here, and you know that. They are also accused of hurting the party. You started this by associating critics with hurting the party and with "advocating third party," and with who is causing the trouble, and with who is and who is not welcome here, and with rules violations. That is a good example of the hostile atmosphere the OP is addressing - the connection being made between criticism and possible cause for banning. That is an attempt to intimidate those holding and expressing a certain set of views about this.

[BzaDem]

443. I guess we just have to disagree on this point.

I am not associating people who criticize the party with people who want to defeat the party or vote third party. I am simply saying that I have seen very few of the former banned or locked frequently.

You obviously disagree. I don't see how that disagreement is "intimidation," but whatever.

[William Z. Foster]

483. disagreement is fine

Of course there is disagreement. That was the point of the OP. I didn't call for further feuding about the disagreement, I called for acknowledging it and accepting it and I am asking where we go from here.

[William Z. Foster]

179. agreed

The labels get in the way of discussing policies and political strategies.

I asked that we not get hung up on debates about what various words "really" mean, etc., and who is or who is not a "real" this or that.

I don't think the question is what the Democratic party should aim for, but rather what we here should be advocating. If we are advocating and supporting what those in power are already doing, and if that is dependent upon where the public mind currently is, then there is of course no possibility for there to ever be any change.

In that case, we would be aiming for what already is, and representing those in power rather than having them represent us. If you wanted to make sure that there could never be any social or political change, that would be the exact strategy to achieve that goal.

[BzaDem]

155. "I really don't care what most Americans think. They are no authority to turn to."

They are indeed the authority for who gets elected in this country and what policies get enacted. So while you certainly can have a discussion without looking at the relative context, the discussion becomes quite academic.

I gather that many people post here not to discus pure political philosophy, but to discuss political issues in the context of the political reality. (There will certainly be disagreements over what that reality is, which I think is the underlying premise of what the OP is getting at, but most people try to post in the context of American political reality as they see it.)

[Oregone]

160. Two different matters

Discussing issues in specific contexts is completely different than labeling ideology & policy according to political constants

[William Z. Foster]

219. not quite

Politics is driven by small factions competing for the attention of the public. If we say that the general public is "indeed the authority for who gets elected in this country" and leave it at that, we have abrogated our responsibility to advocate strongly and compete for their attention, and that means that the most powerful few will control the political landscape and all outcomes, through the use of both parties.

Adjusting out political tactics and strategies to where the public thinking is currently is like driving a car looking in the rear view mirror. Public attitudes today are a product of what we were saying yesterday. Public attitudes tomorrow will be a product of what we are saying today.

"Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

[BzaDem]

225. I wasn't saying we should constrain our policy goals to what the public would support at any time.

After all, the HCR bill that passed was not supported by a numerical majority, and yet I still think it was worth passing (relative to the status quo).

I was simply saying that when discussing whether a policy is liberal or conservative or centrist, it is useful to use those terms in the current political context.

For example, if one says that in this country, single payer would be a right-wing or centrist healthcare system and only a British-style NHS system is a true left-of-center system, the terms "right," "center," and "left" lose all meaning when applied to contemporary political issues. (I'm not saying that anyone is saying this -- I'm just providing a hypothetical.) While some people certainly have very different definitions of left and right, I think that most people look at "left" and "right" and define them in terms of how people in America define them.

That doesn't mean one shouldn't advocate for a single payer system.

[Oregone]

257. "For example, if one says that in this country, single payer would be a..."

I couldn't disagree more.

Essentially, you are saying, this position is "in favor or the people and promotes social mobility" (if you label it left-wing), or "a policy that may impart neutral benefits to the public and private sector while perhaps mitigating current expenses and inefficiencies" (if you label it centrist), or "a policy that favors private industry at the expense of the people" (if you label it right-wing).

Even doing so, you can still talk about if this policy is better or worse than the status quo. Yes, thats right. You can say, this "right of center solution is still better than the current far right-wing system that benefits no one except the elite".

Now, why is this important? Well, there are only two parties in America, but there are a plethora of different viewpoints and philosophies. There is no way, that at any given time, any of these two parties can represent a position perceived of as "correct" by the many varying factions in America. Often, this system can actually poison the debate and obfuscate issues by hiding the various solutions out there (pointing to merely two solutions). If these varying factions--whose job is essentially to sell America and their chosen party on policy they perceive will benefit the country--have no objective scale to judge policy upon, they have no effective mechanism to influence the debate and promote their own views. They have no way to appeal to the people and tell them, that in the grand scheme of the matter, what the real "leftist" position is.

People are not all political science majors. Many out there do not understand there are alternatives besides the two parties, in terms of policy. If these terms merely reflect upon the parties' views, or the people at large, all those other solutions and policy generally do not have to be talked about, and there is no way to invoke them. But if you are to look at a Democrat with an objective scale, and say, "hey, actually, according to Liberalistic philosophy, this is actually a center-right position that the Democratic Party of the 40s would never have embraced...", it may open their mind to the possibility that there current views exist in a confined context and there are more ways to approach the situation; and some of those ways may in fact be more in line, historically, with the Democratic Party.

[BzaDem]

401. It is one thing to say that the Democratic party of the 40s would disagree

That is at least a objective statement (where disagreement with it is mainly a disagreement over history). It has objective truth and can be eye-opening.

It is another thing to say "therefore, it is a center right policy." Says who? On what scale?

Glenn Beck uses these labels as well. He basically claims the center is somewhere between Rand Paul and Ron Paul. (I am obviously not accusing you of being like Glenn Beck.)

My point is simply that without some scale or frame of reference, the terms are going to be misinterpreted. Even if you don't intend to mislead, saying something is "center-right" (and therefore a more left leaning policy should be supported, or saying that therefore the policy isn't so bad) is going to be interpreted in the context of the current political climate (absent a time reference).

In short, the labels are inherently relative and meaningless without some scale, and the scale most people use to interpret the labels is how they perceive the current political climate in the country in question. Using some other scale without specifying can be misleading even though you don't mean it to be.

[Oregone]

408. "My point is simply that without some scale or frame of reference, the terms are going to be.."

I agree. Therefore, Id prefer to have a universal, static scale, rather than a dynamic, relative scale that means nothing. Kill me.

[mkultra]

253. It is. by American political philosophy

As this board is about American politics.

[Oregone]

254. Oh, and should we consider historical labor movements and Democratic administrations like FDR?

Or do we just ignore those and pretend whatever the current Democratic party wants is "left"?

Even in America, there was communist movements, as were there Laissez-faire capitalist movements. Politics in America are not so unique and isolated that, in the grand historically scheme of things, America needs its own special definition of "left" or "right" that exists in a vacuum. Only if you are to forget the past and gage ideology by the current status quo, would things significantly change. And doing so makes these terms arbitrary, and debate quite un-constructive using those labels.

[mkultra]

256. All that matters is the current American political stage

That is what this board is here to discuss and that is how spectrum is defined. World wide political spread has no bearing on our political theater.

[Oregone]

258. So "left" is Democrats, "right" is Republican, and everyone else is with LaRouche?

Damn...thats constructive. It shows you now why the Democratic Party stands right of where the Nixon Administration was on a plethora of issues, yet no one cries foul. Because they simply have no context to judge political drifts, and therefore, no ability to act accordingly.

[mkultra]

261. i have no interest in positioning myself on the left just for the sake of being on the left

I am here because my political beliefs pin me there based on the currently applicable spectrum. I know the policies of the past and what effects they have. I also know that the democratic party has indeed been on the right side of the spectrum in our nations history. None of that impacts my personal political beliefs.

[Oregone]

264. Who does?

Those who have clear and define political philosophies that guide their actions & stances are not "on the left just for the sake of being on the left".

They actually understand what "left" and "right" mean.

[William Z. Foster]

175. but we are us

If for DU "Center is Dennis Kucinich" then that is where the center here is, and what other center matters?

We are us. If we have to reflect some other group, how will we ever have any influence, and how can we be us - how can we express ourselves?

If the rest of the country does not consider the administration's actions so far to be "right of center" then they are wrong, and it is our job to change their minds. We can't ever get them to follow us if we are following them.

[sabrina 1]

466. For most of the world, Dennis Kucinich is center. And

judging by polls on ISSUES, leaving out politicians or parties, Dennis Kucinich is center here in the U.S.

[BklnDem75]

712. On what planet is Dennis the center?

One can make the argument that Sanders leans more right than Kucinich.

[sabrina 1]

714. You're obviously not familiar with

European politics. The U.S. is far to the right of most modern democracies so someone like Kucinich whose views would be the norm elsewhere, is judged, as you have, to be 'far left' rather than 'just right about most issues'.

[William Z. Foster]

169. thanks for posting

No, I did not say that "if you support Pres. Obama, you lean right" nor anything that could be reasonably be interpreted as that.

I would say that people who defend right-leaning polices and programs - no matter what politicians are promoting them - either lean right and like those policies and programs, or else feel compelled to support those for the sake of party loyalty - which they sincerely hope will lead to progressive change.

Why throw an incendiary bomb into a thread where people are actually talking to each other finally, and trying to reach some common ground?

[Common Sense Party]

242. You're the one who used the incendiary term "lean right."

You own it.

[William Z. Foster]

299. such a minor point

Unfortunate that so much that is positive could collapse over something so minor and petty.

[Tailormyst]

243. Massive fail of logic

[Common Sense Party]

255. Yes, I agree. The OP is a failure of epic proportions.

Thanks for agreeing to the obvious.

[Tailormyst]

284. Awww, you think you are cute

But intentional false ignorance is not cute, it's obnoxious. Off to ignore you go with the rest of the children who believe politics is a game.

[Common Sense Party]

293. Translation: "I don't have the mental capacity to listen to anyone who

disagrees with me."

THAT'S childish.

[salguine]

460. You've convinced me. I'm putting him on Ignore, too.

[Mithreal]

141. If leftists roll over every time Reagan Dems push us around...

I liked your post, much is well said, but I also feel a little sad that you didn't post what you wanted because you were held back by rules.

Let the mods do the interpreting is what I am saying. If people find it offensive they can alert, but someone of your thoughtfulness and seemingly generous demeanor shouldn't have to feel this way.

Other will fight for their community even if some choose not. It's always been that way.

I also believe it is best for each person to choose his or her own battles.

So, thumbs up, like nearly all you said and there are alternatives that would welcome you with open arms if this op post is any indication of the kind of person you are.

Best wishes.

[JTFrog]

234. Open arms?

He's already been banned by one of your alternatives.

Just saying....

:shrug:

[Mithreal]

316. Do you have nothing better to do?

[JTFrog]

323. That's none of your business now is it? n/t

[Mithreal]

344. You reap what you sow.

[JTFrog]

351. One good turn deserves another. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

148. Well, I think you know from my posts, I'm pretty left

and so far, I haven't felt unwelcomed on DU. Yet.

FWIW, my advice (which I WILL take myself) is to keep doing what your doing and let the proverbial chips fall. One thing to remember about the Right, is that they ALWAYS take anything with even a HINT of ambiguity as an ENDORSEMENT of THEIR position. And this includes Conservadems. I think that it's because they can't IMAGINE anybody in their right minds could think any different than they do themselves.

You ESPECIALLY William, should continue to post. You argue your positions with logic AND passion, but without personal rancor. Who knows? Maybe Skinner and Skip are right and they actually DO see who engages in more personal attacks and less true dialog. It ain't us. Just like the Right can't ever believe they're wrong, sometimes the left is awfully paranoid about ANY authority. Sometimes we see what's not there when we look at ANY authority.

[William Z. Foster]

171. thanks socialist_n_TN

Many have left - not sure how or why - in a very short time, and they are leftists. There is a contingent here unhappy with left wing posters. I don't know therefore that left wingers are not welcome, but it is impossible to deny the evidence that this may be the case. I think a person can "be" a left winger with no problems, and have left wing beliefs. It is discussing issues from a class analysis perspective, approaching issues from a left wing perspective, making social commentary and criticism of the bourgeoisie (be they liberal or conservative) and advocating left wing programs that runs into problems. We talked about the difference between those two on another thread, and I hope we can continue that conversation in the future.

[socialist_n_TN]

267. Oh, I agree that many have left...............

I just think that the leaving MIGHT have been premature for some of them. As I said in my reply, the Left (and I'm not going to bullshit about the labels. I use the Left in the TRADITIONAL, old school sense) has a problem with authority. Hell, I have a problem with authority. But maybe because of my age, I've learned to "co-exist" WITH authority, at least until authority oversteps it's bounds. And of course, the overstepping IS a matter of opinion. MY opinion. :) If they overstep, I'm either kicked out or I leave. My ego won't be tied up into the leaving. We'll just have to see how it all shakes out.

You and I have combined in a LOT of discussions over the last couple of months and I'm going to continue and hope you will too for as long as we can. Class analysis IS the way that I see politics. I don't even SEE it as a Democrat/Republican thing. The Dems have been, since the 30s the party that hews closer to MY class in the struggle, but when they don't, I'll talk about it.

And I don't think talking about when the Democratic Party isn't living up to it's OWN ideals is the same as advocating a third party and ESPECIALLY not the same as voting for Sarah Palin.

[pinto]

149. The rules haven't changed, basically. All is pretty much as it has always been. What is

different is Administration's attempts, with moderator and membership support, to make them more clear, coherent and consistent given the new political landscape.

The opening mission statements for DU remain -

This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.

For myself, I can say we moderators take our role very seriously and work hard to maintain a forum for political discussion among liberals across the political spectrum. We value every member's contributions. Nothing we do in our role as moderators is taken without consensus among the group or Administrative support. Due diligence is a code of conduct we are expected and committed to maintain. ~ pinto

[William Z. Foster]

211. the job of mods is difficult

If the membership is "dead weight" it is very difficult to mod. We should try working out some of the differences between the members so the mods and admins aren't doing all of the work.

I think there is no question that the site works to maintain a forum for political discussion among liberals across the political spectrum. At issue here is whether or not leftists, those of us who do not consider ourselves to be liberals - whatever you want to call us: far left, purists, fringe, communists, socialists, so long as we all know whom we are talking about for the purposes of this discussion - are welcome and free to post, or if we are going to be seen as an irritant and a disruption and therefore undesirable.

[truedelphi]

694. It is easier to not be seen as an irritant once

A person learns simply to avoid certain people's topics.

And to join in on topics lead by someone whose feathers match your own.

I also think that since the site is still called "underground" and not "democratic-centrist" so that does suggest that we lefties may continue to congregate, as well as the Cheerleading types.

[JeffR]

158. self-delete

because there's no point

[BzaDem]

165. It really depends on exactly how you define "the split."

If the split involves people who want to work for change within the Democratic party vs. people who think the Democratic party is part of the problem in general and should be opposed in general elections, I think the rules are pretty clear that this is a Democratic message board and that third-party advocacy is against the rules. This has been the case for a long time and shouldn't be that surprising.

But if you define the split as simply different directions people want the Democratic party to take, I see no reason why both sides can't co-exist on a single message board. The rules clearly don't discriminate against different viewpoints as written (up to the point of "Obama = Bush" and third party advocacy). I also don't think the rules are being applied to discriminate against content. Many of the people I have seen who have left tend to be leaning much towards third-party advocacy than change within the party. (Though I admit I have only seen a small sample.)

[EFerrari]

188. I posted this in Skinner's thread and the more I think about it

the truer it seems to me. Imho, we're looking at a split here at DU between people who organize mostly around principles/ideas/goals and people who organize mostly around individuals/personalities/politicians

And, both M.Os are needed in any political project. It's really a matter of recognizing that everyone isn't you (the generic "you") and that their way of approaching a challenge may not be yours but that doesn't mean it's less valuable.

[William Z. Foster]

202. very good

I think you are getting to the heart of the matter, and expressing it in a way that makes it possible to find common ground.

[treestar]

172. Quit playing the victim

Really? You've taken over GD and GDP. People who support the Democratic President are the ones "hiding in the BOG." And have to put up with insults, like "cheerleader" and "DLC" and "corporatists."

sheesh, and you are asked to be civil about it and that's too much to ask of you.

And you can always use other bandwidth to trash the Democrats.

Good heavens.

[TheKentuckian]

212. I wouldn't complain much seeing as you have taken over party leadership

and dictate policy, seems like a small cost to me.

I'd rather control the strings. You also don't even have to hide out or wouldn't if some of you guys could actually make any points or rebuttals or at minimum had the ability to take it commiserate with your ability to dish it.

Convictions worthy of holding stand up to scrutiny and doubt.

Today you celebrate tomorrow you come out of your hole and find your "pragmatic" positions just as bullshit as they were yesterday, today, and forever but now with deconstructing haymakers rather than jabs.

This isn't about tenor of the debate but the content. No matter how thoughtfully or politely criticism is raised or how policy driven the discussion is the response is reactionary anger, trivializing, mocking, and offhand dismissals to defend against the risk of internalizing or even being made aware of dissent and there is a substantial emotional push back and often a spirit of viciousness in order to preserve the bubble.

The buzzing in the head, the doubt, the need to just do something to not think about it, the serenity prayers and similar devices all to avoid the conflict. Not the external strife but the whispers from deep inside, that conflict. The swallowing all the time and centering of one's self, the hunting for a context broad enough to hide the quiet but insistent small little voice inside.

Do you really believe that the small, still, quiet little but insistent voice is ever going away? Even if you silence every critic and purify and filter all sources of information the dissonance must be dealt with.

[Tailormyst]

244. Now who is playing the victim?

Pathetic and a perfect example of what the ignore function is for.

[fishwax]

296. but there you go playing the victim

Fact is, there are jerks and there are people slinging insults on every side of DU's family feud. Fortunately, there are also people who seem genuinely interested in discussion on each side as well.

[NanceGreggs]

183. "This has created an intolerable situation ...

... for those of us on the left."

There are many of us here who are "on the left" - probably more so than you. But you want so desperately to believe that a line must be drawn in the sand, and that you are on the righteous side of that line - to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees not only with your ideology, but your judgment of who fits where in your narrow little view of the world.

"Is there anything more to gain by continuing the feud here?"

No, there isn't. But you persist in feeding that feud nonetheless, your purpose being - well, whatever it is.

[EFerrari]

184. Your response is combative, the OP was not. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

187. Combative?

No, not at all. Truly a rallying cry to bring all warring factions together, and promote unity and understanding.

I don't know how I missed that.

[EFerrari]

189. Maybe you should read it again. It happens.

[NanceGreggs]

191. All kinds of things happen ...

... and being told who is on the left, the left-left, the very left and the ultimate lefty-left-left is not up to this OP.

Besides, it would seem that Moses should have a Promised Land to lead the sheep to - before sounding the call to depart.

Or not, as the case warrants.

[EFerrari]

193. Right. The OP didn't define the left and didn't call for an exodus.

You're reading too literally. Or not.

[William Z. Foster]

196. agreed

It is not up to me, nor is that the point of my post. I specifically asked that we not get into a "who is the real left" debate. I think that for the most part, the thread has been remarkably free of that tedious debate.

I am not "sounding the call to depart." I asked the question that was already on the minds of many and have listened to everyone who posted. I think the possibility for a rapprochement has been increased, and that pretending there was no problem - or merely vitriolically blaming the other side - was getting us nowhere.

[NanceGreggs]

205. Okay, let me get this straight ...

You "specifically asked that we not get into a 'who is the real left' debate" by stating: "This has created an intolerable situation for those of us on the left."

Nice try - no cigar.

[William Z. Foster]

214. you can certainly pick at that scab

You may be able to get it to bleed and ooze again. But that would be a shame. Fortunately most people have been generous and accommodating, and appreciate the difficulties with the words "left" and "right" and with trying to describe the two factions in a way that does not re-open the wounds or anger people. I did the best I could, and have acknowledged that I could probably have done a better job of it. Others here have picked up the slack. Scarlet Woman, KonaKane, EFerrari and Skinner in particular have described the split better than I did.

[Tailormyst]

245. Sometimes the world is a better place....

when you use the ignore function

[Individualist]

275. Ignore is good. Also good is Autumn's mother's advice...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8608296&mesg_id=8608862

[Tailormyst]

282. Love it !!

[SidDithers]

313. +1...nt

Sid

[William Z. Foster]

201. you might notice...

I asked those disaffected to weigh in, and they have, and sentiment is running about 10-1 for "stay." You don't see me arguing with any of them, do you? Or promoting leaving?

[NanceGreggs]

208. Do as you will ...

... or won't, as strikes your fancy.

Your words are your words - there for all to assess.

[William Z. Foster]

215. I appreciate that

I appreciate you reading the thread and commenting. As you say, it is up to the membership to assess this.

[William Z. Foster]

192. thanks for your thoughts

I asked respectfully that we not debate the true meaning of "left" and that we not re-open the feud. People are talking to each other in ways that they have not in a long while. Skinner has posted and clarified what he sees and that is very helpful, I think. There was a certain amount of confusion, and many people have worked hard tonight to help overcome that for the benefit of all of us.

I have done my best to not feed the feud, and to listen to and try to understand what the people I disagree with are saying. I may have failed in that to one degree or another, but that was my intention.

You say "your purpose being - well, whatever it is" which I think gets into an important area - the suspicions and innuendos and insinuations that poison the well here. One side suspects that there are those pushing the party and the discussion to the right under the guise of party loyalty, the other side suspects that there are those undermining the party under the guise of expressing left wing politics. I now think, especially after reading the many thoughtful posts on this thread, that neither suspicion is true for 90% of the people here.

Suspicion, innuendo and insinuation only leads to more of the same.

[EFerrari]

195. William, would you look at my #196 and tell me what you think?

I only have another 20 good minutes or so. :)

Edit post number. Make that 10 minutes!

[William Z. Foster]

198. that is another poster, no?

Isn't #129 another poster? (Might be my eyes LOL)

I have another 20 minutes. I did not expect this thread to go so well - credit to everyone - and am up way past bedtime.

[EFerrari]

199. Sorry, 196. Looks like my 20 minutes are nearly gone!

[William Z. Foster]

204. got it

I think that is very good. We will have to talk about it more tomorrow. You are onto something there.

[EFerrari]

210. Have a good night. n/t

[unapatriciated]

563. neither suspicion is true for 90% of the people here.

+1

[JTFrog]

231. For what it's worth, I agree with you Nance.

The passive aggressive tone of the OP is just over the top. From the labeling/name calling right down to the holier than thou leftist line in the sand.

And yet, I haven't seen any real explanation of substantive criticism that is supposedly being silenced. I really think the major problem with this board since the primaries revolves around the word "substantive". I don't think anyone who regularly engages in civil discourse is going to be bothered by any of DU's rules.

Thanks for always telling it like it is. You have an awesome way with words and I have been appalled at the coordinated attacks on you here lately.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

277. There's nothing passive aggressive about the OP.

Passive aggressive would be like you standing in someone else's thread and criticizing them to a third person.

LOL

[JTFrog]

280. Lol indeed. n/t

[Radical Activist]

498. Bingo n/t

[earth mom]

185. Nice post, but the writing is on the wall.

If you or I or the rest of us lefties don't fall in line and get with the program we are out of here-not by choice.

[William Z. Foster]

197. maybe

That could be.

[salguine]

463. I agree. I've felt more and more unwelcome here lately.

[rucky]

200. Think of it as a marriage where both partners expect the other one to change.

They can either agree to accept each other, bicker forever, or file for divorce.

[EFerrari]

203. Or knowing your strengths. DU is great at problem solving

and we suck at fighting.

lol

[William Z. Foster]

207. right

I think the growing crisis in the country precludes the "bicker forever" option.

[Hannah Bell]

206. I think there are some things to be gained, at least in the short term:

- i seem to remember obama asking people to hold his feet to the fire or something like that. so i think criticism which does so isn't disloyal or unamerican or undemocratic or any of the things some folks here sometimes seem to think it is.

- This site is reportedly a "go-to" site for a sense of what's going on with dem supporters. that includes media. So i don't wish to see the left wing of opinion vanish here.

- I think this site ranks pretty high on google indexing or whatever you call it -- people looking for information on specific issues are more likely to hit it than a lot of other places. so i wouldn't like to see the left wing of information vanish here either.

[William Z. Foster]

209. thanks Hannah

Good thoughts, as always.

[BzaDem]

227. "so i think criticism which does so isn't disloyal or unamerican or undemocratic"

I agree, and I think one would be hard pressed to find posters that think criticism of politicans is disloyal or unamerican or undemocratic.

There is a difference between criticism and third party advocacy, and I doubt very many (if any people) have any problem with criticism. I would hope that most here welcome criticism.

[Hannah Bell]

291. some have a problem with it & make it quite obvious. with their talk of ponies, for example.

[Bluebear]

336. I was just called "Ponyboy" only this week. Nothing has changed.

[BzaDem]

382. So what?

I would gather that someone who talks about ponies believes some point of view is idealistic and unrealistic. How is that a problem? No one is trying to force anyone out. Just because they disagree with what you are saying, and therefore criticize you, doesn't mean they have a "problem with criticism." It is possible (and common) to disagree and criticize without having a "problem with criticism."

[Hannah Bell]

412. I would say the snark is uncivil, & contributes nothing to discussion. If people think

someone's view is idealistic or unrealistic, better to say so civilly & explain why than: "oooooh, someone didn't get their pony!" complete with the rolly-eye icon or the rofl icon.

It's bullying, it's baiting, it's childish, & it's profoundly -- stupid.

And some people are still doing it, even on these "new rules" threads. Apparently they have a free pass.

[BzaDem]

It is usually not presented as a personal attack.

It is usually an attack on the idea. It may be a particularly caustic and biting attack on the idea, but it is still an attack on the idea (equating the likelihood or realism of idea X with the likelihood/realism of "everyone getting a pony"). I don't think phrases should be banned just because they are silly.

[Hannah Bell]

493. saying that someone didn't get their pony, & all the variants thereon, is indeed personal attack.

the aim is to denigrate the poster. the ideas are not even addressed.

the attack on the person is what all such snark has in common.

please don't bother trying to spin it; i've seen it repeatedly, directed not just at myself, but at many others. including in these latest threads on the new rules. don't even bother trying to spin it; the spin is ludicrous.

[Mimosa]

575. Hannah, I like how you talk... *wink*

Channeling Slingblade today, just so I won't feel sad.

[bobbolink]

713. Denigrating, and humilating, with the goal of intimidation.

Power and control.

[Individualist]

447. They absolutely have a free pass.

The rules are only applied to leftists/progressives.

[Yuugal]

673. +7

[leftstreet]

494. +1

It's very much a 'go-to' site for many of us

[cali]

216. you keep saying you don't care when it's clear that the situation

is troubling you quite a bit. You also assume that everyone sees the situation through the same prism as you do.

Whether or not you leave is up to you, but don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone here sees the situation with the board rules as you do. And don't kid yourself that you don't care.

[William Z. Foster]

220. hi cali

I probably should have said that I care more about clarity than I do a particular outcome. The post is really not about me, nor about leaving.

I have acknowledged repeatedly that not everyone here sees the situation with the board rules as I do. That is the point of the thread.

[cali]

221. yes, you've acknowledged that not everyone sees the board rule changes

as you do, but that wasn't what I was referring to. And from your op, I garnered that you care quite a bit about more than clarity.

In any case, I hope you can work it out for yourself.

[William Z. Foster]

223. no worries

Really. It is not worth fighting over. And it is not about me, and I was not asking for any advice.

I care a lot about what is happening, yes.

[Are_grits_groceries]

218. I didn't think I had a breaking point, but I did.

I guess you can sum it up in 2 words, "burning turtles." That does NOT mean I believe that outcome is anything that anyone supports.

I can be as wrong-headed and too emotional about a lot of things.

When it came to the oil spill, it was too much. I was specifically addressing the clean up. I would look 'facts' up in a number of places. I tried to find my own independent verification.

I was approaching this as a scientist as much or more than a political entity. That seemed to be the best way to try to limit the emotional facet even though that played a part. When I considered things from that point of view, it helped me understand the practical problems more, and quite frankly, some of the responses even less.

It always seemed to boil down to, "Whose side are you on?" I believe that people want the best outcome for the Gulf and the people who live there. It was when I took another view of how that outcome should be reached that I was denigrated and called names.

Did I take my toys and cry and go home? No. I took my sanity and left. This issue has affected me to the bone and to the pieces of my heart. I believe it is also a culmination of other issues too. Memorial Day and its current significance for families was probably a part of it too. Too much lost over and over now.

Wait....there needs to be more time....the fault lies there.....

For some things the wait is over. They are gone, and soon to be followed by many more. It is going to happen. Only the who, where, and when are left to be decided exactly. When some events occur or are set in motion, there is no wait. Wait can be the same as gone in some cases.

I am not quitting the fight. I'm quitting the fight here. If I want to be denigrated for my views, I'll call my family. They have done it well enough for years.

I don't claim to be the only one who has fought or continues to on issues from a lot of points of view. Everybody is unique in their own way.

I watched one video and for some reason, that did it. It was my tipping point. I was tipping head long into a major problem. I realized how far I had gone then. Coming here offered some comfort, but it also offered too much utter disregard. I know myself, and I realized I was offering some of the same to others.

I don't really have one label. Depending on who is talking, I am given one on their terms.

I am ME for what that is worth. Every issue stands on its own merits. I will fight for what I believe no matter who is opposing me. That doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and that I won't try to push forward with some pragmatism at the end because of the whole picture. I believe it is the whole picture that each of us sees that crystallizes what we do.

I can sleep now and have some energy to fight. I never realized it until I quit posting here and just dropping in. It isn't the sleep of the innocent. It is the sleep of the so very guilty, but it is possible because I have more energy to fight issues here and now with the powers that shouldn't be.

That doesn't mean I think everybody here is wasting their time or energy. Each of us is different because of our experiences. If people find being here as a positive, I recognize that and I am glad it helps.

I can't spend my time here ultimately arguing about "burning turtles." In the end it seems that people do argue when there are very real consequences that become lost. Once again, that is my view.

It really isn't about me, President Obama, BOG, leftists, labels, or other issues. It is at the core about "burning turtles." That is MY view. That is the side I see that needs to be addressed now and in many ways. Some things won't wait.

My Mama used to say to me, "I am wounded, but not slain. I'll lay me down and bleed a while and rise to fight again." I am rising agin, but in another place. I would be slain otherwise.....so very close.

This post will probably be picked apart. Have at it.

I wish all of you the best. No sarcasm at all. I hope you find what you need to somehow. I have to use my energy to build a better place the way I can live with. We all do.

Shalom...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jPjJPVdR4g

[William Z. Foster]

222. beautiful post, thanks

I have reached a breaking point, as well. What is next, I don't know. But is will be different than what we have been doing. Everything will be different.

[Mimosa]

273. Are Grits Groceries, you're one of the BEST!

Don't go. If people like you go, I'll go too. :(

[glitch]

276. I hope you don't go. I've been here a long time and have seen a lot of great posters be turned away

Please, please don't let them bait you into leaving.

edit: a happy DUer has a healthy ignore list.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

283. I am right there with you.

The "breaking point" for me was the day O overturned the ban on offshore drilling. That was the final knife in the back for me. On that day I evolved from party politics to issue politics. I have never felt more clear politically and personally.

All the best to you on your political journey. :hi:

[coti]

725. "I have never felt more clear politically and personally."

It is a rather liberating feeling, isn't it?

That clarity. It's something.

[Starry Messenger]

310. Grits.

:hug:

[Bluebear]

317. Love and strength to you. As Molly Ivins said, keep fighting for freedom.

[Warren Stupidity]

226. I'll keep posting here from the left until they kick me out.

I'll do so within the rules until the rules make that impossible. It really is not within my capacity to 'just let go and move on'.

[cali]

229. The odds of you getting booted from DU, seem to me, very

small indeed. And if that happened, it would most assuredly be DU's loss.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

230. Contunuum, not split - there is no gap in the middle. N.T.

[xchrom]

233. i rec'd this and the count stayed the same -- but thanks for

one of the most interesting OPz i've read in a long time.
'
i can't help but read this thread -- and skinners changes and his comments here and not think about so many
lgbtiq folk who are now long gone.

the split you describe has always existed here -- but it took booting the gop out to really see it.

i'm grateful that skinner added to the thread here.

thanks

[William Z. Foster]

300. sad

The people unreccing are saying in effect that no accommodation or resolution is possible.

[Tailormyst]

235. It's still a good place to find the current news of the day

Even if your views are no longer acceptable here. I think you ask valid questions but I have little hope that this won't get locked because it is questioning the admins and that is against the rules of the board. Edit: Actually, I was wrong. it's not locked and the admins joined in the discussion, which I think is a positive step.

My suggestion: Read here and if you feel you can't post, find a separate board to post on that is more in line with your views.

[SidDithers]

238. Meh...

Stay or leave. Win or lose.

DU will endure with or without you and your "faction".

Sid

[salguine]

464. Wow. Ignore list for you!

[JTFrog]

541. And a cookie for you! n/t

[Jennicut]

240. Us vs them again.

If people stop playing victim games and just get on with discussing the issues then they will find DU useful.
I see plenty of legitimate criticism of the President that does not look delete-worthy or ban-worthy. Most of DU is this way. However, when you start trying to define who is or isn't in our exclusive clubs it becomes ridiculous.
I had some good conversations with people that were banned but I took the time to discuss things, actually discuss without the usual crap of personal attacks. I don't see what is so hard about that. Why waste time feuding anyway? I don't reply to the people I know won't really discuss things and I try not to start flameworthy threads (actually I hardly ever start an OP to begin with).

[NeedleCast]

248. The drama over who's "left" continues...

[William Z. Foster]

302. yes

I put a lot of thought into that and did my best to prevent it. I think that for the most part we did avoid it, but some have introduced it despite my request that they not do that.

[KonaKane]

308. Sure gets tiresome.

I'm still trying to find this mysterious board of Leftist Elders who determine who is and who isn't a leftist, so I can submit my paperwork.

[William Z. Foster]

360. why repeat that misrepresentation?

I have really made an effort to understand your point of view on this, KonaKane, and to fairly represent it.

I have said repeatedly that this is not about litmus tests, and have explained the difficulties involved in preventing a debate about litmus tests.

You are repeating something that you must know is false, and that you know unfairly discredits those with whom you disagree. Why would you do that?

[KonaKane]

362. Simply supporting the views of the previous poster.

And I don't think I know what what you mean when you say "repeating that misrepresentation".

[branders seine]

250. If ever the name 'Democratic Underground' was appropriate,

oops! I have to censor myself.

[glitch]

262. This is one of the best, most reasoning discussions I've seen, not just on DU but elsewhere too.

K & R

[Greyhound]

285. Mission Accomplished

Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes."

[mdmc]

290. I keep my criticism to a minimum here

I will post about the sad state of the GOP, but there is no use in recognizing the sad state of our party. I go to pi.com if I want to discuss corporatism et al.

[alarimer]

292. I no longer support candidates simply because they have a D after their names.

And I think all progressives need to stop holding our noses and voting for people who are little different from Republicans. Ultimately I think the goal should be to either change the Democratic Party from within, by supporting progressive primary challengers where we can or going elsewhere.

I put principles above party and any particular politician.

[mmonk]

297. I do not feel threatened or muzzled in any way.

I think the main thing is to have meaningful discussion without acrimony or accusation.

[TBF]

301. Absolutely, it is clear that folks with leftist views are not welcome -

and that is fine. The folks who own the website can set whatever rules they want. From what I can see the rule changes only more strictly enforce rules that were here to begin with, and that is fine if that is the approach they want to take.

It's kind of amusing that I worked on the campaign and gave donations (both here & to Obama directly) and now my views are most decidedly not welcome, but that's the way it goes. The one thing I've always admired about Skinner is that he's straight-forward, and I'd rather have that than people who play games. It's better to know where you stand.

[KonaKane]

307. That's not true at all.

I havent seen a single one of us here on the left who are not welcome at DU. When you start to assume that your take on leftism is the only "real" one and that if you feel unwelcome here its because leftist thought (in your view) is not welcome, you have made a invalid connection.

[EFerrari]

314. People are looking at the recent bannings and drawing an inference.

Since they seem to be all on one side of this conflict, it's unclear how that inference could be wrong. No matter how glibly you invalidate the viewpoint, there is a basis for the inference.

[KonaKane]

320. An erroneous inference.

Based on two things:

* Leftists continuing to post here, unobstructed.

* The most recently banned had more in common with their acidic, anti-social behavior than their expressed leftism.

[JTFrog]

324. Exactly. n/t

[EFerrari]

328. I didn't claim the inference was correct. I said there was a basis for it.

And speaking of acidic, anti-social behavior, there is plenty of that still free floating around here, including attempts to disrupt this very thread which was set out as an exercise in problem solving.

[KonaKane]

329. Very flimsey basis. Which I believe has little merit.

In fact, it sounds like it is derived more from personal disaffection than a broadbased ideological attack.

[EFerrari]

330. And that is your personal disaffection, not an analysis of the facts at all. n/t

[KonaKane]

335. Not mine at all. I was referring to some claiming DU is leftist unfriendly,

[William Z. Foster]

395. not true

One side in this feud has vastly more freedom to make attacks with impunity, and the evidence for that is accumulating as the day goes on today right here.

Seeing something as "acidic, anti-social behavior" depends upon which of the two factions a person is in.

[KonaKane]

435. I disagree.

I've seen the contemptible behavior from all sides - my allies and those far from my views. I don't like it in any case and it doesn't serve us as a greater group at all.

[William Z. Foster]

484. understood

The two sides see this differently.

[TBF]

340. The only way to respond to this remark is to say

"define left" - and I can't answer that question on here without getting banned. So you win. The OP's point is proven by your gallant response.

[KonaKane]

346. We all have our idea of what is "Left". And thats the beauty of it.

From that diversity we get views and insights that may not be apparent to us otherwise, and we can also see where our commonalities lie. I don't see a downside to that.

[William Z. Foster]

364. that is the nightmare of it

That may be the beauty of it for you, but it is a nightmare for many of us. If all are free to call it whatever they like, then we should not wonder how it can be that policies and programs that were once coming from the Republican party are now coming from the Democratic party.

But in any case this discussion is not about who is and who isn't left, is it? Portraying it that way is a way for you to use this thread to advance your side in the feud here and get some digs in on people. Every time you do that, you are supporting my OP, you are saying that it is true that there is no place here for those who disagree with you.

[KonaKane]

366. Excuse me? Holding an independent view is a nightmare?

I certainly hope you just misspoke.

[William Z. Foster]

367. I don't think you are being sincere

You seem determined to pick a fight.

[KonaKane]

369. I'm being very sincere. Without a diverse take on Leftism, we would have dogma.

And I know that nobody here would want that.

Just to repeat, the fact that we have a wealth of views on Leftism here is to our credit, not our detriment. I am entirely sincere about that view and fail to see how it is a problem.

[William Z. Foster]

419. we disagree

We disagree, and the two positions we are taking reflect the split here. As I have said many times, the purpose of this thread was not to argue about which faction is right but rather to discuss what we could do about the split.

Both sides on the issues in play cannot both be called "left" if the word is to have any meaning. Both sides of the privatization issue, for example, are not "left." Even if you insist on calling them both "left," still there are two positions on that issue and factions on each side of it.

[KonaKane]

425. I can respect that. But please, can we dispense with the strawmen.

You are bringing up this privatization issue, and I have never said a word about it especially in relation to leftism. Let's keep the discussion about what's really being said.

If you want a good example of what I'm talking about and you wish to address privatization, let me give it a shot. Two Leftists can honestly and cogently disagree on privatization, if one is four square against it and another has some concerns in regards to specific circumstances. That shade of their disagreement does not suddenly relegate one to the bin marked "Not a Leftist".

[William Z. Foster]

474. it was an example

As far as I see this, here are the two positions on various issues:

Privatization: There are those of us who oppose it completely and unambiguously at all times and in all circumstances, and there are those who have concerns about it in specific circumstances.

Regressive taxation: There are those of us who oppose it completely and unambiguously at all times and in all circumstances, and there are those who think it is OK depending upon the situation.

Unions: There are those of us who support the Union, and there are those who sometimes do and who think they have value, but who have problems with the "way they are run" or "how they do things" and such.

Public education: There are those of us who support it and support teachers, and there are those who think we need to look at various privatization scheme and consider them on their "merits" and talk about what might be wrong with the teachers' Union.

GLBTQ Equality: There are those of us who support that at all times and in all ways., and there are those who "support your cause BUT" say now is not the time, or we need to be patient, or we are going about it the wrong way.

Poor people and homeless people: There are those of us who think it is the right of all people to have food and shelter without qualification and that we have a social obligation to make that happen, and there are those who do not.

The Gulf: There are those of us who think that the Gulf belongs to all of us, not to BP, and that we have an obligation to bring the full authority and power and resources of the federal government to bear and to take complete and absolute control over the response to this unspeakable catastrophe, and there are those who do not.

Civil Rights: There are those of us who think that torture, detention, violation of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus must and can come to a complete and immediate end, and there are those who think we are "getting there" or "moving in the right direction" or "doing better than Bush."

War: There are those of us who are opposed to illegal imperialistic wars and think that they can and should be brought to an immediate end, and there are those who do not.

Those are a few of many similar examples.

Rigid? Yep. Uncompromising? Yep. All or nothing? Yep. For us or against us? Yep.

Absolutely.

[KonaKane]

564. You selected very broad issues, and that makes my point.

For instance, unions. There can certainly be a variance of views among Leftists as to how one union behaves as opposed to another, but no Leftist in good faith is going to oppose the idea of unions in general. I would not call someone who rejects unionism in principle, a Leftist.

But I would guess there are those in the Left who think that others who do not agree with those shades of view in the penumbra of ideological agreement, aren't Leftists anymore - and that's just silly.

[unapatriciated]

570. unfortunately to many feel we need to compromise in order to move forward

as a result we continue going in circles.

[KonaKane]

573. Compromise is a part of politics.

In fact its often defined as the art of the compromise. That is not always a bad thing. I have my own notion of how the world would be "if I were King" but thankfully, I will never be King. Instead, I do my part to influence the process so that it hopefully sustains and maintains my deepest values. Thats the best that any of us can hope for, or do.

This idea that we don't compromise, that its "my way or the highway", is totally unrealistic and counterproductive.

[William Z. Foster]

581. yes

But compromise is not a part of advocacy. We are not politicians, we are advocates.

[KonaKane]

587. Advocates who are happy to sit in their coffee clutches and never affect political change?

That, sir, is an advocacy no one needs.

[unapatriciated]

596. Why do you assume that we "sit in their coffee clutches" to advocate for political change?

I have been fighting for health care reform since 1991 and I assure you I did not have time to hold a "coffee clutch".
My involvement was due to my own shoes getting tight (as my mother would say), when my son was diagnosed with dermatomyositis.
That is a very dismissive comment.

What do you suggest we do?
We have protested
Written letters
Signed petitions
campaigned and voted D
and still we are at war
the working poor and the disabled have little access to health care
too many are out of work, their homes foreclosed on
equal rights are still denied for many

[KonaKane]

597. Mere "advocates" do not need to compromise. Affecting real change requires it, though

That was why I brought up the difference between mere advocacy without action (coffee clutch comment) to real political action, which requires consensus and some compromise at some point, by definition.

There was no personal insinuation from me to you that all you do is sit and talk.

[William Z. Foster]

628. you miss the point

Regardless of where people do their advocacy, it is advocacy that is our role.

While it may be true that politicians must compromise, that does not mean we have to. There is not reason to advocate compromise.

The politicians compromise between different groups that have power. We have little or no power. On policy issue after policy issue, our advocates were not even invited to the meetings, did not have a seat at that table, while corporations did. That means that we are not even talking about compromise here. We are not even being considered at all.

I cannot understand why anyone would promote and defend compromise and attack those who are strongly advocating various traditional left wing positions. we did not say to the politicians in the Civil Rights movement "whatever compromise you can work out with the racists will be fine with us because we are practical and realistic people and you have our support no matter what." Even Johnson did not compromise with the southern Senators who opposed the Civil Rights bill - he called them up and said "this is the President of the United States you are talking to, with immense power. I will hurt you if you don't support this and I am not going to take 'no' for an answer." Speaking of which, what would we have thought back then if the administration held conferences on the issue and only invited segregationists to the meetings? Would we have said "he has to be the President of ALL Americans" or "compromise is the way you get things done?"

[KonaKane]

632. If you seriously believe you can attain all of your goals

without some give and take, some compromise in the real world, you are being completely delusional.

Something tells me you have never worked for this stuff in the real world. I am having serious doubts.

[William Z. Foster]

636. I didn't say that

I said that there is no point in advocating compromise. You never should start with talking compromise.

Please stop with the speculation about the messenger and address the message - the "having doubts" and what is "telling" etc.

I have over 40 years experience in the party, have worked for many candidates and campaigns, and have a wide variety of other hands-on political experience.

They are not "my goals." Politics is not about "my" anything.

You say that "without some compromise in the real world" it is "delusional to think" that "goals can be obtained." There is no shortage of compromise in this world. There is a shortage of fight, and there is a shortage of standing fast on principle. Without some fight, without standing fast, no goals can be attained. Standing fast is the rare and powerful thing, not compromise. That is the "real world" i live in.

The opposition is standing fast. they are attaining their goals. We are compromising. We are not attaining our goals. In this "real world" the only way to attain goals is to stand fast and to fight for them. Even then you may fail. But starting out with compromise is certain to fail.

[KonaKane]

637. We got a civil rights act. You don't think that took some compromise?

We got environmental protections. You don't think that took some compromise?

We got anti-trust legislation. You don't think that took some compromise?

What part of any of these, to you, did not take struggle with some adept compromises to get good things, or at least a step in the right direction?

[William Z. Foster]

645. correct

I do not think those "took some compromise." They all required strong uncompromising advocacy. the stronger the advocacy the less compromise would have been needed.

Compromise is what you may have to do after the battle. It is never what you should go into battle with. The harder you fight, the less compromising you are, the less you will have to compromise and give away later. You are saying we should compromise as a battle plan, in lieu of fighting. That is a rescue for failure.

If you were a coach for a sports team, would you tell the team that they were being unreasonable and purists and unrealistic by trying to score every time they had the ball, and that it was wrong and impractical to expect to stop the other team from scoring at all? would you advocate compromise with the other team as a game plan?

What sort of game plan are you promoting here?

I say we go into the game aiming for wining everything we are after, 100%, and preventing the right wingers from having any victories at all. That is my game plan. Beat them. Completely.

[KonaKane]

668. It's great to have a winning attitude. But be prepared to take a smaller prize home.

Because most of the time, that's what will happen. And realize, a smaller prize is better than nothing at all. It also means you can try again for the big trophy, without giving up your smaller one to do so.

All gains are good.

[unapatriciated]

584. sorry, but I see the compromising we have done as counterproductive.

A one step forward and two steps backward type of compromise.
WHen you compromise both sides get a little out of the deal.
Maybe we need to practice our negotiating skills, because we are getting the short end of the stick.
I don't view it as "my way or the highway" simply as doing the right thing. It is not easy but sometimes necessary.

[KonaKane]

588. I'm not sure who "we" is. Do you mean DU? Leftists? DU Leftists?

Please clarify, and why you think that compromise failed the said group.

[unapatriciated]

593. The we I'm speaking of is the working poor, the disabled, gays and on and on.

The list of what we compromised on is long and heartbreaking.
Sorry that you can not see what we have lost or what might have been had we not given in on every issue.

We failed many who needed us only to prop up a few at the top.

[KonaKane]

594. It sounds to me then like we need to do more of this....

* Find greater commonalities and strengths among us (on the Left)

* Support each other in thought and deed

* Better organize ourselves and our efforts

* Change more minds and hearts, that go to the voting booth.


I'm sure that if we can do that, we won't have to compromise away our souls.

[unapatriciated]

599. some of us have been doing just that for years and are very weary.

[KonaKane]

600. I hear you, I really do.

I've been active myself in three causes (stopping underground nuke testing, food not bombs, and immigration reform) for about 30 years now and it can be a damn thankless thing. My only point is that the need for compromise on a political level will be going away just because we are getting worn out. When we pass the torch to the younger and more driven to go after these things, they will need to know about it too.

[geek tragedy]

400. Well, your OP certainly seemed to pick a fight by labeling

people who support the Democratic party as the 'conservative' faction of the party.

[KonaKane]

416. I think William means well, but is getting bogged down by the inertia of his own argument.

But we should hear him out, he's a smart cat.

[William Z. Foster]

612. only with a few

Only a few have seen it as an invitation to fight - and they are fighting about the very thing that I said was not key to the topic and asked people to not fight about. They don't care. They fight everything no matter what so there is no sense trying to write a post to their satisfaction.

It took over 24 hours for people to figure out how to make this thread into a fight. I consider that a big success. Often - almost always, really, which is pretty sad - it happens within minutes of a thread being started. The things that people are trying to provoke a fight over now are a real stretch - "you are saying that Obama supporters are right wing" and "who are you to say what the left is" and then followed by the usual "you are always tearing the president down" and "you are advocating third party" and the every-popular "maybe you don't belong here." There is even one person trying to pick a fight over my user name.

[TBF]

372. Being "independent" does not equal being a "leftist".

Sorry, but words do have meanings, and the guidelines Skinner has set out mean something too. We aren't free to just define the words any way we like and expect to be taken seriously.

It's obvious that the tactical decision has been made to go for the center with the next election, and the message management is starting. That's fine, we all know where we stand now. Pretending otherwise is naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

[KonaKane]

374. Being a Leftist based on my independent views does, however.

I do not advocate monolithic thought and dogma. If you do, and profess to be the sole arbitor of that dogma, then we disagree.

[TBF]

377. Who advocates dogma?

Painting someone with that brush is particularly nasty, but whatever....

[KonaKane]

379. You did, by implying that Leftists cannot have a diverse realm of views and still be Leftists.

If you want to correct that perception, I'm open to it.

[William Z. Foster]

385. that is true

One can not support privatization, for example, and be on the same side as those who oppose it. That is true regardless of what label you put on those two groups of people. Merely putting the same label on people with both opinions does not mean they are on the same team.

If "left" can mean either of those two position, then the term is meaningless. If the term is meaningless, why are you fighting for it?

I asked that we not get into a feud about the "true meaning" of the words. You have made several posts trying to make that the prime issue.

[KonaKane]

414. You just contradicted yourself, William.

In one paragraph you bemoaned making the term "left" meangingless, and then in the very next paragraph you reiterate that we should not get into a feud about the true meaning of the words.

I'm really confused. Which one is your stance?

[readmoreoften]

429. That's hardly a contradiction. He doesn't want to get into an argument about the "true meaning" of

words because it is that very obscuring argument that makes the discussion meaningless. The term LEFT has a specific, historical meaning and trajectory beginning in the French Revolution and continuing into the 20th century. Pretending that you can invent what words mean out of thin air makes a conversation meaningless. Pretending that you can personally invent the meaning of the word left makes your use of the word meaningless.

William does not want to get into a meaningless conversation with someone who refuses to define their terms. That is hardly a "contradiction." Actually, it is a hallmark of common sense.

[KonaKane]

437. There was definitely a contradiction.

as I illustrated. He wants to lament the uselessness of wordsmithing and titles, but went on to stress the necessity of a unified (and narrow?) meaning of a given word.

That clearly is a conflict. Me? I would agree with the first part of his argument, because "Left" in actual meaning today - especially among Americans - is somewhat different than it was in post revolutionary France.

[William Z. Foster]

482. from the OP

"I don't want to get into a debate about what the left 'really is' who is 'really on' this side or the other, how the word should be defined, etc. Everyone here knows there is a split and knows what I am talking about. I am calling the side I am biased toward 'leftists' but if there are some here who want to call us fringe, whining, purists, whatever, I don't care. We know who we are talking about on the two sides and we know the issues that are causing the divide."

[KonaKane]

566. Yes, but then why do you go on to say....

"If "left" can mean either of those two position, then the term is meaningless. If the term is meaningless, why are you fighting for it?"

It sounds to me like you are conflicted about the importance of the purity of the word "leftist". What am I not yet understanding about your intent?

[William Z. Foster]

607. LOL

I have no idea how to have a conversation with you about this.

I don't care about the purity of a word. Read the Op again. This is addressed. Call the people you are fighting against (I know, I know, you aren't fighting) whatever you like. Call yourself whatever you like. That is not what the OP nor the thread are about.

[KonaKane]

634. Sir, you obviously do care about the purity of a word

When you say that it is meaningless unless it has some clear strictures as to its use. I cannot believe that you do not realize you said any of this?

[William Z. Foster]

640. please read the OP

Please read the OP and address the topic.

Repeating and repeating your view that this is an argument about the meaning of a word does not make it so.

I do not care of we use the word at all, and nothing I am saying depends upon using the word. How can that be construed as "caring about the purity of a word??"

Define words any way you like, call yourself whatever you like. You will get no argument from me on this thread, because it is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I said "leftists" merely so people would know whom I was talking to. Almost everyone did understand whom I was talking to.

why can you not let this go? what is the point of bringing it up over and over again? What is it you want or hope to achieve? How come your call for "compromise" when it comes to "obtaining goals" does not apply here?

There are other threads for debating the true meanings of words and arguing about who is this that or the other thing. This is not one of those threads. I am talking about the feud here, and the two rough groups that are on either side, and it is completely irrelevant what you call them. The words I used worked - it is very clear from this thread that there are two factions, and it is very clear that everyone understood what they are and which of the two they were on., ergo, the words communicated what was intended - for almost everyone. Your arguments are proving, demonstrating and illustrating the validity of the analysis in the OP. You are taking one of the two sides and fighting to the death about it, using all of the common arguments used by people on that side of the feud.

[KonaKane]

642. What I don't get is, why do you claim to not care and then belabor the point

about how leftism means nothing if it can be construed as anything? Seriously, it's getting a little silly. Don't say something and then claim you never said it. Your views are very contradictory and I'm trying to get a bead on what you are attempting to accomplish in this now huge post.

Let's pull it back to center.

You think that leftists on DU are now a group under seige? I do not agree.

You see a schism forming with one group being protected against the views of another? Again, I disagree.

You think we shouldn't quibble about who's a leftist and who's not - I agree.

You have concerns about the term "leftist" having boundaries and meaning, otherwise its meaningless. I agree, but that contradicts what you said previously.

What am I missing here?

[William Z. Foster]

646. again, read the OP

You are arguing with what you are interpreting or imagining that I said.

You are the one obsessed with this topic. I have done my best to explain it to you.

This is not about the "real" meanings of words, nor is it about who is or who isn't this, that, or the other. I think those are meaningless and irrelevant subjects and have no interest in debating them.

Define the words any way you like, and call yourself whatever you like.

[KonaKane]

671. OK, that's fine. Let's let that one go. Now may I ask you this...

Do you think that "Leftists" (however they all may define themselves so) here on DU are now effectively an underclass because of the new rules? If so, why?

[stranger81]

667. "Let's pull it back to center" -- Freudian slip? [n/t]

[KonaKane]

670. No, I meant what I said. Trying to refocus after the contentious fragmentation

of this thread.

What was your motive, outside of a dull one liner?

[sabrina 1]

520. Is there an acceptable independent view on torture?

What is the independent view on Gays in the Military? Or on Offshore drilling?

If the Democratic Party believes that it is okay to support NOT taking a stand against torture, or the destruction of the environment or that Gays are entitled to the same rights as every other American citizen, then we were deceived. That seems to be what you are saying, or maybe you do not really understand what the division in the party is really about.

It is not that Democrats could 'not get the votes' that bothers people. It is that people claiming to be Democrats have called these issues 'micro-issues' or 'pet issues' or 'ponies' or 'candy'. That is what the split in the party is about. I will never accept that the civil rights of any human being is a 'micro-issue' that there should not be a sense of urgency about. Nor that pushing for those rights should be viewed as wrong because it might ruin the career of a politician or two.

Some things are long overdue, people have died waiting. And still we are told to not rock the political boat. Well, without those willing to rock the boat, we would still have slavery, women would not be able to vote and there is no way President Obama would be in the WH.

There are those who feel we have the luxury of waiting and that those who disagree are not welcome in the party. And please do not say this is not so because progressives have been excluded from eg, the HC debate. And told to 'stfu' by this administration.

As Catherina said so eloquently before, many of us are not about to let the faction that doesn't see any urgency in achieving civil rights for all Americans, or in protecting the environment, take over this party. Now, they can accept that we are not going anywhere and start acting like adults, or the rancor will continue and some will leave the party. Someone in the Dem. Party needs to reign in those who are causing this split before it's too late. Members of Congress are beginning to worry about the fact that the WH doesn't seem to care about their futures in Congress either. So, it's not just the base now. It's many members of Congress.

[KonaKane]

565. There is no wiggle room on torture, if you ask me.

Anyone who accepts or supports torture is not only NOT a leftist, but is not a Democrat either.

But then the problem comes in - what do they consider torture? As you know, that is problematic.

[sabrina 1]

598. I'm glad we agree on that.

As to the second part of your question, it seems to contradict the first part 'there is no wiggle room on torture'. The Geneva Conventions are a good guide and pretty clear on how human beings, regardless of their status before capture, are to be treated once captured.

I don't know what they are arguing about. Torture is the inhumane treatment of another human being. Detention is about all that's approved of once someone is taken off the battle-field. And it's pretty clear to me that the Geneva Conventions were violated and that no one is being held accountable. That is simply unacceptable to decent people everywhere, and anyone who is arguing about is not a decent human being. As you said 'no wiggle room'.

[KonaKane]

601. I'm sure that as time goes on, we'll find we agree on much more.

I just thought it was important to know that good people of a Leftist bend can have shades of disagreement on some things without losing their "Leftist" badge. That degree of purism will tear at our ability to do anything as organized people.

[sabrina 1]

664. Well, I think I've said it before but

I'll say it again here. Some things are not 'left' or 'right', they are either right or wrong, such as torture.

My sister and her husband eg, are Republicans, but they are outraged by the revelations of torture. I really was hoping I could show them that Democrats would deal with the torture issue by holding the torturers accountable. And I never thought any Democrat would every say that people can have independent views of something like torture. Even decent Republicans would not make that claim.

I don't doubt that there are many issues we would agree on mainly because I do not believe a majority of people come to conclusions on issues based on party politics. It is usually based on their core beliefs and then they gravitate to one of our only two parties that most closely represent them. The fact that a majority of Americans are not happy with either party demonstrates that the parties are not representing the people anymore.

[Arctic Dave]

305. K&R for post #4

[Mimosa]

319. I'm a classic liberal but that's being called leftist by some these days!

Great OP!

[KonaKane]

322. In the end, you can't worry about what others call you.

I've been called everything from a rightwing fascist to a Marxist. Water off the back, if you know what I mean.

[Silent3]

321. I don't know that it matter so much how left (or right) you are...

...but if you're advocating for change within the Democratic party, while still willing to support the party, even when it's frustrating to do so (and I certainly feel that frustration at times), or if you've gone so far that you're screaming "A pox on both their houses!", if you're recommending third party candidates, if you're recommending not voting at all until Democrats "get your message", if you're so far left that you're essentially a Communist or far-left Socialist.

In the later case, that's when I think it's time to move and find some other place more to your liking the DU to make your home. Anyone who's willing to swallow the much-maligned word "compromise", however, who's hasn't gone to the Ralph Nader extreme of saying there isn't "a dime of difference" between Democrats and Republicans, should be able to stick around and play a constructive role here.

[socialist_n_TN]

433. A question. Why would someone

"so far left that you're essentially a Communist or far-left Socialist" not be allowed to post here? From my reading of the rules and the site owner's posts in various threads, a "Communist or far-left Socialist" should be allowed to post UNLESS he violated one of the other rules. I'd think that a Communist or far-left Socialist viewpoint SHOULD be able to play a constructive role. Unless you don't think ANY of their insights should even be VIEWED.

[Silent3]

452. If it's just presenting views without a lot of anti-Democrat rancor...

...sure. But if the views being offered are well outside of anything that the Democratic party would ever realistically consider adopting, and someone's here trashing Democrats for not, say, nationalizing all industries and outlawing capitalism, then that criticism is not contributing to supporting and improving the Democratic party, which I take to be the core mission of the DU web site.

[socialist_n_TN]

481. So are you saying that the Democratic Party

has now reached a perfect place and it will never change? Never get any farther left? Never get any farther right? Or do you mean that it'll get even FARTHER right, but NO farther left than it is now? Because the WHOLE reason for advocating leftist positions is an attempt to MOVE the party closer to the direction you WANT it to go. I don't come on and bash Democrats in general, but I'd sure like it to be closer to the Democratic Party that I've supported IN EVERY ELECTION for 38 years. If I don't advocate for more leftist positions then MY version of the Democratic Party won't EVER have a chance of getting there.

BTW, you used two phrases in this reply (thanks for answering) that WOULD be violations of existing rules as I read them. "anti-Democrat rancor" and "trashing Democrats". If a Communist came on and posted anti capitalist arguments WITHOUT "anti-Democrat" rancor and without "trashing Democrats" why SHOULDN'T s/he be allowed to post?

[Silent3]

527. Did I ever say such a person shouldn't be allowed to post?

I think I made it pretty clear that as long as someone is still generally supportive of Democrats, or at the very least isn't trashing Democrats and telling people not to vote for them, then they should be able to post here.

And how on earth would the phrases "anti-Democrat rancor" and "trashing Democrats" be rules violations? If that's your reading of the rules, it's a strange reading. Then again, you also seemed to think I was saying some people couldn't post that I never said couldn't or shouldn't post, so perhaps you are determined to find persecution and exclusion even when they aren't there.

[socialist_n_TN]

586. RE: your second paragraph. Sorry for the confusion

and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've been pretty busy over the last day or so.

What I MEANT was that IF a Communist came onto DU and engaged in "anti-Democrat rancor" and "trashing Democrats" then said Communist would be in violation of the board rules for doing so. I didn't mean that YOUR use of the expressions would be rule violations.

I'm a little sensitive about this subject because ideologically I AM a socialist, pretty close to the SWP although not a member (hence the small "s"). Although I've voted Democratic all my life there have been times when it's been VERY difficult. Even the Dems in the South are pretty far right. I'm on a crusade to "dedemonize" the word because I think ALL leftist voices should be heard. The POSITIONS of socialism are things that need to be discussed WITHOUT all of the RW demonizing of the word itself. Ergo, when I see someone imply that the ideas of a Communist or a far Left Socialist don't need to be here, it gets my hackles up.

[Silent3]

539. I could try to answer this...

...but it's clear now that whatever I say, you'll be shouting back and phantoms and caricatures of your own imagination regardless of what I say.

Good luck with that.

[socialist_n_TN]

590. Uncalled for. I've been pleasant in this exchange

I haven't engaged you negatively or accused you of anything, much less "shouted" anything. I was merely asking for clarification of your remarks. And I got them. Thanks.

[Silent3]

602. You call this a pleasant request for clarification?

"So are you saying that the Democratic Party has now reached a perfect place and it will never change?"

Riiiigggghhhht. :eyes:

[socialist_n_TN]

618. How is that unpleasant? I merely asked a question

You were the one implying that the Democratic Party, AS IT'S CONSTITUTED TODAY, is what it is and that no leftist, and especially a FAR leftist, should try to change it. And it is a FACT that the Democratic Party is FAR to the right of where it was in the early 70s when I first started voting. I just wanted to know if you thought that the Democratic Party of TODAY is what the Democratic Party SHOULD be. IOW, is it now perfect and unchanging. I think it's a legitimate question AND it was NOT asked in an unpleasant way.

[Silent3]

623. You don't even see the automatic exaggeration that happens...

...in your thought process then. Saying that a CERTAIN DEGREE OF CHANGE is HIGHLY UNLIKELY is very different from saying something is PERFECT as it is and/or that LITTLE OR NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE. The confusion of those things is you inferring, not me implying.

Nor did I say one damned thing about WHO could say WHAT, only whose expectations would be wildly off the mark if they expected, oh, say, demanding the end of capitalism to be a central platform for the Democratic party. If that's not only a hope or expectation, but a demand which will be accompanied by savaging Democrats until the almost 0% probability day that the demand is met, then a person who is making that demand should probably find another favorite hang out on the web other than DU.

Eagerly awaiting (:eyes:) what sort of cartoonishly ridiculous hash you make out the above to rail against... excuse me... pleasantly inquire about, that is.

[socialist_n_TN]

657. Firstly, "...(what sort of cartoonishly ridiculous hash

you make out (of?) the above to rail against........) Cartoonishly, ridiculous, hash, rail against, are ALL words that could be construed by someone as attacks. Nowhere have I used ANY words denoting you or your words in a PERSONALLY negative manner.

I went back and reread this ENTIRE sub thread this morning and I stand by my questions. YOU were the one who brought up a far left Socialist or Communist perhaps would not be comfortable posting here and should find somewhere else to post. Perhaps you didn't outright SAY that they should not be allowed to post, but the inference WAS there. Usually when somebody tells me I wouldn't be "comfortable" somewhere, they mean they're going to MAKE it uncomfortable until I leave. It's an excuse bosses use to get you to quit right before they fire you. I decide MY comfort level, no one else.

YOU were also the one who said that said far leftist should not advocate certain positions for the Democratic Party (outlawing capitalism, nationalizing industries) when this is EXACTLY what a discussion forum is for. If I think that these are positions that the Dems SHOULD take and present some logical reasons WHY the Dems should take these positions all I'm doing is lobbying for MY vision of what the Democratic Party SHOULD be! If it's an impossibility today, I understand that well. Remember I've had to vote for blue dog Dems ALL OF MY LIFE living in the South. So I understand WELL voting pragmatics, not ideology. YOU were the one implying that some subjects should not even be brought up.

That's the crux of my disagreement. ALL subjects and viewpoints, not specifically banned by the rules, should be open to being discussed in this forum. By advocating that only ONE viewpoint or one narrow RANGE of viewpoints is to be represented, it should follow that you think the Party is OK (perfect) where it's at. But I actually didn't just leave you the ONE choice in my question. I gave you SEVERAL choices to clarify what you meant by saying that a far leftist's views wouldn't be "comfortable" here. To wit, should the Party be farther right? Farther left? Farther right, but not farther left? My apologies because I did leave out farther left, but not farther right. That last would be my choice obviously.

If after a vigorous discussion the Democratic Party decides that they don't want to "outlaw capitalism", so be it. But have the discussion and represent ALL sides.

[Silent3]

661. I only said if someone *is trashing Democrats* all along the way...

...while lobbying for something well out of the scope of likelihood, that this isn't the place to be posting it.

Further, everything I've said is NOT about what discussions are allowed to take place AT ALL, but which discussions fit in with what THIS PARTICULAR WEB SITE is about. Ultimately that's up to the owners of the web site to decide. Skinner et al have no obligation to provide you or me with a platform. For myself, I've already said I don't personally care who posts here, so long as they are reasonably civil about it. (As I'm fond of forcefully stated opinions, I'm pretty accepting of a broad range of behavior as "civil". I don't expect mealy-mouth delicacy.)

If you are "voting pragmatics, not ideology", and your discussion style on DU matches that, I see no problem with you posting here either by what I interpret as DU standards, or my own standards.

Your penchant for straw men, exaggerating what other people say, and apparently looking for any opportunity to cast yourself as a victim probably isn't the best tactic for persuading people to your point of view, however.

If you really do want to outlaw capitalism (an example I picked to deliberately create a strong contrast with the majority of Democrats) not just regulate it better, I'm all the happier if you aren't very persuasive.

[socialist_n_TN]

720. I've only been lurking on this web site

for about 6 months and posting for maybe 2 or 3, but I've been EXTREMELY impressed by just how many people on here ARE actively socialist. And it seems like more and more old line liberals are becoming more and more socialist every week. It's not unusual to come on here and read a post about somebody saying they USED to be liberal, but now they realize they're socialist. If you can post anti capitalist sentiment without advocating violence, I think that you should feel right at home with a LARGE group of DU posters, maybe even a majority of them.

As I said in an earlier post, I LIKE seeing posts by far leftists, because I IS one. And by advocating for far left positions, I'm trying to do my small part to bring the Democratic Party that I've ALWAYS voted for closer to where it USED to be. IF nobody advocates for the far left, I can guarantee you won't get MODERATE left positions, like regulated capitalism.

I haven't set up ANY straw men and I don't consider myself a victim. I do admit to exaggerating your positions because I was curious as to how far you would go with them. I do want clarification when somebody tells me in a post that I shouldn't feel "comfortable" posting my politics in a place where I've actually felt pretty darn comfortable.

William Z is one of my FAVORITE posters and I understand what he was trying to ask with his OP, but as I told him, I'm just going to do what I've been doing and let the chips fall where they will. The Left ALWAYS has a problem with authority, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. I think you should always be SUSPICIOUS of authority, but not necessarily PARANOID about it.

Finally, I'm hurt to the QUICK that you don't think I'm very persuasive. :( Not. But luckily, I don't HAVE to be persuasive against capitalism. BP, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, EVERY Republican, and some Democrats do my anti capitalist persuading for me just by doing what a capitalist does naturally.

[William Z. Foster]

485. thanks

It is refreshing to have someone be honest about this. Those expressing certain opinions do not belong and are not welcome here. That is what we think, yes.

[Silent3]

528. I personally don't care who posts here, so long as they are civil about it.

It's my interpretation of the rules, however, and the general intent of the web site, that it has been established as an advocacy site for Democrats. If that's what the owners of the web site want to do with the site, it should be their prerogative to steer the discussion in that direction. They certainly shouldn't have to be supportive of harshly anti-Democratic rhetoric.

[KonaKane]

568. It's precisely that call for civility that seems to be wrankling more than a few

...which tells me alot about their true motives, which do not include a priority on seeing Democrats win office.

[Raineyb]

580. For all your claims you don't seem to be having much trouble being uncivil at all. n/t

[KonaKane]

589. How so?

I think I've been quite civil. Can you give me examples to the contrary and why?

[Raineyb]

591. You've been spamming the thread with the same thinly veiled

accusation that people are merely upset at having to be civil. Not only is it passive aggressive but it's uncivil to boot.

[KonaKane]

595. Spamming? Or rendering an opinion?

There is nothing thinly veiled about my observation that some here are most upset about having to be civil. I'm sure of it, and I'm far from alone in this observation. Frankly I wish it weren't true, because I thought what brings us together on this site is above just pissing each other off.

There is nothing uncivil about noting this, anymore than its racist to call a racist a racist.

[William Z. Foster]

626. that is false

I believe that to be false - that people here are "most upset about having to be civil." There is no evidence for that. It is pure speculation and insinuation. As such, it is itself not civil.

[KonaKane]

635. I didnt say all people here. I said some, and naming them would violate the rules.

So my hands are tied on that one. Suffice to say that there are definitely some on DU who hold fighting as the highest objective their presence here. Sad, but true nonetheless.

[Raineyb]

728. I stand by spamming as you've repeated it over and over again.

And it is a not very well veiled accusation at that. It is uncivil to make the accusation especially as you don't bother to day outright "you're just mad because you're being told to be civil" that would at least be honest. No you just keep going on to OTHERS that you think certain people are mad about having to be civil without actually saying anything to the person who you think is being uncivil. That is passive aggressive
AND just fucking rude. Not to mention cowardly.

[readmoreoften]

326. Since this is addressed to the "leftists" on DU, here's a great new left multimedia site.

We Are Many (wearemany.org) was just launched this weekend. It doesn't have a discussion forum function, but if you want intelligent lectures/interviews/news this site promises some good stuff. Maybe we can use some of this material to critique policy with little need to resort to rhetoric that might get us banned. The site is organized by topics and you can also download podcasts for free.

[TBF]

339. thank you for that -

looks promising.

[readmoreoften]

343. It has many intelligently worded answers to political questions posed by DU leftists.

Questions that now can only be asked very carefully.

[KonaKane]

345. It's a great site. I cant wait until it takes submissions.

At least, I hope that's on the agenda.

[readmoreoften]

413. Oh it does. But only from respected socialist and progressive scholars, activists, and unionists.

People who want the official Democratic position on issues have DU and a host of other websites. People who want any ol' video someone decides to post can go to Current or YouTube. This is a website with a specific point of view. It doesn't hide that.

Third party and alternate voices at DU are subject to banishment unless they agree to withhold from critiquing the Party and its politicians as a whole--why should other left websites be beholden to accepting materials from those who refuse to critique the Party as a whole?

CERSC doesn't bother claiming to be "open to various viewpoints" and then create strict curtailment of alternative viewpoints within it. The site is what it is. It's a leftist website from a broad left non-profit. More like a free audible.com for leftists, by leftists than a DU.

I suppose there will be some right-wing Democrats who view the site with paranoia and suspicion, but many on the left of the Party will enjoy talks from university faculty, journalists, authors, and activists around the world. That's why I posted it. It's not like it's trying to hide its agenda. CERSC's conference calls itself Socialism. It owes nothing to those in the center and the right, just as DU owes nothing to the left-wing of its own party or others outside its party:

Quote from the website:

This site cannot be exhaustive, and that is not our intent. We are simply trying to offer a small sampling of the best radical audio and video sources we know of. We know that the internet provides vast opportunities to share information and ideas, but we do not believe that this can replace the real actions of real people. We encourage our visitors, friends, fellow-travelers, and comrades to take inspiration from the people included here into their own struggles for justice.

The idea of this website first came from the annual Socialism conferences, packed with so many speakers and discussions and debates and our desire to share these discussions with others on a single platform. We had collected hundreds of talks and meetings over the years, but had never shared them in a coherent way. We hope you find this effort useful.

The creation of this site would not have been possible without the support and vision of Randall and Janet Wallace from Wallace Global Fund. We are very grateful for their help in making this a reality.

This site is sponsored by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change, which publishes Haymarket Books and the International Socialist Review.

Please contact us with questions, feedback and suggestions about the site.

[KonaKane]

415. Ah. So no "little people"'s opinions needed there. Got it.

Interesting.

[readmoreoften]

440. Yeah, it's pretty clear that it's not a discussion forum. It's just a multimedia website.

Last time I checked a lot of websites don't accept material from just anyone, including this one.

I think video from journalists and activists in Pakistan, Thailand, and strikers are "the little people." If you send in a video from a grassroots protest or a strike, I'm 100% certain that We Are Many will post it. Why don't you contact them and offer your help? Many hands make light work.

I find your CONCERN about the LITTLE PEOPLE so INTERESTING! I'm sure you're a huge champion of the little people, so tell me? How are women workers in the glass beading industry in Pakistan doing? How are the teachers in Chicago handling budget cuts? What about that new general strike in Greece that's being organized by the end of the month? Do you have footage of the thai protests that has been rejected by We Are Many? Is there some other grassroots leftist website where you are uploading all your multimedia? Please link!!!

[KonaKane]

448. I was talking about multimedia contribution, not forums. Thanks.

I believe that answered my question.

[fascisthunter]

356. thank you... I'll check it out

[NorthCarolina]

717. Thanks for the link! n/t

[Uzybone]

348. Too much drama

these posts would be funny but it reflects some great sadness in the lives of the posters.

[William Z. Foster]

368. why make a personal attack?

Remarks like that coming from one of the factions are common, but are not tolerated when they come the other direction. That is the problem I tried to address, and that you have inadvertently illustrated.

By what possible stretch of the imagination was there any call for making a snarky remark about the supposed quality of my personal life?

[Uzybone]

373. it is overly dramatic

your OP paints Obama supporters with a very broad brush, yet you expect those unfairly tarred by your comments to ignore them and act as if you have been totally fair.

You can't have it both ways.

Besides it ain't that big a deal. There are many places on the web to post at. DU is big because it is home to diverse opinions. It always has been and will remain so. No one is being censored or driven out. Just act somewhat civil and you'll be fine.

[KonaKane]

380. From where I sit, "civility" appears to be the discipline that is stuck in the craw

of many. Pretty telling.

[William Z. Foster]

388. that is malicious

Why are you trying to pick a fight?

You are claiming that I am calling for people to reject civility, and then saying that "pretty telling." You must know that to not be true, and must know that it is damaging. Why do it?

[KonaKane]

421. No, sir. I am citing an honest observation and it is not directed at you.

There is a contingent here, sad to say as it is, that really wants above all to be able to demean, belittle and slur people they don't like or agree with. To that end I think Skinner was right in the construction of the new rules and I applaud him for it.

Let me give you another example of a much more agregious nature. Right wingers go ballistic when you tell them they cannot post hate or threats on other forums. They scream about "freedom of speech". They don't like the rules because they consider them restrictive of some of their basic rights. But if you let them go on long enough, you discover that the only time they are so concerned about freedom of speech is when it comes to their right to slur, defame and insult. You can easily see what their basic motivation is.

I seriously want to ask you to take a breath and stop assuming I am attacking you. That is just not the case. I have alot of respect for you, and thank you for starting this thread. It needs to be discussed.

[William Z. Foster]

499. OK

I am not sure of what you are trying to say then, I guess.

[William Z. Foster]

387. OK

Let's say it is "too dramatic." I asked you why you were making a personal attack. Is that an excuse for making a personal attack - that a post was "too dramatic?"

Please point out where I painted Obama supporters with a very broad brush, and where I unfairly tarred anyone.

You are arguing against reconciliation, then?

[fascisthunter]

358. I wouldn't Have Agreed with your assertion until now

Recently I saw a post with a list, a pretty long list of liberals who have been banned recently. Liberals who I feel very akin to... who truly emulated the principles of the Democratic Party of the past. Not sure I feel welcome here anymore. The rule change sort of supports my opinion... a bit too coincidental in my opinion.

[fishwax]

384. would you be able to point me to that list, by chance?

I missed it, I guess.

[fascisthunter]

533. no... because the thread was locked

yeah... you missed it. Do you doubt my sincerity?

[fishwax]

537. um, no -- do you doubt mine?

:shrug:

[fascisthunter]

546. wasn't sure... wasn't being snarky either

sorry if I came off that way.

[fishwax]

555. fair enough -- no worries

:toast:

[Smashcut]

359. I think actually what it's done is emboldened one faction in their attempts to censor the other

As was made clear in another thread near the top of the Greatest Page. A hypothetical "close call" was presented to Skinner and he came out against deletion of the post. But before his decision was made the faction I'm speaking of piled on in typical fashion saying DELETE DELETE BAN HIM BAN HIM. I think we can expect more of that bullying and that is not a good thing.

If the split you're talking about is real, it will only get worse with this "clarification" of the rules. One wonders if there should be another discussion site for those people who still consider themselves liberals first and Democrats second.

[Individualist]

543. No doubt about it

That has been evident in every thread since Skinner's post about the rules.

[geek tragedy]

381. So, you're a conservative Democrat?

Because liberal Democrats like Obama a lot more than conservative ones do.

Of course, this is sarcasm. But the idea that conservatives are out to silence criticism of the Obama administration is not rational.

[William Z. Foster]

393. thanks

Thanks for adding your thoughts.

What you are saying is the opinion held by people in one of the two factions. It will of course be seen as inflammatory and provocative by those in the other faction. I tried to describe the two factions as best I could and acknowledged my bias. I asked that people not get hung up on and argue about labels. I also tried to discourage people from using this thread to start the same feuding going again.

The question was can the two factions co-exist, not which of the two factions is right. What you are saying would make it impossible, of course, for the two factions to co-exist. Whether you call that "silence" or "make unwelcome" does not really matter, and it is the people you are aiming your barbs at that are the final authority on whether or not it creates an intolerable environment for them, not you.

[geek tragedy]

397. The problem is that your post operates from a false assumption

There is clearly a split within the party, and it is reflected here, between left-leaning and right-leaning people (trying to put that as diplomatically as I can.) It is so pervasive and acrimonious that it is difficult to even discuss without starting another spat.

Clearly, the explanation of the rules today favors one of the factions over the other. The membership knows this, since those from one of the factions are applauding and people from the other are criticizing that explanation.

This is clearly not the case.

In terms of the actual rules, not a single instance of leftwing policy criticism has been banned. Not a bit.

What has been banned is the expression of hatred, contempt, or otherwise mirroring the language of the extreme right when discussing Democrats. And it should be.

Moreover, your post falsely paints the President's and party's most loyal defenders as conservatives.

That is, to use a coarse phrase, complete hogwash. The most loyal Democrats and most steadfast supporters of the current administration are liberals and African-Americans. The Democrats most opposed to the Obama admins policies are the Blue Dogs.

[William Z. Foster]

405. interesting

If some here think there is a split, and that it is important, and others like you do not think there is a split, then clearly there is a split. The most likely explanation for why one side sees a split and the other denies that there even is one is that one of the two factions is being favored and therefore is not bothered by it.

I did not "paint the President's and party's most loyal defenders as conservatives." Again, that is an example of the feuding caused by this split, a salvo that is common.

You say that people are not conservative just because they defend the President and the party, an claim that this is what I said. I didn't say that. I would say that just because people claim to be defending the President and the party, that does not mean they are not expressing conservative views.

You are illustrating, while denying the existence of, the split, and are carrying on the feud caused by the split. You are also making it quite clear that from your point of view those in the other faction are not welcome here.

[geek tragedy]

461. You described the feud as between "between left-leaning and right-leaning people"

And I am telling you that your characterization is plainly and absolutely false.

There is a split, but it is not between left-leaning and right-leaning. It is between partisan Democrats and those who more identify with the Ralph Nader/Green party.

[DCBob]

465. I think you are right on target..

I call them the "angry left" who think the entire system is hopeless and corrupt and just want to clear the board and start over.

[Individualist]

470. Who's fooling whom?

Leftists/progressives didn't just fall off the turnip trunk.

[William Z. Foster]

487. right

That is the viewpoint of one of the groups here.

There is a split, the disagreement is profound. That was the point.

Of course you don't agree with my "characterization." It wasn't even intended to be a characterization. I said the labels didn't matter - call us whatever you want to call us - so long as we all know whom we are talking about. You do know exactly whom I am talking about, you know what the two groups are and who is in each as well or better than anyone here, and you do know that there is a feud. You are fighting for your side in the feud right here with this post.

[EFerrari]

515. LOL

[Swamp Rat]

517. LOL!!

;)

[NorthCarolina]

718. To me, the word "Conservative" is an antonym for "Democrat".

Words of opposite meaning, therein lies the root of the problem.

[on point]

386. We let them lose and move on

When loyalty becomes more important than truth or the analysis of what is going on, then they no longer represent either the will of the people or their welfare. They represent the power elite and suppression of reality is needed to keep them in power.

They are headed for failure as the gap between themselves and reality grows larger, as the gap between them and who they claim to represent becomes ever more obviously false. They simply march off into the same fantasy land of the far right delusional folks.

Don't waste time on them. They are not interested in helping the average person. They are interested in maintaining power at the expense of people.

[geek tragedy]

399. That is exactly what the Teabaggers hope liberals and progressives do.

If you share the same short-term goals as the Teabaggers and the Republican National Committee, perhaps you should rethink whether your strategic approach is wise.

[readmoreoften]

418. Apparently, it's what conservative Democrats are seeking as well.

The Teabaggers and Republicans aren't going anywhere. They are always a few percentage points away from winning. The way you get rid of them for good is providing a real alternative that people can get behind. Absent this, we will always be on the verge of their destructive force.

Your comment is a bit confusing. Other than elections, the Democratic National Committee shares much of the agenda of the Republican National Committee as evidenced by the very term "bipartisanship." Not all, but much of the positioning is similar. Is the DNC "unwise" when it does this? How come we should agree with Republicans when our officials do--then it's smart--but when it comes to critiquing our officials' bipartisanship, then we are "like the Teabagggers"?

[scubadude]

390. So where had the Underground part gone? nt

[Moochy]

404. backfilled with donations

:shrug:

[NorthCarolina]

427. The conservatives have prevailed and now control the acceptable "tone" of DU

Look at it as having achieved protected class status.

[Kermitt Gribble]

431. IMO,

there is no more feud here. The owners of the message board took their side - it doesn't mean they're right. We don't have a choice but to move on. Skinner and crew can run their board however they want - nobody else really has a say in it. I've been here almost 5 years. Yesterday's rules post was very disheartening. I'll probably still come here for news for a little while but most of the posters I enjoy reading will probably either be ts'd or just move on, as well. I doubt I will be joining any discussion and I certainly won't be donating again.

It's sad - DU has followed the Democratic Party to the right...

[grahamhgreen]

434. A return to FDR is the only way out of the mess the country is in. as the situation worsens

Those on the right will come to understand our arguments and agree with us.

They know n their hearts we are right - as the oceans decay, the wars drag on, as rights are curtailed and innocents are tortured, eventually those leaning right will be forced to listen to reason, just as has happened in every repressive corporate state in the past.

[TBF]

456. You're not going to get FDR without

a strong left pushing for reform - it was the only reason we got him the first time.

[geek tragedy]

471. You mean the FDR who coddled the Jim Crow South

and created racist concentration camps?

Nobody is perfect, and every president who has gotten stuff done has made ugly tradeoffs.

[defendandprotect]

479. And didn't attack fascism in Spain . . . leading to WWII . . .

You know who's fabulous on this kind of background is Upton Sinclair?

Confuse often with Sinclair Lewis --

Behind the Franco thing was the huge numbers of American Catholics and the

Vatican telling Catholics they should back Franco!

If I knew the truth of it all I'm sure my ears would fall off --

It's the nation of genocide vs native American -- slavery --

and at a much later date, imprisoning Japanese in America!

Notice ... there is always the take over of the assets!! Huge profits for the winning side!!

No matter the victims of the witchhunt -- the elites profit -- !!

Considering the kharma of the US -- dropping of Atomic weapons, etal -- long history of

brutal wars in VN, Afghanistan, Iraq -- who will have mercy on us??

[William Z. Foster]

491. we aren't talking about personalities

What people are talking about is the way that we get politicians to do things, not which politician is perfect. This isn't about the politicians, and which ones we like. It is about us, about our role.

Just because politicians may need to make ugly trade-offs, that is no excuse for us to be advocating or praising ugly trade-offs.

[Swamp Rat]

519. some folks want to steer the conversation to make it about personalities

it's very easy to triangulate a 'cult of personality', erected kinda like a straw man

[Captain Boomerang]

438. I think it is me.

I am the reason there are new rules.
I signed up agreeing to the old rules, but some a-hole recognized me and decided to change things to mess me up. It's bureaucracy at it's finest.

Happens to me all the time.

I won the Powerball jackpot the other day , but I was denied payment because when I went to claim the ticket, I was on a no-pay list.

Realistically, if everyone was serious about some ding dongs making a change up, You can essentially start your own site, or boycott DU. You are the people who make or break the site. The site cannot exist without your participation. (The forum can't.)

[Bluenorthwest]

442. Useful thread!

Nice to see what people are thinking, good to get a bit more from Skinner on this and interesting to see who came to stank it up and pit at nits rather than broker honestly. Some just fly in to smash and divide. Their theory seems to be that acting out makes their positions look appealing, I do not agree.
Thanks for a thread that had content. Peace.

[New Dawn]

454. Kick for truth.

[scentopine]

457. What is hilarious is that the centrists at the center of this

are nothing like the underground - they are as underground as CNN. The mushy middle drives a Prius while helping their company outsource 4500 employees to an unregulated labor market in Bangalore.

The "centrists" are wannabe republicans, embarrassed by Bush, finding refuge in a right wing democratic party. They follow the money. War, unemployment, bailouts for the rich, punishment for the poor, oil, a stimulus bill designed around tax credits (TAX CREDITS AS STIMULUS! How fucking lame is that?). Its all just common sense to a centrist - rich equals good, non-rich equals bad. Centrists can be found on DU arguing for trickle-down every fucking day.

Every objective measure of the decline of quality of life in America - from real wages dropping, health premiums sky rocketing, to CEO pay sky rocketing, to outsourcing, to war, poverty, unemployment - the extreme centrists are at the helm, cheering on the free market, worshiping the rich, punishing the poor, they are trying to outdo Bush at being Reagan. Obama is simply a hero for calling us "those on the left" in a false equivalence to "those on the right". As if the media doesn't whip us enough, the centrists on DU will jump on the pile.

Centrists are all about Fortune 500 cash. Ah - Fortune 500 - smooth, sleek corporate management - the perfect executive entity, unencumbered by leftist idealists and their ponies - to the centrist we are all just employees of our corporate government - we get a pay check from a corporation, the taxes from that pay check go back to other corporations! Our insurance premiums fund lobbyists who pay congressmen to fight against insurance reform.

To the centrist everything is for sale, Gulf of Mexico can be bought and sold for $20 billion, equivalent to a few beads and blankets. Like single payer, what was taken off the table to get that $20 billion? Prosecution? Federal receivership? Centrists will argue that we don't need to know. Just like we don't need to know how much oil is really spilling in the Gulf. Centrist will argue BP is the best company to manage the spill. You can almost hear the centrists apologizing to BP.

Obama is demanding we work harder in school, but the centrists are dumbing us down by cutting teachers pay, busting unions.

I must admit the day I saw the centrists ganging up on one of "those on the left" for daring to call Obama's off shore drilling plan "drill, baby, drill" I knew it was all over at DU. Guess what- Obama's energy plan is "drill, baby, drill." You can't dumb this down.

Centrists eager to get their war on siezed the day in Afghanistan - confident that they could do what Bush couldn't. They doubled down on violence telling us "Hell, its over there not over here, so shut the fuck up!". And now they are telling us "large parts of the United States are not covered in oil. Just chill."

Ah - centrists. Chilled and calculating, narcissistic, self-serving. Sort of like republicans.

[William Z. Foster]

489. well said

I am in complete agreement.

[Radical Activist]

500. So insulting.

You wrote: "Guess what- Obama's energy plan is "drill, baby, drill." You can't dumb this down."

You also seem to think the stimulus bill was nothing but tax credits.

But here in the real world, the biggest portion of the stimulus bill went to renewable energy and efficiency projects. Obama also got improved mileage standards for cars and took old gas guzzlers off the road BEFORE the oil gusher happened.

To ignore the reality of what's been done and pretend that Obama's only energy plan is "drill baby drill" (when he hasn't even expanded drilling yet) is completely out of touch with reality. The fact that I choose to look at the whole picture, and not unquestionably believe every article attacking Obama from the left, doesn't make me a centrist. Believing in facts doesn't make me less liberal. I find your attitude self-righteous and ignorant.

I want to push Obama left too but I'll do it HONESTLY in a way that acknowledges when he does something good once in a while. There are a lot of liberals like me who get frustrated when people are incapable of doing that.

[USArmyParatrooper]

706. No, according to the OP you're "on the right"

Later amended to "right leaning"

You know what I honestly think? There are some people who just want to be angry over the internet. And now that the Democrats have taken over everything, who do they have left to be angry with? Not many other options, are there.

I too have constructive criticisms to offer the President, but I seldom express them. Why? Because there's so much incessant, irrational bashing that goes on already I don't want to add to the chorus.

[MissDeeds]

531. +1000

If we can't be attacked from the outside, attack from within. Such genius! The new age Democratic ideology has ferreted itself into this bastion of Democratic die hards and has bit by bit made it their own.

[Moochy]

536. Best post of the thread

[Raineyb]

547. +1 well said!

:applause:

And what you list is coming from this party. But if you're uncomfortable with it some would suggest that perhaps you won't be happy with the party or this country.

[Bluebear]

572. FTW

[MisterP]

665. quite right: it's not like the two factions are working toward the same goals

but are having a tremendous disagreement over whether loyalty to party or loyalty to principle is the best way to bring about those goals; the goals themselves are different. they're not "on our side" (i.e., the 80% of us non-rich), since they support very harmful policies. "centrist" generally means "Dem party member who endorses conservatives' ideas and worldviews": war, Wall Street, privatization, spending slashes, corporations, Islamophobia--even if they pretend to try every other option (within a limited, ultracapitalist range) first, or feign reluctant necessity.

those touting Obama's "most progressive in decades" status are disingenuous, since they 1) ignore the staggeringly conservative things he has done (permanent wars, DADT, torpedoing single payer, "drill here drill now," BP's curious amount of law-enforcement and airspace-restricting power) in favor of smaller progressive things, and/or 2) try to repaint those things as progressive (various bank bailouts, "HCR"). the same short attention span turns "Off the Table" Pelosi into teh gratest Speaker eva!

the very label "party loyalist" actually seems a misnomer: during the McKinney "scandal," the same posters demanding that we give any Dem the benefit of the doubt said that we had to wait for all the evidence to be in to even think of defending her online!

[NorthCarolina]

719. +1000 n/t

[salguine]

468. Can a member tombstone himself?

[JTFrog]

542. Yes, your wish was granted. n/t

[defendandprotect]

476. First, I agree, this will have a chilling effect on discusssions -- even more than previously . . .

because we have to acknowledge that this is not a website which is about democracy and

preserving it -- it's a website dedicated to protecting and supporting the Democratic

Party's interests in elections.

Do liberals/progressives want more - ?

And, again, this is DISCUSSION of the website rules in some part -- which is now illegal

and grounds for banning!!

We saw the beginnings of this with the UN-Rec ... it's the same frame of mind.

Those who want to limit discussion to what they think is appropriate ultimately kill

discussion and debate. I don't know if they actually think that through and what it means

ultimately to a political website, but IMO you can already see the effects of the loss of

strong posters here. Maybe it's just summer time -- but I've been noticing it for a while.

As for the final question . . .

Leftists - can we let go of this, let our opponents win and move on? Is there anything more to gain by continuing the feud here?

Think there will be varied individual responses -- some will leave immediately -- some will

continue to bless the right here with their more liberal views providing more irritation to

the right and probably more RULES! Because we know the noose is never tight enough, is it?

Evidently the right here is united and the left isn't? Certainly these new RULES didn't come

about without a concerned effort by the right here -- some planning? Or did they float in on

the wind?

Certainly liberals/progressives will see this as betrayal of them by the administration and it

won't "be let go of" by any means. There should be no pretense that that's not what this is.

I'm looking for solutions to corporate fascism in America -- and working with other

liberals/progressives to find those solutions. Was that possible in the past here?

Is it possible now?

Thank you for getting to the mike to speak your mind -- even in these dark days at DU!

[William Z. Foster]

490. thanks defendandprotect

Really good post.

"There should be no pretense..."

"I'm looking for solutions to corporate fascism in America..."

Yes.

[MissDeeds]

529. Excellent post

It is becoming more of a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality, and it flies in the face of democratic ideals. The last administration was soundly criticized here for such a mindset. Now, there is less tolerance on DU for posts that dare to question and argue policies and practices of this administration, even when those practices were vilified on DU just two or three years ago. (I'm treading very carefully so this doesn't get deleted - pity, isn't it?) Discussion has been watered down and censorship has taken its place. I hope the thought police aren't next.

I never thought I'd see that here.

[defendandprotect]

480. Late K&R . . .

[Radical Activist]

495. "opponents" and "the other side" How sad.

The fact that you would define Democrats, (and let's stop being coy about what you're implying) anyone who supports Obama, as opponents on the other side is disappointing. It says much about the source of division when you choose to view liberal Democrats as the enemy.

And no, this isn't about a right/left split. There are many on the left who don't choose to engage in broad-based labeling and insults against Obama that are banned by the rules.

It doesn't surprise me that the people who jump to conclusions and assume the worst about Obama are doing the same about these rules. It's a personality issue and it says more about the individual than it says about the rules or Obama.

[William Z. Foster]

501. I am not being coy

I did not "define Democrats, anyone who supports Obama, as opponents on the other side."

I also did not attempt to get into a debate about who is or isn't left, nor the true meaning of "left." I said there were two factions. Clearly there are, as here you are taking up the argument from one of those two factions against people from the other.

I think this focus on the word "left" is a distraction. As I said in the OP I don't care what you call us, nor do I care of you call yourself a leftist. The feud and the basis for the feud would still be there no matter what you call either of the groups, and the feud is not about who gets to call whom what. Obviously that is not the topic nor the basis for the fighting here.

You post continually in strong and uncompromising opposition to others, and there is a consistent theme to those posts. There is a group of people here whom you relentlessly oppose, and you make no secret about that. Yet you object to me pointing out that there are two feuding factions, as you rekindle the feud and characterize and define the other group - "the people who jump to conclusions and assume the worst about Obama are doing the same about these rules."

You illustrated and played out exactly what I am talking about in the OP - while you disagreed with the OP. I don't know what to make of that.

[Radical Activist]

503. I understand that you don't want to defend your false premise that this is a left/right issue.

It's a weak and insulting assumption on your part, along with your presumption that there are primarily two factions.

It's a hypocritical inconsistency that you refuse to discuss what defines the factions you imagine exist at DU, but you're eager to place me in the camp of "the other." I'm amazed at your ability to define what the topic is NOT as soon as it takes a direction you find inconvenient. Your post is a Picasso of passive-aggressive evasiveness. It should be put on display.

I do have a theme to many of my posts. I argue against distortion and exaggeration. I don't believe that hyperbole, jumping to conclusions, exaggeration, and obsessive dislike of one person are progressive values. I don't believe that those on this board who engage in that behavior are more liberal than I am. It's really a small group who can't help themselves from doing it consistently.

You don't see me promoting Obama's conservative policies, so by your definition, I don't fit into the opposition camp you imagine is aligned against you. I'm a leftist and my behavior on this board is very different than yours. There aren't two groups and it isn't about left/right. It's about specific behaviors that have very little to do with ideology.

[William Z. Foster]

506. whatever

The point you are using as a launchpad for your attack is a minor and peripheral one, and has been thoroughly explored and discussed on the thread already. It was addressed in the OP.

Other than that, you are a complete mystery to me and I have no idea where you stand on anything and don't care if you call yourself a leftist or you don't.

All I know is that it is extremely unpleasant and confusing to interact with you.

[Radical Activist]

511. Yeah, I decided to be an independent thinker

and break out of dogmatic Marxism a long time ago. So maybe you have a hard time computing someone who doesn't fit into a neat little box.

William Foster did his part to divide the communist party into little factions that were so small they became irrelevant. I don't think those old left habits of drawing divisive lines in the sand were ever very productive. I don't see the point in bringing that mindset to DU.

[William Z. Foster]

513. sorry

I have no idea what you are talking about, and every post you make confuses me more. I have tried to respond to everyone on this thread, but I am at a loss for what to say to you. Thanks for contributing, I guess. Others have gotten value from it. Sorry that you have not.

[Radical Activist]

521. You picked the name of William Z. Foster.

Are you not aware that there were two communist candidates for President in each year that he ran? Or that communists split up into factions over disagreements in ideology and tactics? He decided to separate and form another faction of the American communist party, kind of like you're suggesting at the end of your post. The similarities are ironic.

[DCBob]

526. more than ironic.

[William Z. Foster]

553. so...

The people here with "Jefferson" in their user name - should we attack them because Jefferson owned slaves? Pretty desperate on your part.

[Radical Activist]

557. Oh so you do know something about William Foster.

I'm glad you're no longer feigning ignorance, but you still refuse to defend your ground. I'm pointing out your behavior and comparing it to similar mistakes made by the historical William Z. Foster. That's very different than blaming you for something Foster or Jefferson did. The more apt comparison would be if someone on DU with Jefferson in their name actually owned slaves today.

Would you at least like to defend your suggestion to split and form a separate faction somewhere else and explain why it's any more productive today than when communists were running two competing Presidential candidates who divided a tiny fraction of the vote? I'll bet not.

[William Z. Foster]

608. WTF?

Look, it is a user name. You have your avatar and user name, and no one thinks that they have anything to do with anything you post.

Good grief you are arguing with a person based on their user name. Give it up. I am not going to get into a passing match with you.

[Radical Activist]

649. More passive-aggressive evasiveness and playing the clueless martyr from you.

You know it isn't an argument over your username. You chose to ignore the issue I raised in my comment. I'll paste it here just so it's perfectly clear to everyone what you refuse to discuss.

"Would you at least like to defend your suggestion to split and form a separate faction somewhere else and explain why it's any more productive today than when communists were running two competing Presidential candidates who divided a tiny fraction of the vote? I'll bet not."

It looks like I was correct that you're not interested in discussing or defending your post. I probably should give up on trying to have an honest discussion with you. You can stop projecting your actions onto me since this was the apparently your intent: "You are determined to throw gasoline on the fire and get the flames roaring again."

The balls it takes to attack me for being divisive after you posted a flame-bait suggestion that some people need to splinter off and form a separate group. I'm being smothered by your hypocrisy.

[William Z. Foster]

662. I didn't advocate that

I didn't advocate that "some people need to splinter off and form a separate group." I tried to talk about the existing split, not cause one.

I can't imagine discussing and defending a post more than I have here. I cannot imagine being more patient or accommodating with those who disagree without totally surrendering my position.

[New Dawn]

631. Now I've seen everything: someone with a Che avatar red-baiting someone else!

You are aware that Che supported both Stalin and Mao, correct?

[William Z. Foster]

641. amazing isn't it?

It boggles the mind.

[New Dawn]

650. Indeed!

[Radical Activist]

644. No red baiting at all.

It's a discussion of tactics. A particularly disingenuous, passive-aggressive one on Foster's part since he refuses to defend any of his assertions when challenged.

It really doesn't bother me that Foster picked the username of a communist and I'm not criticizing him for that. I'm criticizing the long tradition the American left has of splintering and bickering ourselves into irrelevance that Foster seems intent to continue.

[New Dawn]

630. False. CPUSA never had more than one presidential ticket in any given year.

http://fosterhall.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-of-communist-party-of-united.html

[Radical Activist]

643. You failed to mention that there was more than one communist party.

And they both had their own candidate. That CPUSA only had one candidate doesn't contradict the fact that there were two communist candidates in the general election when Foster ran.

[New Dawn]

648. No, there was only one CPUSA.

The "Socialist Party of America" was not communist. And, by the mid 1920s, the "Socialist Labor Party" was definitely smaller than the CPUSA (its even reflected in the vote totals):

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1924&minper=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1928&minper=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1932&minper=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0

[Radical Activist]

651. The CPUSA started as a splinter offshoot of the Socialist Party of America.

The Socialist Labor Party was yet another splinter. Then you had further splintering with the Communist League of America and the separate Communist Party, USA (Majority Group). So there were multiple communist parties and further factions within CPUSA, as you must know.

I was under the impression that some SLP candidates also considered themselves communists, and that other factional communist parties had attempted to field their own candidate, which I may be mistaken about. So if I was wrong then the years when three and four candidates were dividing the Marxist vote (usually a few percentage points) there may have only been one who called himself communist rather than socialist.

All in all, I think this supports the point I was making very well. Divisive factionalism is a destructive hobby of the American left.

[William Z. Foster]

660. good point

Divisive factionalism is destructive. So set the example for us and stop creating it. The OP was an attempt at recognizing the factions and talking about the feuding for the purpose of resolving that.

There is no evidence to suggest that factionalism is any more prevalent in this country or on the left than anywhere else. The one and only way to eliminate factionalism is to have all sides line up with power. The use of one fig leaf or another - "we are working for incremental change within the system" or "we still believe in left wing ideas" doesn't change the fact that people are lining up with power.

Talk about causing divisive factionalism! You are taking my user name (!) and trying to pick some esoteric doctrinal battle based on that.

[defendandprotect]

516. What's the value of a "free thinker" without the right to free expression?

[MissDeeds]

530. Excellent question n/t

[Radical Activist]

545. Skinner stated that the rules could result in more criticism of Obama.

I take that seriously and I don't see it as a threat to open debate. Personally, I'd criticize Obama on this board more often if it didn't seem under siege by people who would assume Obama was up to no good if they saw him crossing the road.

[defendandprotect]

592. Let's be frank -- the aim of the new rules is to curtail criticism of Obama . . .

and intended to have a chilling effect on those who have criticized Obama and the

administration in the past --

Personally, I'd criticize Obama on this board more often if it didn't seem under siege by people who would assume Obama was up to no good if they saw him crossing the road.

Personally, I see your own state of mind reflected in that accusation . . .

and an attempt to make light of and demean the criticism of Obama and the administration.

However, anyone paying attention to the condition of the world knows that the issues we face

today are serious and life threatening for us all . . .

from Global Warming and the oil spill which is still raging on --

to torture, wiretapping, two wars bankrupting our Treasury -- to American homelessness

and American joblessness.

These aren't issues to be taken in any way lightly -- nor should the debate here on those

issues be taken lightly. The issues are serious -- the debates and comments are serious.


Just an aside -- the other day AMC was discussing and playing a trailer for an old movie

called "On The Beach" -- Their world was ending with both a "whimper" and a "bang."

At some point, Gregory Peck who plays the lead is challenged with a question from a woman:

"Why didn't they know this could happen?"

He responds: "They did know" --

That movie was made 52 years ago as a warning to us all.

It's still viable and relevant because most times most of us recognize the insanities of

the world and those who are running it.

Like overturning New Deal regulations on capitalism --

Like capitalism's suicidal exploitation of nature --

Like killing 1 million Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11 --

Like permitting the privatization of our natural resources -- oil --

Like watching Bush steal 2000 --

Most of us do KNOW that these things are wrong --

and we're not reacting strongly enough.

[Individualist]

544. Fail.

[Radical Activist]

505. I also believe

that recognizing and encouraging the progressive actions taken by any Democrat is at least as effective at promoting additional progress as holding out an impossible standard of constant criticism. That's why you'll see me defend Obama for his progressive actions but not for his conservative failings. Once again, this is a difference in tactics among liberals. It doesn't make me a centrist and it doesn't make you a more righteous leftist.

The false assumptions in your post are insulting and misguided.

[William Z. Foster]

509. LOL

I think you already said all of that.

The thread was not really about you, nor was it about me.

[Radical Activist]

512. It doesn't appear to have been about anything

since you never let yourself get penned down on what it's about when challenged.

[defendandprotect]

514. This is about people who ALL support Obama . . .

but also about those who criticize Obama, as well -- and those who cannot handle that criticism.

It's the UN-Rec mentality set loose on free speech here.


We hear often that DU'ers here need to block out the world -- find some peace here --

Rather I think it is best to deal with reality and if you're not up to it why belong to or

post on a website which is intended to be a Town Square where all opinions are voiced?

There is a split in thinking here -- as much as the split created by Rahm Emmanuel in

calling liberals/progressives who wanted single payer "F---ing Retards" -- and as much

as the targeting of right wing Democrats by the AFL-CIO was met with another vile attack coming

from a source in the WH again believed to be Emmanuel -- though these targeted Democrats are

those who have long been blocking Democratic legislation!! What's the difference if Democratic

legislation is blocked by a Republican or a Democrat voting with Republicans?

[Radical Activist]

534. And at the same time

threads get un-rec'd simply because they include something positive about Obama. And I don't blame anyone for feeling fatigued when more than half the threads on the front page are usually attacking Obama. Or feeling under siege when no positive thread can be posted without several generalized name-calling, cynical attacks that may or may not have any substance.

So how does one allow criticism of Obama while also toning down the drumbeat of those who are campaigning against him no matter what he does? I don't know the best way, but it seems like DU is making an attempt that allows broad disagreement.

I also notice that Rahm's offensive comment violates DU rules and would have been removed had he posted it here. :)

[defendandprotect]

583. Never heard an accusation like that before -- and I've NEVER un-rec'd a thread ...

and doubt any other liberal/progressive here has ever bothered with such nonsense.

And that anyone would believe that.

How exactly is it that you've judged that?

Do you have some way of chasing down every "unrec" --

Some way of knowing who exactly cast the Un-rec --

And some crystal ball which tells you the "why" of the Un-rec --

Or is this simply you and your suspicions?

I also never fail to see posters rushing in to "congatulate" Obama when something positive

has happened -- I'm overjoyed when something good happens. We all are!


And I don't blame anyone for feeling fatigued when more than half the threads on the front page are usually attacking Obama.

And what is it that you think? That the articles aren't the "news" of the day but are being

created by Democratic posters here to try to smear President Obama?

These are often articles written by liberals and progressives in journalism -- often even by

other prominent Democrats. How badly do you want to shut out the entire world from DU?


Or feeling under siege when no positive thread can be posted without several generalized name-calling, cynical attacks that may or may not have any substance.

Actually, I do believe that you and others do believe that you are "under siege."

And I think that's a problem for you.

This is a debate forum - a place for open and frank speech on all issues.

If some here want peace and quiet, perhaps what they're really looking for is a park bench

in the sun, or a church pew? If some here truly feel that DU should be an oasis of peace

where we isolate ourselves from reality and block out the news of the world, then please let

them know that a political website is the wrong place to find what they're looking for.


So how does one allow criticism of Obama while also toning down the drumbeat of those who are campaigning against him no matter what he does? I don't know the best way, but it seems like DU is making an attempt that allows broad disagreement.

You are continuing to see any Democrat who criticizes obama as "the enemy." Why?

These are Democrats with just as valid opinions as your opinion of Obama.

Rather than trying to shut it out, you should be trying to understand it . . .

because that rising criticism is why the "drumbeat" is not going to lessen as long as

we don't begin to see a more liberal/progressive Obama and direction for the nation.

These aren't Democrats "campaigning" against Obama. These are Democrats greatly concerned for

this nation and democracy who are focused on the growing corporate fascism in America.

How do these people here who are so concerned about fellow Democrats criticizing Obama react

to the world outside of DU? To Schultz, to Jon Stewart, to Tom Hayden - to Michael Moore and

William Greider? And to many, many more -- Grayson, Franken, Whitehouse?

Are these all the "enemy" to them, as well? How do they possibly handle what the GOP has to

say of Obama. Do they just completely draw a curtain down on that, as well?

As for "name-calling" --- I don't really see that much of it here --

What I see is those further to the right here being less concerned about corporatism than

liberals/progressives are.

No one wants to complain and criticize -- we want Happy Days for the nation and ourselves --

but until we reregulate capitalism that's not going to happen. Until we end these two inane

wars and stop refinancing them, that's not going to happen. As long as we have homeless

Americans that's not going to happen. Our joblessness is serious enough to take us into another

Great Depression. You may not know or realize this, but Obama actually used the word

"Depression" a month or so ago in describing the current situation!

It was immediately scrubbed from the internet before I could pick it up.

9% doesn't tell the reality of the long term unemployed -- 17% would be closer.

It's 40% in some places. And among African Americans HUGE -- plus they're also bearing the

brunt of the phony Drug War and our bright shiny new prison industrial system!

Wiretapping, torture, sabre rattling with Iran -- US hitting Pakistan with drones --

how would anyone begin to suggest that we turn down the "drumbeat"????

Rather those who are aware are wondering why Americans haven't taken to the streets.


I also notice that Rahm's offensive comment violates DU rules and would have been removed had he posted it here.

I understand your wish for harmony -- at least I think I do.

However, when Rahm says something like that it shows us who he is and what is really on his mind.

I'd rather know those things than not know them.

There's an old saying: "Speak so that I may know you" --

Thanks for your reply --

:)

[Radical Activist]

652. I've had enough experience

having my rec on a thread not count to realize what's happening. So have others.

You wrote: "You are continuing to see any Democrat who criticizes obama as "the enemy." Why?"

I suggested no such thing. It's the OP that refers to Obama supporters as the "opposition."

My comments are not about any Democrat who criticizes Obama. I wrote specifically about "those who are campaigning against him no matter what he does." I don't believe that describes most people who criticize Obama. It applies to a fairly small number of people who appear to be in bitter campaign attack mode at all times. It's no longer just about the issues to them. It's about their intense dislike of a personality. A small number of people poison the well in a way that makes healthy discussion very difficult for the rest of us. That's what I hope the rules will address.

I already wrote that I welcome criticism of Obama and I meant it.

[defendandprotect]

656. Difficult to understand your back and forth --

You make clear that you are disturbed about criticism of Obama here --

you suggest that almost every thread is anti-Obama --

you suggest that there is gang-Un-rec of any postive article on obama --

and yet you want at the same time to try to suggest that you "welcome" criticism of Obama!

It's really not believable.



Again -- how do you know who has UN'd a thread -- ?

And how do you know the reason for it -- ?

And are you suggesting that you see EVERY thread posted here and have time to judge it on

your anti-Obama standards -- ??



You wrote: "You are continuing to see any Democrat who criticizes obama as "the enemy." Why?"

I suggested no such thing. It's the OP that refers to Obama supporters as the "opposition."

Again -- what I said to you, I said based on YOUR comments to me in your post.

And to try to suggest that there is no "opposition" here by a small right wing group to criticism

of Obama would be disingenuous of you.


My comments are not about any Democrat who criticizes Obama. I wrote specifically about "those who are campaigning against him no matter what he does." I don't believe that describes most people who criticize Obama. It applies to a fairly small number of people who appear to be in bitter campaign attack mode at all times. It's no longer just about the issues to them. It's about their intense dislike of a personality. A small number of people poison the well in a way that makes healthy discussion very difficult for the rest of us. That's what I hope the rules will address.

I already wrote that I welcome criticism of Obama and I meant it.

You'd have to identify for me those who you think are "campaigning against him no matter what he

does." As I mentioned before that seems a rather huge and incorrect exaggeration.

You'd have to be much more specific.

If you reread just your paragraph above, you might also get an understanding that anyone reading

it would have to believe that you've commissioned a long term study of DU posts!

What you are really saying is that this is your SENSE of what is happening here and IMO I think

for some reason anything negative on Obama just echoes for you.

Neither have I ever seen anyone here suggest that they personally "dislike" Obama.

Rather, I think that's the least of the problems.

Again -- you have a tendency to see this as personalities -- It's NOT about personalities.

It's about politics. Obama is a politician. Currently he's directing the nation.

No one is pretending that is easy.

The criticism is based on the direction that Obama is taking the country. That continues to be

involvement in two wars and financing them which is bankrupting the Treasury.

It continues to be grossly insufficient response to Global Warming which is a threat to us all.

Oddly enough, in all of your concerns, I see no issues mentioned, nor policies --

except the one you continue to stress which is your sensitivity to criticism of Obama --


What are the national issues you fight for here?

Are you watching any C-span ... what are your thoughts on the Financial Regulation Hearings?

How do you think the Senate is running -- what do you think of your Reps?

What were the issues you've been commenting on all week at DU, other than criticism of Obama?

What is really on your mind politically?

"Speak so we may know you" --

[Radical Activist]

663. You responded to something you imagine I posted and not to what I actually wrote.

You wrote: "You make clear that you are disturbed about criticism of Obama here --"

No, I'm not at all. I'm posting about specific behaviors by a small number of people that go beyond fair criticism. You would like to believe that my problem is with anyone who criticizes Obama. You should read my posts instead of trying to fit me into some box.

For example, I wrote in a previous comment in this thread:
I do have a theme to many of my posts. I argue against distortion and exaggeration. I don't believe that hyperbole, jumping to conclusions, exaggeration, and obsessive dislike of one person are progressive values. I don't believe that those on this board who engage in that behavior are more liberal than I am. It's really a small group who can't help themselves from doing it consistently.
You don't see me promoting Obama's conservative policies, so by your definition, I don't fit into the opposition camp you imagine is aligned against you. I'm a leftist and my behavior on this board is very different than yours. There aren't two groups and it isn't about left/right. It's about specific behaviors that have very little to do with ideology.

You asked:
"Again -- how do you know who has UN'd a thread -- ?"

I never claimed I know who is unrec-ing threads. I don't need to know who specifically is doing it to observe that it's happening. Your question is irrelevant to my point.

You wrote: You'd have to identify for me those who you think are "campaigning against him no matter what he does." As I mentioned before that seems a rather huge and incorrect exaggeration.

It's only an exaggeration if you continue to falsely assume that I'm writing about anyone who criticizes Obama. You can stop misrepresenting my points at any moment.

I can't respond to your request that I name specific people because that would violate DU rules against calling people out. But, if you hang around long enough it becomes obvious who would continue attacking every action Obama takes even if he was to the left of Karl Marx.

[defendandprotect]

695. I think we have to just let your own explanations speak for you ...

as has been pointed out to you previously, you make little sense.

And, seem often to be in denial of what you say.

Bye --

[TransitJohn]

535. Welcome to DLC Underground. n/t

n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

538. Faction smaction

The benefit of being a pariah to all is that I don't worry my beautiful mind over which "group" is in favor.

Don't fear the reaper. I will continue to speak my mind until Skinner tells me I need to speak it elsewhere. To thine own self be true. I won't... can't adopt a new ideological and ethical frame because of a post on a discussion board.

I saw a couple of things in the new and improved rules which I consider unwise, but it's not my sandbox. I didn't see anything that is likely to get me excommunicated immediately except perhaps "posting highly inflammatory or excessively controversial topics", or maybe pointing out that "men suck" is a bigoted statement.

If the rules preclude substantive discussion, that substantive discussion will occur elsewhere. FWIW, I don't think they will, as mentioned upthread, the rules are just a better written regurgitation of the existing ones.

If you hate Obama's stinkin' guts, you're probably wasting your time here anyway. Most of us consider him a mixed bag, who can be encouraged to do the right thing.

[maryf]

579. Kick

sorry I missed this until now, worth a kick for others like me...

[G_j]

585. kick

because we may not be seeing threads like this in the future.

[Swamp Rat]

613. Thank you, William Z. Foster

I really like your posts, and reading your ideas. You have an uncanny ability to filter out the noise and cut through the BS being posted on DU these days. When I read your posts, I actually learn a lot, and come away feeling smarter or more informed than I was before.

I hope you never leave DU.

:hi:

[democrat2thecore]

616. Dumb Question: WHERE is this "announcement" thread with new rules? Thanks in advance! -NT

[William Z. Foster]

619. link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151

[democrat2thecore]

620. Thank you much! -NT

[tavalon]

653. I've learned through being here that I am actually more of a socialist

than a Democrat. I was actually taking a hiatus when I saw Skinner's post about rules. I read it and said, yeah, that might make this place more civil. I happened by here tonight (slow night at work) and saw this thread and since I got that you think this is oppressive to us lefties, I reread it. I'm not seeing it. Certainly, when I have gotten my dander up and have been posting pissy, attacking posts, I have had some deleted. I think being locked out of the thread if I can't be civil on my own seems, well, alright to me. Sometimes, I need time outs as much as the next person. I've had a thread or two locked in my day as well and most times it was because my OP was hijacked by people with an axe to grind.

No matter how angry I am at President Obama and goodness knows, I've been angry with him, disappointed in him and overall disillusioned by this guy we elected, we did elect him and until such time as we elect another, I will accord him with the respect due to a sitting President. That doesn't mean I won't criticize his actions. I will and I will be able to adequately explain my criticisms. If such criticism gets me banned, then I really DU doesn't get the respect that we deserve is because we're seen as the far left fringe. And they aren't entirely wrong about that. This place is very, very skewed to the left. Far more than the rest of the country appears to be. We have a strident minority who demand that we show absolute fealty to the capital D Party. They often remind me of fundamentalists in that, and I pay them little heed, because I think they are wrong but so loudly wrong, that little can come of it but pissing matches.

Anyway, when I get back here, I'm going to post the same way I did before. If that turns out to be unacceptable, I will know that I need to invest my online discussion power elsewhere. But, honestly, I don't think that will be the case. Skinner is, IMO, a great human being and rarely do I have a problem with the rules here.

[Name removed]

726. Deleted sub-thread

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

[blindpig]

729. Too bad

RIP