Just a reminder: The "Democratic" part of Democratic Underground

[Gman]

means the Democratic Party.

Sorry if that offends anyone.

That is all.

[VMI Dem]

1. You're either with the centrists or agin' 'em.

:rofl:

[bvar22]

145. Centrism is the only sensible choice!

There is no policy that is not For Sale.
There is NO line in the sand they will not cross.
There is No ISSUE they will fight for.

Centrism....because its SO EASY!
You don't have to take a STAND on ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!
:party:


Which way to the "Centrist" Victory Parade?

[Touchdown]

170. Vote for Ben Nelson! He's not only an obstructionist. He's our obstructionist!

:woohoo:

[woo me with science]

2. Here we go again.

DU spends more time talking about itself than anything else.

[Kurovski]

164. I'd nominate that for a DUzy, if such a thing existed.

:rofl: :rofl:

But what the fuck is the deal with Obama? Did they show him what cities they'd nuke on his first day if he got too far out of line? Speak with menace about the kids? He certainly looked stricken the day after the inaugural. Was he hungover? Too much Coke?



That corn syrup can really knock it outta 'ya.

[woo me with science]

172. ROFL!

Love your sigline.

[Kurovski]

173. Thanks, I keep wanting to change it...

but that just about sums it all up.

It just keeps being so dang filthy.

[LostInAnomie]

3. It's amazing how many on here fight that idea.

[Gman]

12. They did the same things in 08 too

And one angry DU'er from a southeast peninsula state was already slamming Obama less than 48 hours after the election was final in 08. IIRC, it was like 42 - 44 hours.

THis damn sure isn't Green Underground. Never was.

[flyarm]

62. gee i saw a post very similar last night! WOW amazing how some people think exactly alike here!

wow is this the new MEME?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8844194&mesg_id=8844194

[Gman]

117. I guess we're just getting real tired of it.

patience is wearing very thin with a lot of us.

[Forkboy]

140. Awwww

[flyarm]

142. or the very same talking points???????? yeah..that's the ticket! eom

[Confusious]

15. How much do I have to agree with you?

O' shining example of the glorious light of liberalism?

100% or I'm out?
99% or I'm out?
75% or I'm out?

[Confusious]

17. Delete

[Orsino]

67. If we were lock-steppers, we'd be Republicans.

Herding cats comes with the territory, thank goodness.

[depakid]

4. For us or agin us!

Values, policies and principles be damned!

Go team!

[Oregone]

10. Love er or leave er

[depakid]

16. Sure enough...

[MilesColtrane]

161. Or, in your case, just leave er.

[laughingliberal]

22. I get it! It's a contest to see how many different ways there are to say, "for us or against us!

Wonder what they're giving as a prize?

[QC]

29. The prize? A dream date with George W. Bush. n/t

[NJmaverick]

49. If there is no requirement to support the Democratic party

What's the point of the board? It's always been my understanding and I am pretty certain Skinner has even publicly stated this, that the one thing that bonds all the membership here is the common support for the Democratic party. If we don't have that bond what's to stop DU from becoming an open political forum complete with Republicans, libertarians and Tea Party members?

[NJmaverick]

44. Most people that support the party are very principled people

and their values and desired policies are very liberal. The thing that I think makes them supporters is they also tend to be realists who understand what can and can't be done and how long it takes to accomplish many goals.

[flyarm]

90. they sure are..but most people 'WON'T "SELL OUT" their principles and values!

while others will cheaply!

There seems to be a Vast Majority here at DU that won't ever give up their DEMOCRATIC principles and values and a very small minority who have and who keep trying every meme and talking point in the book they can to snooker the majority!

Pot, kettle..get it??

Psssssssssssss...come here..I have to tell you a secret...

.it won't work..but the alienation is working quite well!

[flyarm]

89. Amazing isn't it? Next meme will be, if you don't like it, " leave the country"..

I know, because I saw this and fought this shit with freepers and freeper Like repukes..from about 2000 on..

Now we get our own rendition of "for us or against us"..but we get to use "the Greens"!!

How enlightening, and inspiring!! :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :woohoo: :woohoo: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Anyone remember Cindy Sheehan? Well I distinctly remember seeing signs when she got to Crawford..saying..For us or against us..and leave the country..and all those inspiring words:sarcasm: on signs protesting her!

In fact what those nasty signs did, they inspired me to put huge signs on my home..on three floors..Huge assed signs ..that hit the papers from one coast to the other coast!! And what my signs basically said ..stick it up your ass..I will never buy into that bullshit of "for us or against us"!

Those signs also inspired me to be the first person to send food and water down to Cindy and feed she and all the wonderful liberals who camped in a trench..on the side of a road ...in Crawford!

I had the pleasure a couple of years later of giving those signs to Cindy personally..she and I both teared up...it was heart felt.

Yes, those who say FUCK YOU to the assinine meme "for us or against us"..they are my inspiration!

And always will be!

Wow I know there was a similar thread last night..it must be the new meme ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

but as someone pointed out in that thread..the OP is an indy..not a Dem and the Greens helped put our present president into office..

some people are not too smart..now are they?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[VMI Dem]

6. ...

:spray: :rofl:

[jgraz]

13. Oh shiz

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

20. Well. Done. Kudos.

:yourock:

[laughingliberal]

25. +1000 nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. That's gonna leave a mark.

[Bonobo]

59. I gotta know! Someone PM with what that response said! Please! nt

[DireStrike]

155. Ditto!

[Kurovski]

174. Me too, dammit!

And do it RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

[Touchdown]

176. Whadesay, whadesay??? PM me!

I always get here too late.:cry:

[Oregone]

7. Big "D" or small "d". Tough to tell when its title-cased.

dem·o·crat·ic (dm-krtk)
adj.
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: "a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords" (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.

:rofl:

Oh, and what Democratic Party? The one of the 40's, or the new one?

[Land Shark]

24. In case of Big D conflict with little "d" democracy, which Ought to prevail? Would OP say Big D?

As LBJ noted, saying he's a "free man, an American, a United States Senator and a Democrat, in that order. Thus, it seems to me that a mere reference to the domain name, or even DU policy, would not resolve a true conflict with small "d" democracy and other higher considerations. Most situations present no conflict at all, but some occasionally do.

[DevonRex]

87. Maybe Skinner's rules will help you out.

Lots of big "D" talk here:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. 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.

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.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[quinnox]

8. yea, so what

I'm a Democrat and just as mad as the greens or progressives on the left.

[geek tragedy]

9. Eh, let them rant and pout.

When it's election season in a couple of months, there will be considerably less tolerance for that bullshit.

[Swamp Rat]

37. Yeah! Who are they to complain after you bully them?!

[Scurrilous]

38. That day can't come soon enough. n/t

[azmouse]

86. I hope you're correct.

There isn't much of the Democrat in Democratic Underground any more.

[paulk]

121. some would argue

that there isn't much of the Democrat in the Democratic Party any more...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Doesn't bother me. I've been a Democrat since 1965. But, that doesn't mean I owe it fealty.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Gman]

19. No, sorry... Thats not true

It has nothing to do with Democracy. I joined DU 2 months after it was started. The name referred to how we as Democrats felt after the 2000 election.

[Ken Burch]

23. I've been a DU member for years.

And it's not the place of people like you to start "STFU" threads.

This OP is totally inappropriate.

And you're also not entitled to insinuate that critics are disloyal to the party. Most aren't.

[Gman]

27. No, most aren't disloyal

but a lot here would be filled with glee if the party loses Congress and even more overjoyed if Obama were to lose in 2 years. They'd think they really taught the party some kind of lesson at the expense of very likely much worse than anything we ever saw under Bush/Cheney.

They post comments and OP's here working toward that end. I'm not happy with a lot of things in the Democratic Party, but I'll damn sure not trash it to the point of destruction.

[NJmaverick]

45. The OP didn't tell anyone to STFU and being supportive of the Democrats is

is very appropriate here at DU

[Ken Burch]

148. He was implying that HIS position was the only "Democratic" one.

and that everyone who disagrees with him is a traitor to the party.

(and people like him never say that to people who criticize with the party from the right, I notice.)

[sabrina 1]

39. Omg ~ DU has 'nothing to do with Democracy'!

I hope you don't speak for this board, OR the Democratic Party ....

[flyarm]

91. Slap head..now I have seen it all..I hope the op doesn't speak for the board or the Dem party also!

that just kind of made me sick!

[Confusious]

18. How much do I have to agree with you?

O' shining example of the glorious light of liberalism?

100% or I'm out?
99% or I'm out?
75% or I'm out?

[Gman]

21. I think 85% is a reasonable number

don't you? LOL! :hi:

[Confusious]

26. So did you ever stop to consider

That most people here are probably going to share that 15%, and might not go for the mutual jerk off club?

[U4ikLefty]

42. So you can kiss 15% of my ass!!!

[NJmaverick]

47. It's not about percentages as it is about how the disagreement is done

is the disagreement dealt with in a destructive or constructive manner? Is that disagreement considered in a balanced manner with the agreements or does it get blown out of proportion? that's the real issue

[flyarm]

92. well i can sure ass tell you that threads like this are more than destructive..much much more!

This is one lady who doesn't take to bullying..of any kind!

And this is bullying! in case you missed the point ..most of us didn't!

[NJmaverick]

106. This poster has no power over you and is incapable of taking any sort of punitive action against

you or any other DUer. With out any power or taking any actions that are capable of hurting another UDer, so how can you describe posting an opinion as "bullying"?

[flyarm]

111. excuse me no one has power over me..and never has..this is bullying..and that is out of line

in the USA i grew up in and in the Democratic party I have been a card carrying member for 40 years!

You can change the point all you want..and twist and turn and flip and flop..this is bullying!

As have been the numerous posts just like this.

I don't need you to tell me anything..I don't need a mother or father, I had great parents who, rest their souls, taught me well about bullies and how to deal with them! ..and I have been a mother and raised my kids quite sucessfully, thank you!

Keep playing these tactics...everyone knows a bully when they see one!...

Many of us taught our children to never be a bully and how to deal with bullies.

Take heed.. you are turning more people away in disgust.. than bringing them together!

[NJmaverick]

118. You missed the main point. It's impossible by the definition of the term bullying

to bully someone you have no power or control over or are capable of taking any actions against them.

[flyarm]

120. I did not miss your point..I have been getting your point quite clearly for a very long time!

Your point is quite clear! for all to see and have seen!

[Confusious]

154. Are you the final arbiter of destructive or constructive?

I don't see how anyone can agree that more spying on us is a good thing. Or pumping more money into wars is good. Or letting the bankers run wild is good.
Or cutting social security is good.

If you're looking for agreement and "balance" on those things, you're not going to find it.

Or do you want us to say "well, he's done a lot of other good stuff, so I'll let this pass." Sorry, some of the stuff he's done is a scale of 1 to 10, while banking, wars, spying, social security is a 100 on the same scale.

If he fails there, he fails. Everything else is a hill of beans.

[Jim Sagle]

28. Whadda crocka DLC chickenshit bullshit.

[kenny blankenship]

30. I remember the Democratic part of the Democratic Underground

it's a fading memory, to be sure, but sometimes when I close my eyes and remember it's like we are all together again in opposing the destruction of 4th Amendment liberties, in opposing imperial warfare in oily parts of the world, the banksters weren't our acknowledged lords and rulers, and the health "care" betrayal has never happened yet. I remember Democrats leaping to their feet when Howard Dean gave his "what I want to know!" speech, and thinking We could have a Democratic Party led by its Democratic Wing again. We really could. Then I open my eyes again and see all you carrion crows hopping over the corpse of the party and think "better go dig a hole."

[bring_em_home_bush]

43. +1 gazillion

[NJmaverick]

46. I remember when DU was all about defeating the Republicans

I remember when I could come to DU and get the truth to counter right wing talking points. I remember when we were united in our efforts to elect Democrats and defeat the Republicans


I remember also that it was the Republicans that started the 2 wars that we are getting ourselves out of and trying to draw to a good conclusion

I remember that the Republicans were the ones that destroyed our economy

I remember that the Republicans were the ones that got our nations so badly addicted to fossil fuels


I remember that the Republicans were the ones that behaved so badly on the international stage and made us hated by the entire world

I remember that the Republicans were and are the party of no that has done everything in their power to stop or derail all the progressive legislation that passed

[jgraz]

53. And now it's about blowing smoke as Democrats adopt their policies

At least it is for you.

[NJmaverick]

55. That's incorrect and there are so many facts to prove it

fact- The republicans have been almost universally opposed to all the Democrat's efforts

fact- the Democrats have not started any wars since taking power

fact- Wall Street reform and regulation is not a Republican policy

fact- Creating a consumer protection agency is not a Republican policy

fact- Spending Billions on green energy is not a Republican policy

fact- Bailing out Detroit and saving 10s of thousands of union jobs was not a Republican policy

fact- Reforming Health Care which includes millions getting badly needed subsidies to buy insurance and increased regulation of the insurance companies was not a Republican policy

[jgraz]

70. Ah, you mean the NJMaverick version of "fact".

If you don't mind, I'll use the normally-accepted, reality-based version of "fact":

fact- The republicans have been almost universally opposed to all the Democrat's efforts

Reality: They oppose him because they're Republicans and the President is black. Obama could propose We Like Puppies day and they'd oppose him.



fact- the Democrats have not started any wars since taking power

Reality: yes, they've just kept funding Bush's wars and escalating them. Continuation of Republican policy #1.



fact- Wall Street reform and regulation is not a Republican policy

Reality: apparently it's not a Democratic policy, either. Name one provision in the recent bill that would have prevented the 2008 collapse had it been in place. Just a hint: it doesn't exist and you and I both know it. Continuation of Republican policy #2



fact- Creating a consumer protection agency is not a Republican policy

Reality: Since the CFPA is the only marginal "reform" in Obama's financial "reform", you're playing games and listing the same "fact" twice in a row. Of course, since the bill contains no actual regulations, the entire process hinges on the integrity of the individual people charged with running this new oversight structure. Right now, Republican Tim Geithner is in charge of the CFPA.



fact- Spending Billions on green energy is not a Republican policy

Reality: But clean coal, cap-and-trade and failure to address climate change is. Continuation of Republican policies #3, 4 and 5.



fact- Bailing out Detroit and saving 10s of thousands of union jobs was not a Republican policy

Reality: But bailing out the banksters, letting them take huge bonuses and doing nothing to change the ticking time bomb of derivative is. Continuation of Republican policy #6.



fact- Reforming Health Care which includes millions getting badly needed subsidies to buy insurance and increased regulation of the insurance companies was not a Republican policy

Reality: the actual health care policy finally adopted was literally a Republican policy proposal from 1993. It was the same model adopted by Republican Mitt Romney that is currently failing in Massachusetts. Adoption and continuation of Republican policy #7



More reality: And of course, your entire little treatise doesn't even address things like warrantless wiretapping (#8), the PATRIOT act (#9), rendition (#10), among many others. But please, continue blowing smoke as Democrats adopt Republican policies. Your post couldn't have proved my point better if I'd written it myself.

[NJmaverick]

79. While you have dismissed rather than disputed those facts, they still support the point

that it's incorrect to claim the Democrats have "adopted Republican policies". You go back to when they were in Congress and they didn't work on HCR, Wall Street Reform, Green Energy, Cafe Standards being raised, appointing liberal Supreme Court Justices, creating the Lily Leadbetter Act, and the list goes on. The GOP was all about reducing regulation, increasing our consumption of fossil fuels, cutting many good government programs, privatizing social security, starting wars and so on. The contrast couldn't be greater between what the two parties have to offer.


The Democrats = The Government can do for the people what they can't do for themselves. The Government is something that is an excellent instrument to make our nation better. The Dems also believe in being a good world citizen. The Dems believe the environment is something to cherish and care for.

The Republicans = The Government is bad and evil. Regulation and government programs are something to cut. Let's piss off the world. The environment is something to be abused and ignored. We should let "market forces" be our God and guide everything

[jgraz]

80. I gave you 10 examples where Democrats have adopted GOP policy. You've ignored them all.

But please, continue blowing smoke as Democrats adopt Republican policies.

[NJmaverick]

83. I don't see 10 and many are false talking points

for example you claim the Dems have increased spending on both wars, that's incorrect

you claim the Dems haven't regulated Walls Street because you believe it will not stop one type of problem. That doesn't negate the fact that they did the opposite of Republicans and increased regulations on Wall Street and the Banking industries


Your claim that the Republicans opposed all Democratic measures because the President is black is a belief (doesn't even have enough fact to raise it to the level of opinion).

You incorrectly dismissed the Dems massive green energy initiatives by saying they haven't passed other laws Which beyond the basic logical flaw failed to show the Dems adopting Republican policy

You still haven't explained how saving Detroit and union jobs is a Republican policy

[jgraz]

88. Puff, puff, puff

for example you claim the Dems have increased spending on both wars, that's incorrect

Dude, my post is right up there ^^^. I claimed nothing of the sort. For the short-term-memory impaired, here's what I wrote:

fact- the Democrats have not started any wars since taking power

Reality: yes, they've just kept funding Bush's wars and escalating them. Continuation of Republican policy #1.

Puff #1



you claim the Dems haven't regulated Walls Street because you believe it will not stop one type of problem. That didn't show they didn't behave in the opposite way Republicans do and add regulation to Wall Street

This doesn't even parse as English, but I'll give it a shot. It seems that your entire response is focused on showing where Democrats have adopted some non-Republican policies -- as if that precludes them from also adopting policies that are clearly Republican. It's called denying the antecedent and it's a classic logical fallacy.

Puff #2



You incorrectly dismissed the Dems massive green energy initiatives by saying they haven't passed other laws Which beyond the basic logical flaw failed to show the Dems adopting Republican policy

Again, this barely parses as English but I'm gonna go with denying the antecedent once more. Extra points for accusing me of a logical fallacy while you were in the middle of one.

Puff #3



You still haven't explained how saving Detroit and union jobs is a Republican policy

You still haven't explained why you think this is at all relevant. Denying the antecedent yet again.

Puff #4



Got anything else?

[jgraz]

96. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

Nothing more to say, Mav? :shrug:

[NJmaverick]

104. I have made my assertion, supported it with facts and properly defended it

I don't think that most people would agree with your assertion that the Dems have been behaving like Republicans, at least not in terms of their production and agenda. So I see little point in continuing our discussion. Best to end things on a civil note.

[jgraz]

107. Well, one out of three ain't bad

You certainly made some assertions. They were not relevant to the discussion, so supporting them with alleged facts doesn't matter. You "defended" your assertion with repeated logical fallacies, so I think properly defending it has pretty much gone out the window.

Now you continue your logical fallacies, this time with the NJMaverick Number One Hit of *strawman*. I did not say that " Dems have been behaving like Republicans". I said they've been adopting and continuing Republican policies. That is a fact, supported by overwhelming evidence. And you continue to ignore those facts in an attempt to obfuscate the discussion.

[Greyhound]

153. Here.

[jotsy]

122. Can you site the source of the math in your equations Mr. Maverick?

I stand as a proponent of what is democratic, defined in my Webster's as political or social equality, but it is the third definition of four. Definitions one and three refer to democracy, in terms of it being democratic to uphold and advocate democracy. The last definition is where support for a political party enters the fray. Peripheral words in the-let me say it again-last description are pertaining to or characteristic of. It then becomes a question of what to do when the party's dedication to the principles of social equality appear to wane in the eyes of a skeptical public. When the actions of the party, more often than not, manage matters affecting the masses in a manner inconsistent with what some would characterize as democratic.

The frame of your contention that I claim democrats as adoptive of republican policies is a box I don't much care for you painting me into. The two parties certainly vary in how they get where they're going, but there's not much denying at this point that both abide more by an agenda of a select few rather than actually govern in pursuit of what is socially equitable. Both the health care package and the financial regulation bill keep the interests of big business at the center of our existential infrastructure, despite the history of their mistreatment of a less and less viable citizenry.

I applaud the passion of your sentiments, but will reserve the right to form an opinion of my own making. I don't see that there are only two roads, but new paths to be forged. I'm not advocating any third parties, I know it won't help to make 35% a potential majority, as per Thom Hartmann. I submit that proper governance should invite scrutiny because it knows it can bear it.

In the wake of the most diabolical political team ever to take hold of the nation's reigns, the tactics they employed are viewed as effective, regardless of their toxic impact or duplicitous nature. If I see parallels in the parties, it is about the need to 'manage' perception. I say if you're doing what you ought to be doing, the way you ought to be doing it, how you're seen takes care of itself.

As we engage in debate, there are times in our zeal to make our points, talk gets heated and disrespectful. In the interest of seeing folks here have fewer discussions that become more about conflict than constructive communication, I thought I'd post a link to this article I read here at DU late last year about the tactics to avoid if we want to debate fairly.

<http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html>

[NJmaverick]

141. The one thing I know quite well is the rules of intellectually honest debate

which has me puzzled as to why you called my facts equation or made a broadly sweeping request to provide sources for many undeniable facts. I am also at a loss as to why you discuss all the definitions of the term Democratic, when the original OP made it more than clear which one they were using.

To address some of your other points:

I don't agree with your assertion both HCR and Wall Street/Banking regulations were done at the bidding of big business. If anything needed proper sourcing it would be that assertion.

I also don't see the claim that the Democratic party abides by an agenda of a select few. In fact considering that liberals only make up 20$ of the population I would think you would want to consider that claim in a more positive light. I also feel that increasing that percentage is one of the best areas to devote a lot of time and energy to.

I do agree that government should invite scrutiny. However for the sake of intellectual honesty I think most people at DU, myself included, agree with that assertion. Rather the issue is not one of scrutiny but rather the nature of the scrutiny and criticism. Far too often we see criticism that is purely destructive rather than constructive. Too often we see no sense of perspective in that criticism, a lack of balance if you will. For example you will see comments declaring any perceived short coming as proof of failure of the Democratic Party or President, or proof that they are the same as the Republicans or proof that they serve corporate masters. I think the claims of our President being a puppet to corporate interests to be particularly bad in light of this President's life work. How he has spent his time and effort and his career choices all indicate a man deeply interested in helping people. To suggest otherwise should require a large burden of proof, but instead is tossed around like it's a given.

Finally I can't agree that doing the right thing will automatically be perceived correctly. As long as there is FAUX news and the right wing smear machine, perceptions will always have to be managed and all of us on the left are going to be honor bound to fight the dishonest spin and make our best efforts to ensure the truth is heard.

[jotsy]

157. I'm sorry Sir, but a telling typo remains.

Two points here, I tend to think that liberals comprise more than 20$ of the population, but since I'm certain it's an innocent mistake, I'll move on to the other point, and that's the word liberal. It, like every other term we throw on things depends upon the user and whatever connotation is desired. The one label I'm willing to lay claim to is progressive. It suits me because I'm ready to move forward from a divisive political system that operates in campaign cycles on institutionalized bribery, rather than expedient and subsequently more effective governance.

The original question for me remains on the table. What is properly democratic when the party's actions appear to stand apart from the principle? What I took notice of is that the OP wants the last definition held up ahead of, and in the view of some, in contrast to, the way the word is characterized in three times as many definitions, all of which precede it.

I shall consider your request for documentation to support my assertions, (which I try to resist referring to as facts) a homework assignment and check back on this thread in the next day or two. I've agreed to critique both a web site and a passage of fiction, which I'll have to see to first, but I look forward to getting back to our little chat. In the mean time, in response to what puzzles you.


These are you're equations, which are not rooted in factual expression as illustrated in your subjective terms, i.e. an excellent instrument, a good citizen, cherish, care; bad, evil, abuse, ignore, piss off. These are judgment calls. It seems you wish to favor your descriptive contentions as 'undeniable facts', which are debatable as facts, words which would be atypical of the neutral language generally employed as a statement of fact.

The Democrats = The Government can do for the people what they can't do for themselves. The Government is something that is an excellent instrument to make our nation better. The Dems also believe in being a good world citizen. The Dems believe the environment is something to cherish and care for.

The Republicans = The Government is bad and evil. Regulation and government programs are something to cut. Let's piss off the world. The environment is something to be abused and ignored. We should let "market forces" be our God and guide everything.

[NJmaverick]

168. Sir we have a problem

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

Now what you said was:

"I tend to think that liberals comprise more than 20$ of the population, but since I'm certain it's an innocent mistake, I'll move on to the other point"


You were presented with a fact and you dismissed it out of hand. That is not the mark of intellectually honest debate.

[jotsy]

169. First,

I'm not a sir.

Secondly, what I was trying to have a little fun with Mr. Maverick, was the dollar sign that appears rather than the percentage sign I thought you'd intended to use, unless you meant to imply that liberals make up 20 dollars of the population and that people are now counted as fractions of pennies?

You're link leads to a site with a motto of 'The Right News Right Now'. The poll results are from August '09, and the writer of the sited article is former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan and one time editor of the website Human Events, Terry Jeffrey. The parent organization listed for CybercastNewsService, is the Media Research Center, headed up by one Brent Bozell. If his name sounds familiar it is because he wrote an editorial just 2 days ago claiming Andrew Brimbats has done nothing wrong. (like the language of Mordor, I'll not utter that name here, spelling intentional)

If these are the sources of your facts, it's not a wonder you and I disagree. I'd be happy to recommend sites that are, IMHO, more reliable and less agenda driven, if not more regularly updated. Action in political matters is feverishly fluid and shifts occur at a rigorous pace. I submit many such shifts have occurred in the year since this Gallup poll was taken. BTW, I know that if I ask questions properly phrased of a stacked demographically built group of responders, I can get whatever result I want.

Are you familiar with sites like ProPublica, The Sunlight Foundation or The Center For Public Inegrity? These are some of my favorite places and I like them because they strike me as more neutral and thus, genuine. I'll likely provide links to places like this and more like them in completing the task of that homework assignment.

[spoony]

162. Which rule is the one where you say anyone who disagrees with you is delusional?

That is, living in a fantasy versus reality? Which rule of intellectual honesty is that? I mean, it's your favourite argument, so I imagine it fits in with your Holy Rules of Intellectually Honest Debate. Right?

[jotsy]

186. .

If you're gonna quote me, I'd ask that you avoid such creative liberties in what I expressed. I didn't suggest things were done at the bidding of big business, that's you, whereas what I said is that their interests are being kept at the center of our existential infrastructure, despite quite tarnished records in terms of interaction with the public. For more here, do some homework of your own and check out foreclosure stories or the income the financial services industry continues to rake in as a result of punitive fees imposed. I'm sure there's an audio clip of some young man from Enron chuckling on the phone about what he's gonna do with grannies retirement account. I understand an off shoot of Enron remains in business today. The point here is that trust has to be earned and the government that shields these entities from accountability or inquiries is hard not to view as culpable or permissive. That's the nature of my scrutiny and the marrow of my criticism.

Physicians for a National Health Plan is an organization of medical professionals who aren't exactly thrilled with how effective the new legislation will be.
<http://pnhp.org/news/2010/march/pro-single-payer-doctors-health-bill-leaves-23-million-uninsured>

5 minutes of interview between Dylan Ratigan and William Black about the fin reg bill.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2pYElQAS4w>

These kinds of discussions represent the path to my assertions.

Consider this that homework I promised to pipe back in.

[area51]

159. +1 (n/t)

[quiet.american]

56. Yep, NJMaverick. I remember when you didn't have to whisper that you're a Democrat here.

Oh, happy days, before all the B.S. started in.

[spoony]

163. The reason it is whispered is embarrassment

at what our leaders have done with the name.

[quiet.american]

171. Lol. No. That's not it. nt

[YOY]

94. Yes...that's what you were all about during the primaries!

n/t

[jgraz]

54. Very well said, Kenny.

I'd recommend you make it an OP, but since it doesn't include an authoritarian loyalty oath, whining about people being mean to the Pwesident or flamebait callouts of progressives, we all know it would be locked within minutes.

[flyarm]

93. well said Thank you! eom

[villager]

31. So the "Underground" part means unquestioning loyalty to D.C. pronouncements?

Sorry if that offends anyone.

That is all.

[flvegan]

32. Lockstep, children!

You have your marching orders. Go forth.

:eyes:

[Whisp]

75. we'll see what Skinner says

until then you can have your fun.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Whisp]

84. you may find that...

things will be getting a lot 'clearer' soon.

:rofl:

cupcake, anyone?

[jgraz]

100. Oh, and nebulous threats tinged with violence.

Glenn, is that you?

[Whisp]

102. my violent cupcake is after you. lol

that must be a mirror shot of you then? I'm sorry my cupcake frightened you so, Glenny. :D

[YOY]

105. Hooray for Operation Echo Chamber!!!

We'll just keep repeating over and over that those who are TSed are all trolls and not democrats! Oh no! Not democrats at all! Can't be! Just can't be!

It only makes sense!!!

[Whisp]

108. ok, LOL.

if that's how you see it.

:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:




,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,,
,
,
,
,
,


:rofl:

[YOY]

109. I know! Right? Am I wacky OR WHAT???

Goo goobly goo! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUpwvokdmH8

[Whisp]

112. hee hee, you can't hurt me with innuendo, I am Rubber Boy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHeOHirKRc

[YOY]

115. Innuendo?!?!? I loved Ricky Martin when he was a kid!!!

[Ignis]

128. !

:spray:

Got me.

[POAS]

137. "Operation Echo Chamber"?

Who do you suppose might be involved in such an operation? Are these DU posters your referring to?

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[YOY]

160. You know... I have no idea why they deleted the post but a simple fact:

You're not that clever and I'm not that stupid.

[POAS]

165. Don't sell yourself short! n/t

[YOY]

167. I see you haven't! To the contrary!

But hey...keep punchin' them dogeys little cowpoke! ;)

[POAS]

175. That was WAY clever. Good job!...n/t

[YOY]

177. Just as clever as insulting your fellow democrats and then expecting support!

and clever enough to make you comment something even less witty!

[POAS]

178. Thank you for the kind reply

your images are always so amusing.

[YOY]

180. I truly aim to entertain!

n/t

[POAS]

183. Well your aim is very good, your an

entertainment marks-person in my book!

[YOY]

184. Wocka wocka wocka!

n.t.

[POAS]

185. Oh your just being silly....

:silly:

:thumbsup:

[jgraz]

98. Oh thanks, we forgot to add 'whining to mommy"

:eyes:

[Whisp]

116. you can go ahead, I won't tell on you.

:rofl:

[Ignis]

127. Careful, he might really be a site admin, as he's posing to be!

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!

[POAS]

138. Maybe you should alert.

I'd be very concerned about fake moderators.

[Ignis]

139. Sadly, I can neither confirm nor deny that I have done so.

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

[Ignis]

126. Did you have FUN watching our Dems vote for another $33 billion for bullshit wars?

That was a real laugh riot! :eyes:

[pa28]

34. Your last thread has a real shot at infamy.

Not to say I liked the contents but it was thought provoking so despite my urge to throw up there was some value in what you said. Just keep it coming . . . let's unmask now while we still have time before the election.

[Electric Monk]

35. dem·o·crat·ic - adj. - Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democratic

[metapunditedgy]

36. Yay! Another authoritarian flame thread! There are too many to choose from... n/t

[SunsetDreams]

40. It doesn't offend me.

[flyarm]

95. I am happy for you...it does offend me! enormously! Oh and I have been a registered Dem for 40 years

In fact I would go a far as saying..it pisses me off as much or more than when the repukes pulled this shit!

[SunsetDreams]

113. Thanks, I'm glad you are happy :)

I don't take offense at supporting the Democratic Party, which is why I joined Democratic Underground in the first place.
I knew I could come here and get away from the Right Wing/media attack machine on Democrats.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[NYC Liberal]

50. You aren't supposed to point that out.

Just get yourself really worked up.

Post a dopey little anti-Dem, anti-Obama rejoinder. Extra points if you include: "corporatist," "centrist," "DLC," "disappointed," "lesser of two evils," "Too little, too late," "sold out," "Democratic Wing Of The Democratic Party," or "holding their feet to the fire."

Watch as the recs and "[phone]!!!1" posts come pouring in.

[quiet.american]

51. Thank you. You rock. It is easy to forget that around here sometimes. K&R. nt

[Romulox]

52. I'd like to see repeated flame-bait be a bannable offense. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

57. All you have is bait?

Stinky old, dull, unattractive bait? Redundant, repetitive and obnoxious bait? Well, if that's all you've got, you've done well here today.

[Forkboy]

58. ok

[Bonobo]

60. It's because when DU was started, "Democrat" represented the liberal ideal.

These days, and apparently to you, it means covering up because our side is on top.

What does it feel like to have such a elusive and slippery set of values?

[NJmaverick]

63. A set of values

that value people enough to get millions of them badly needed healthcare

that doesn't want the consumer screwed over by big business so they created a consumer protection agency

that cares about our environment and spent billions in green energy

that cares about union workers and saved our domestic auto industry

that cared enough about saving energy to raise the CAFE standards

that cared enough about people's rights to create the lilly ledbetter act

that cared enough about consumers to increase regulation of the insurance industry

that cared enough about a woman's right to choose that they undid Bush's anti abortion measures

that cared enough to draw down the troops in Iraq

that cares enough about people as to try and leave Afghanistan with out allowing untold numbers of Afghans being killed by the Taliban


In my opinion there is nothing slipper in that set of values.

[Whisp]

119. you do realise you are calling Skinner out...

just a friendly reminder.

seeing as you are drunk or something.

:)

[frylock]

133. you better go run tell!

[Whisp]

134. o, I don't have to worry about petty little things like that.

*whistles and shuffles smiley feet.

[Marr]

61. Y'know how conservatives equate criticism of the US with hatred of the US?

Same thing.

If your friend has a substance abuse problem, does attempting to point it out mean that you hate them? Of course not. I'd say ignoring the problems, or just pretending they'll go away on their own if you just keep partying as before is the mark of a worthless "friend", but that's just me.

I'm am interested in the welfare of this party and the people it's supposed to represent. I am not concerned about the welfare of the parasitic politicians who are attached to it. You seem to see "the party" and "the party leadership" as one in the same, which I suppose isn't surprising. We have our authoritarian wing just as the right does.

[NJmaverick]

68. false comparison

it's more the nature of the criticism than the criticism itself. The criticism has often been very destructive, rather than constructive. The criticism is often lacking in a sense of perspective that causes it to be over blown.


I will also speak for myself, as a Democrat. I am concerned about the welfare of the party only in the sense that I know the Democrats do a superior job compared to the alternative (the GOP) They are far from perfect (which any human institution is sure to be). To address the imperfections I work in constructive manners to improve it.

[Marr]

77. Of course you think it's a false comparison.

It's a subjective opinion. Conservatives often consider any criticism of the US to be destructive, no matter how it's presented.

When you say you work in constructive ways to improve the party, I assume you mean working to elect better Democrats. So do it. So, I expect, do a lot of the "complainers" here. I think it's fine to let the bad ones drown, personally-- perhaps you disagree.

[flyarm]

97. Oh so BULLYING is now the good "nature of criticism"? I think not and never will!

Your "Idea" of criticism.. I would have corrected my children for!

Bullying is just that ..cowardice.

[Joe Fields]

64. Just a reminder...

The word "democratic" is just a word. It has little to no meaning anymore.

Just a side note: As a boomer, the amount of disappointment in seeing what my party has become cannot be measured by any earthly device. If you take a close look, you will see that the republicans don't have a monopoly on stupid. People are so easily manipulated and brainwashed...

[mzmolly]

65. Hear hear!

:toast:

[Individualist]

66. Koolaid post. Unrec.

[upi402]

69. More "you're either with us, or you're against us"

Loads of it lately. New policy at work I guess. Where to go?

The Democratic Party left us. We just acknowledge the fact and get silenced for it. Makes me more determined ...

[NJmaverick]

73. The party

Passed the Lilly Leadbetter act

got millions cash subsidies so they can now buy badly needed health insurance

created a new consumer protection agency to protect cnsumers

save countless union jobs by bailing out Detroit

spent billions on green energy and raised CAFE standards

created all sorts of new and positive regulations on banks and Wall Street

Has appointed on liberal judge and is in the process of appointing another

has greatly increased the regulations on the health insurance industry

has insured the unemployed are still getting their UE checks

how could that party have left you?

[upi402]

136. you can't be serious

you need to get informed. seriously, you must watch tv news.


GM using our tax money to build R&D facility in China
Detroit still doing lending scams that got them into trouble, along with management gaffs. Those managers then got the golden parachute treatment. we get robbed and the former Dem party is complicit.

i probably need to explain that to you, but wont

[Stinky The Clown]

71. Man, are YOU on a roll

[jgraz]

78. Yeah, a Kaiser roll.

[Ignis]

129. Oh no you didn't!

:spray: :rofl:

[Forkboy]

81. Yeah, all downhill.

[flvegan]

135. *snicker*

Good one!

[Prism]

72. I agree. The support of Charlie Crist is appalling! n/t

[leeroysphitz]

74. Just a reminder for you: Status Quo Underground is just a few sites over.

I think you would be much happier there.

Those of us that put good government ahead of party affiliation would be happier as well.

[marmar]

76. Oh crap, the show's already started......

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[PattyRussell]

99. Herd mentality

Censorship kills thoughts.

[ThomWV]

101. I can dam sure support the Democratic Party without supporting every single democrat in it

On edit: and that includes that President if he's not living up to the ideals as expressed in the Party Platform. You seen the platform lately? Take a look and tell me how well the Party's elected members are doing in achieving the Party's goals. Then decide if individual members, many of them, are not deserving of criticism, severe criticism.
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

[YOY]

110. +1

n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

103. By that reasoning, North Korea is a democracy. -nt

[SidDithers]

114. +1...nt

Sid

[paulk]

123. what does the "Underground" part mean?

does it refer to Democrats who may not be completely happy with the mainstream party line and want to talk about it?

[YOY]

124. or just maybe the "mainstream" of the party isn't being represented properly?

But who am I to say this? I'm just a wacky extremist who believes in things like affordable public education both basic and advanced, a public social security system, fair trade, protection of the environment, a functional and beneficial non-privatized medical system, holding corporations accountable to their actions, fair wages and other crazy wacky extremist stuff!!!

And clearly I'm totally in the minuscule minority. We all know a greater number of people who HATE that kind of shit!

[NJmaverick]

130. It most likely refers to these passages of "About Us"

The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S.

AND

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court. We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive.

[paulk]

132. so, as Democrats on this site, we must accept the actions of

all elected Democrats without question?

Is that what you're trying to say?

[NJmaverick]

144. I don't recall addressing any of those issues in my response to you

can you show me where I said that? Still to answer your questions


I think (because I don't run this site, I can only offer up my opinion) that we don't have to accept all actions. That said, I think we should be careful to keep the criticism balanced and constructive.

[paulk]

158. you impied it

by saying that the "underground" part of Democratic underground referred to attacking Republicans...

I'm damn glad you don't "run this site", because it's my "opinion" , based on reading your posts these last few years, that your idea of "balanced and constructive criticism" is a lot different from mine.

[mmonk]

147. As different as above ground?

[Stinky The Clown]

125. You may wish to have a conversation with the Crist supporters around here

Last i looked he was a Republican in hiding.

[frylock]

131. just a reminder: take it up with mods..

and you know where you can shove your loyalty oath, mkay.

[Hekate]

143. The Party with a tent big enough to get all of our asses inside, right?

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

If that's what you mean, I'm in. :thumbsup:

Hekate

[mmonk]

146. And only a certain kind of people are Democrats?

One day, if you get what you want, the Democrats will go on a long losing streak.

[sendero]

149. It doesn't mean..

.. you support all Democrats or every action of any Democrat.

This is what makes us different from freepers.

[bvar22]

150. I support THIS Democratic Party:

"n our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.--FDR

Where can I find THIS Democratic Party?

[laughingliberal]

151. That's the one I joined 36 years ago. I, also, wonder where they might be found. nt

[Scurrilous]

156. Kick

:kick:

[DailyGrind51]

166. To be "Democratic" means to give EVERYONE a voice!

[Raineyb]

179. You must have missed this part:

Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[Forkboy]

181. Just a reminder: Your name isn't Skinner.

and as such, any comments you have on the matter are worth fuck all.

Sorry if that offends you.

That is all.

[Green_Lantern]

182. no it doesn't...

Democratic is little d democratic.

There are people in the Democratic party who aren't progressive at all.