Early in 2012 I joined DU under another handle. I was new on the internet and didn’t understand the

[busterbrown]

politics of posting on this site. My first thread was an attack on Harry Reid. My rant was probably obnoxious and not well thought out. I was trying to make the point that we needed new and younger blood to take on
this new breed of idiocy on the right. That Harry reminded me of Pa Kettle with his “golly gee” attitude. I immediately got booted off the site and said to myself maybe I’m wrong after all, that he did do a nice job tearing into Romney’s tax problem.

There were a hell of a lot of Harry Reid supporters on this site tearing into me which to me came out of nowhere, however, I must admit I had several supporters. Anyway todays events illustrate our need as a party to not support any middle ground Dems. This current lot of right wing nuts are extremely dangerous and are out to destroy anyone who does not agree with their uber-nationalistic,, racist, homophobic, gun loving attitudes which includes destroying govt. The Time for no more surrender is Now!!

I’m a bit wiser now, not much, however I would have never have posted the Harry Reid rant today.
You guys thought I was a troll which is understandable. However after reading all the negative comments on Harry Reid today which are much more profane than mine was........Well it doesn’t make me feel any better. It does suck however.

[immoderate]

1. Timing.

--imm

[jberryhill]

2. It's a coarser DU these days

Saying ugly things merely demonstrates the strength and correctness of your beliefs.

[longship]

3. That doesn't work with me.

Which is why I try not to post like that these days. If one defends ones position by acknowledging their opponent's, much flames can be avoided. Good advice for the flame fest weary. Don't you think?

[jberryhill]

4. Are you saying I don't think?

Harrumph. Into ignore you go.

[longship]

5. You completely misunderstood my post. Sorry.

Part of the problem here. Simple misunderstandings escalate. Instead of reasoned dialog, it's into ignore.

Too bad.

[jberryhill]

6. Oh, so now you are saying I'm just stupid?

How dare you!

Alerting.

[longship]

7. I said nothing about you.

I don't know where this went wrong. I apologize. I was not writing about you, but about some DU edginess these days.

Forgive me. I had no ill intent.

[jberryhill]

8. But you use "you" twice in your post!

The amazing thing is that DU has gotten to the point where the conversation in this thread could be remotely considered anything other than pulling your leg.

And that's sad.

[longship]

10. Okay. You got me. nt

[jberryhill]

11. I'm sorry

I hope I didn't upset you, but it really illustrates the problem.

You must be an amazingly wonderful person.

[longship]

13. I will no longer fight wars here on DU.

If somebody wants to fight, that's their problem, not mine. I won't be part of it.

Your apology is accepted.

You punked me good, though.


It just shows how intent is difficult to discern online, and why there's so much chair throwing. Something I try to avoid now. It's just not worth it.

Thanks, friend.

[jberryhill]

14. I'm still working on it

I realize the only person I can change is me.

But... godammit... too many other people don't realize that.

[longship]

15. Damnit! We'll MAKE them!!! ;-) nt

[jberryhill]

16. That's the spirit

Now get out there and fight!

[EmeraldCityGrl]

9. Welcome back busterbrown.

As someone that has never trusted or liked Reid, today comes as no
surprise. Until we have term limits those like Reid will continue to look
out for their own best interests. Having term limits is a pipe dream so
primary the conservadems or vote them out as painful as that may be.

[jberryhill]

12. Reid's margin over Sharron Angle was 6%

[busterbrown]

17. Its not that I didn’t trust him. He always seemed transparent. Someone who was out only for his own

self interest, as you stated. He just seemed so grandpa type as I mentioned and when we are fighting the kind of lunatics as we are now, we need a vibrant aggressive well spoken younger man. Anyway his true colors flew today and thats all thats important..

[pnwmom]

18. I disagree that we should never support "middle ground" Democrats. In some

red states and districts, a middle-ground candidate would be the only electable Dem. Why insist on a very progressive candidate who will get slaughtered in the general election? We watchthe Rethugs make this mistake as they nominate extreme right wing candidates, and then fail to win the general election, over and over again.

Why would we want to copy them?

[Bluenorthwest]

19. But the Republicans have a House majority they won that way...

I think Red States remain Red because all the voters are offered is Republican vs Republican simulacrum and as the old saying goes, they pick the real Republican.
Of course I could be wrong. I always wonder if folks with your point of view have a list of non moderate Democrats who actually lost elections in those places. I know from observing that the 'moderate Democrats' often lose in those areas, which is why the GOP wins. If they were 'electable' they would win, if they lose they are not electable. So not running people because you have decided in advance they are 'not electable' starts looking funny when the candidates chosen for electability fail to win election.
Sad that you equate liberal Democrats to Tea Party extremists. Perhaps that lingo is part of why the place stays Red? To you, a Jeff Merkley is 'extreme'? You see the choices as either 'nearly Republican' or 'extreme'? Really? Anyone who is not a 'moderate centrist' is extreme? It is that binary in your area, in your mind?
No wonder some States are eternally crimson....

[pnwmom]

20. Have you ever lived in a solidly Red state or area?

The mentality is so different. Kucinich, et al wouldn't have a chance in hell.