Gingrich on C. Rose: Dems in Denial ...

[umass1993]

or just plain confused.

Given what I have seen here and from what I've heard on the street, I think this statement is true.

What I've seen is a party that is increasingly dogmatic. T. Frank says that Republicans like to think there is a 'liberal' dogma, even though there isn't one. I think Frank is wrong. There is a liberal dogma, and it needs to be killed.

Just look at the 'American Prospect' site. They are asking readers to define 'liberal.'

[umass1993]

1. Lack of Vision

This statement sums up Democrats.

Why do Democrats lack vision? Even Barack Obama, whom I also saw on Charlie Rose, didn't have any answers. It was more of the same.

Democrats lack vision because they have become opportunists like the Republicans, using their dogma to get elected. Unfortunately for them, the dogma has fallen out of favor with many Americans. Perhaps, because it has only become a caricature of it's previous self through years and years of 'refinement' down to sound bytes.

Democrats need to be able to respond to the question, "How would you have the country be?" They need to be clear and concise and they need to be palatable to the majority of Americans. This is a Democracy, after all, and without a majority it is difficult to effect change.

[Crowdance]

2. What, exactly, is that liberal dogma you will lead to slaughter?

Since you've identified it, please describe it.

[umass1993]

3. Social Issues for One

"woman's right to choose" is a shibboleth sound bite.

"affirmative action" is a solution that seems patently un-American

Unions, are a solution to a problem that may have had its day. Perhaps we should explore other means of helping workers.

"War on Poverty", why should we eliminate poverty. Maybe we should make changes that allow poor people to have a decent quality of life even if they are poor.

[el_gato]

12. so you are not pro-choice

the right-wing position on abortion is the very essence of BIG government

[umass1993]

14. characterizations are a fool's enterprise

"pro-choice" is a characterization, as is, "big gov't"

The question is how should we handle fetuses. Right now Roe V Wade is insuffient for dealing with all the circumstances and parties involved.

"Big gov't", I don't even know what that means. Big compared to what? Only an uncritical person would think that this means something. The question should be, what are our goals as a nation and how are we going to effect those goals. What is the best (and Constitutional) way to accomplish what we want to do?

Having states do more of the work makes some sense because they have a closer and more informed relationship with their people. Then again, as a nation we can use the economy of scale. This is how the conversation should go......

[el_gato]

18. I am asking if you are saying the democratic party should abandon

the right of a woman to have control over her own body.

And by Big Government I mean to point out the hypocrisy if the rhetoric of the conservative positions of wanting the government to be intimately involved in human reproduction while at the same time espousing the idea of smaller government (even though it certainly appears that by smaller government they really only mean less corporate regulation).

[umass1993]

22. no it shouldn't "abandon" it

to use your loaded term.

But others should have some say in the process. What about the father? Is he chopped liver? What about the right of a society to protect it's young?

Should a woman be able to change/filter the genetic structure of her fetus... it is HER body after all? Should she be able to kill any fetus that doesn't have the right genetic structure? This technology is around the corner.

The oversimplification that its "HER" body just does not work. since the woman is most proximate to the fetus she should certainly have first say, but that is a far cry from the ONLY say.

[el_gato]

24. "it's young"

are you saying that a mother's child is the property of society?

[umass1993]

25. I would not use the term "property"

again you use loaded terms.

Why do you do that?

But children do have rights, and the state does have responsibility for protecting those rights. That is why we have child protective services. To remove children from abusive parents.

This isn't a revolutionary concept. We know the state has the right to intercede, it is matter of when and why. Anti-abortion believe that it is at conception. Pro-choice believe it is at birth.

Moreover, are we to think that the father is some sort of stoic non-entity in all this. The notion that the father has no say is ludicrous. Do liberal have ZERO compassion for the feelings of the father? Men don't count, is that the message?

[el_gato]

26. you are the one that used a possessive term

I am just asking you to clarify.

and do you equate a fetus with a child?

as well, I have yet to say anything about the father's role in this so stop trying to put words in my mouth.

[umass1993]

28. OK,

1) I didn't say that you did say anything about a fathers role. I certainly do not want to put words into your mouth.

But, the phrase "A woman's right to choose" does imply zero rights of fathers. I was responding to this mode of thought (not neccessarily yours).

2) fetus and a child are part of a continuum. Moreover technology has changed our concept of fetus because they can survive at a much ealier stage than before. Plus with test tube babies and all that stuff....

With this new technology, "woman's right to choose" has gone from an oversimplification to a dangerous concept. If you have the power to do kill a fetus, then what aren't you allowed to do with/to a fetus. Especially, if in fact, the fetus is considered to be a "part of your body."

I am a scientist, and I am not at all comfortable with this precedent. It becomes a loophole for exploitation of fetuses by business.

[umass1993]

27. I think this discussion proves my point

on how entrenched certain attitudes are. No matter how little reason is given for them.

[el_gato]

29. and your point is we need to have more state involvement in reproduction

and I disagree, given the fact that the unintended consequences of what you are calling for are way too dangerous.

[umass1993]

31. now you are naive

People are getting more involved in reproduction. Have you turned on the news?!!

Wake up and sniff the coffee! Artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, fertility drugs,... etc.

So YES the state should get more involved because everybody else is getting more involved, not ot mention BIG money.

What YOU want to do is stick your head in the sand and just let things go!

We aren't just humping and having babies any more. The process has turned into an industry with capabilities that are bound to grow. Time to face up to it.

[Larkspur]

30. Are you assuming that a fertilized egg is a child?

Nature aborts about two thirds of all fertilized egges/zygotes/embryos in healthy women, so when does a fetus become a "child?"

Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic on Jan. 31, 2001 said that scientific evidence looks like a fetus' brain isn't hardwired until the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Until then, the fetus' development and brain function is following a design millions of years in the making and the chances of the child living outside the womb prior to the 3rd trimester are poor. It's at the beginning of the 3rd trimester that the fetus's chances to live outside the womb increase greatly each day, so it makes sense to deduce that "life" or at least "conscious life" begins after the brain is hardwired and when the brain's EEG transmissions resemble that of a newborn.

Also, abortion is safer for a woman the earilier she has it and abortion in the early days/weeks of pregnancy is safer than enduring 9 months of pregnancy.

My view is that abortion should be available and unrestricted in the first 2 trimesters and heavily regulated in the last. That is the position of most European countries.

[umass1993]

32. Wonderful!

Your position is dramatically different from "a woman's right blah blah blah."

You don't even buy into the platform of the Democratic party. You are a reasonable person. The Dems need to listen to you.

[sadiesworld]

34. How is Larkspur's position dramatically different from the dems'

position regarding abortion?

You DO realize that third trimester abortions are prohibited in 41 states except when the woman's life or health are in jeopardy, don't you? And I'm sure you know that out of the over one million abortions performed per year in the US, only a few hundred are performed in the third trimester (a whopping 88% are performed in the FIRST trimester).

Have you ever actually READ Roe vs. Wade?

As for the rest of your drivel...

Did it ever occur to you that if you have a decent quality of life (shelter, food, medical care, etc.) you aren't LIVING IN POVERTY???

Unions are a problem? Affirmative action is a problem? No, the problem is cheap labor conservatives who are perfectly willing to sell out the middle class by outsourcing jobs and in-sourcing illegal workers. But, of course, the RW talking heads cannot discuss these issues so they misdirect your anger (blacks are always a handy scapegoat).

Wake up.

[umass1993]

35. I am sorry you misunderstand me

>Did it ever occur to you that if you have a decent quality of life >(shelter, food, medical care, etc.) you aren't LIVING IN POVERTY???

I have the above and I am a poor person. I know what it means to be poor. I am poor. I live below the poverty line. I have no car. I know what it's like to be treated like a second-class citizen.

You cite statistics. They are irrelevant for this discussion. This discussion is about party platform, not de-facto reality.

I saw the leader of the Southern Evangelicals last night on Tucker Carlson. He CLEARLY feels that the Democrats have abandoned the issues important to the people he represents. Number 1 on the list is abortion and Roe V. Wade. This is reality. This is not "drivel."

Moreover, this is the info I got about abortion from John Kerry's web site. The person the Democrats chose to represent them before the nation.

<snip>
Protect Women's Health And Right To Choose"
" including the right to privacy and the right to choose."
</snip>

My statement is that the above is insufficient. Moreover it excludes an awful lot of people from ever voting democrat. If the statistics are as you say, then why not state policy as clearly as Larkspur rather that reduce it down to a shibboleth?

"As for the rest of your drivel..."

You insult me. Insulting the Christians will not get their vote. Nobody is that stupid. They know when they are being looked down upon.


Again, I am an "atheist." I don't believe in Jesus, but I do view the Christian value structure as legitimate.

[sadiesworld]

47. In post *25, you clearly stated that pro-choicers believe the

state can only intercede on behalf of a fetus->child at birth. You also state that Larkspur's European solution (no government involvement in the first two trimesters and heavy regulation in the third) is inconsistent with the dem platform.

This is blatantly untrue. I apologize if I offended you, but I found your criticism of an imaginary dem position to be annoying. If you're arguing that we need to re-explain Roe vs. Wade to a population that has been so brainwashed by the right wing that they have no idea what it stands for anymore, you obviously have a point.

I am happy that you have been able to maintain a reasonable standard of living on an income below the poverty line. However, this is not the case for those I have encountered who try to eke out an existence on a similar income.

[umass1993]

50. I think you misconstrue what i said...

perhaps this is my fault.

In post 25, I was merely giving the spectrum of beliefs. Certainly many Democrats share different views on the subject.

However, I listened to the Democratic debates and I distinctly got the feeling that, in general, the Democratic Party did not feel comfortable advocating the regulation of abortion. I then went to Sen John Kerry's website and quickly looked up his position on the subject. All it said was "woman's right to choose." As if, he didn't want to discuss the subject.

"A woman's right to choose" is an "imaginary Dem position"?????
I took this position right off of John Kerry's web site.

I guess you are in the "denial" camp.

[umass1993]

36. Moreover, why don't you tell

all those Red states in the South, and the people who voted for Bush and Republican Senators how full of drivel they are. Educate them about abortion and tell them to actually READ Roe V. Wade.

Then ask them for their vote. See how that works for you.

BTW: George W. Bush used this technique with the U.N., he didn't get good results.

[umass1993]

33. An american narrative

but this is only a piece of what should be a wholly consistent and acceptable American narrative for the Democratic Party.

Right now, we've set up too many roadblocks for too many Americans, and the roadblocks aren't even neccessary or even well-founded. They are vestiges of historical alliances. We need to divest ourselves of those atrophied alliances and start a new alliance with the silent majority.

[umass1993]

23. "Big Gov't"

is just that, rhetoric. I agree completely. But, we should challenge the roles that state and local governments take. Technology has made more dispersed gov't possible. And for many reasons, it may be desirable (think J. Edger Hoover's FBI)

See my other postings.

[yurbud]

43. without unions, most many workers would be screwed

In the public sector as well as the private.

You can't trust legislators beholden to business interests to stand up for workers, and they don't. The only reason dems do at all is pressure from unions.

You may have part of a point on cultural issues, but on social programs and economics, you are just wrong. We have to offer things that will actually help people and not just be an echo of Grover Norquist's wet dreams.

[umass1993]

52. Unions have problems too

we know this. Moreover the structure of today's workforce isn't as conducive to union formation. If unions will exist, they will only do so with the support of lawmakers. So we will have to depend on the lawmakers to some degree no matter what.


Perhaps rather than have union, we could strengthen and widen the powers of the Labor Department to regulate minimum wage and proper work environments for laborors of all sorts. From pencil pushers to coal miners.

Unions are NOT the only way. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

This is what I am talking about. It's as if solving a problem a different way is inconceivable to some Dems. The goals should stay the same, but perhaps the means should be reexamined. If you think there is only one possible way of doing something, then you are not using your imagination.

W thinks there is only one way to bring freedom to the world. I can think of many.

[yurbud]

56. labor department is useless in GOP hands or when vulnerable to pressure

The current labor secretary called a teacher's union a terrorist organization.

I would like to believe that regulatory agencies could do the job, and in fact I think this should be tied to GOP calls for tort reform--if consumers can't protect themselves through lawsuits, then the government should do it beforehand by mandating safer products and services.

The problem is, even in the most progressive hands, a regulator is vulnerable to that call from a senator, and threts to cut their budget or laws that gut their authority.

[umass1993]

59. RE: the role of the Labor Department

<The current labor secretary called a teacher's union a terrorist organization.>

Even David Gergen thought this was monumentally foolish.

<I would like to believe that regulatory agencies could do the job, and in fact I think this should be tied to GOP calls for tort reform--if consumers can't protect themselves through lawsuits, then the government should do it beforehand by mandating safer products and services.>

Unfortunatly, the Dems have so little power now, that they can't even bargain from the minority position. But your suggestion has merit of course. But nobody to advocate it from a position of strength.

<The problem is, even in the most progressive hands, a regulator is vulnerable to that call from a senator, and threts to cut their budget or laws that gut their authority.>

Well, yes and no. However, if something becomes part of the machinery of gov't, then it becomes hard to politicise. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is reliable. Even the Fed, Greenspan and all, remains relatively even-handed.

I was only throwing a counter-example out there. Nobody likes strikes. Nobdoy. If we could devise the gov't machinery to work things out proactively, it may be best for everyone. Maybe not. Maybe, unions are the way to go. But I think many Americans have mixed-feelings towards unions. Maybe we can do better.

Thank you for your mature and responsible post. It is appreciated.

[yurbud]

62. More on why we need unions

I sent the letter below to the Wall Street Journal in response to an anti-teacher's union opinion piece they ran.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2998783

It shows why we unfortunately even need union protection in the public sector.

I have taught at community colleges for seven years, and I don't have health insurance.

The have structured their faculty so that about two-thirds of us at most school are part time, so they can avoid giving us benefits, and pay us anywhere from 60-40% as much per hour as full time faculty. Most of us have to patch several jobs at widely separated schools just to pay our bills. It is convenient for the schools and the state to balance the budget on our backs.

I don't think another regulatory agency is going to change that.

[umass1993]

64. We do need Unions now

because people have so little ancillary support.

Unfortunately, teachers all have advanced degrees and so they can make a union work.

Remember, teachers have unions because the gov't says it can.

My father was in an education administration union and the state disbanded it.

Like it or not, our fate is tied to the gov't, which really is the people.

This subject is involved. My suggestion was that we revisit this issue and perhaps find a way to evolve our society into something better, not pull the rug out from under teachers :-)

This thread is not really the right venue for exploring other means of economic equity. My goal was really to get people to the table.

[yurbud]

65. having a union apart from gov't is a check and balance

Your idea would be better if the gov't were free of pressures from big business and the wealthy, but those are nearly the only pressures they respond to now.

[umass1993]

68. Once again, it's hard to disagree with you, but ...

"let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment."
-- Shakespeare

There will always be impediments to progress. I think the standard should be that it is better. In order to change things, it is neccessary to have enough political support for it. Unions have had a mixed history in the U.S. (much like guns).

Again, unions may be the way to go, perhaps with minimal changes. Or perhaps they become the bridge to something better, more encompassing to all American workers.

Just clinging to the past, out of loyalty, seems to be a mistake to me. Dems have a responsibility to all workers, whether they are in a union or not. It seems unlikely to me (I could be wrong) that all Americans will be in unions in the foreseeable future. In fact, the trend is the other way.

Times have changed. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Once again, I appreciate your heartfelt and perspicacious posts.

[yurbud]

69. unions like Social Security, target of sustained disinformation campaign

This would also be a bad time for progressives to back away from unions when the far right controls all three branches of gov't and are assaulting unions. It would make it look like working class people have NO party looking out for them.

[umass1993]

76. good point

It would be neccessary to assure people that over the short-term Dems would oppose any changes to union law.


maybe we could make laws, unreleated to unions, that would ensure all workers were represented in the negotioation process.
Perhaps it could be sold as "diversifying" the pro-labor agenda, mcuh like rich people "diversify" their portfolio.

[yurbud]

79. that sounds pro-union

[bluestateboomer]

91. Unions matter.

OK, as a Union member I do have an axe to grind, but union membership is important even today. Unions are a counterbalance to the corporatism we see in the world today. The modern corporation is an undemocratic institution. We have the constitutional rights to change our political environment, but those right have very little power to change our economic environment. Our economic situation can be drastically changed by the whims of corporations. Without a countervailing organization we have little recourse. Government doesn't seem to want to be that force, so we have to band to together for our own good. Besides if unions were not important why did the right wing nuts spend so much energy trying to destroy them? This Google link has articles on Why unions matter:
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=why+unions+matter&btnG=Google+Search>
BSB

[umass1993]

96. RE: "Unions matter."

Nobody said that unions don't matter. However, as an institution their political support has waned along with their membership (as a percent of the workforce).

What about everybody else? Is is realistic to believe that Dems can have the platform of Unionizing all workers and have public support? Would this even be desirable? Can we come up with something better? There are 192 nations in the world, does any other country have a labor model that works bettter?

Without a countervailing organization we have little recourse.

Perhaps we can advocate a countervailing organization that represents ALL workers but does not suffer from the strikes and corruption that we have seen from unions in the past.

No system is perfect. Unions are better than nothing. The question is "Is there anything better than unions?" Given that the union model is failing millions of Americans, maybe it is time to investigate other possibilities more palatable to the American people.

I am sorry you misconstrued my statements as meaning, "Unions don't matter." I did not intend this confusion.

[yurbud]

110. the other means of helping workers--gov't--is controlled by corporations

I am a college instructor and a union member. The GOP is not only attacking unions directly, but the defunding government agencies that help negotiate labor disputes and look out for workers rights and safety.

If you want to propose other ADDITIONAL means of helping workers, fine. But don't do it at the expense of unions.

[umass1993]

4. some more

A strong Federal goverment. There are good reasons for decreasing the Federal funds. For one thing, the Federal government is the most rremote form of government to the people. Local governments are much more approachable to the people.

Proximity does mean something. Look at W, if he had less money/power the less damage he could do.

Perhaps, the Federal gov't should be more focussed on issues that only cross state borders.

[el_gato]

7. bush has increased the size and strength of the federal gov. massively

[umass1993]

11. Yes he has

this is why the Dems should question the legacy of the "Great Society."

It can cut both ways.

[umass1993]

5. Family Issues

Democrats seem to think that all configurations of families are equal, in particular where children are involved.

one parent, two parent are equal.
man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, parents are all equal.

Are they? Moreover, if you think they aren't all equal does that mean you are sexist or a homophobe?

Why not tell half of America that they are homophobes or sexist, then ask them to vote for you. Not likely.

In short, we need to protect the right of children. Moreover, in the future, with genetic engineering this issue will only get more and more important.

Arriving at who can create children, and how they can be creaated will be a real test of values...or does anything go?

[umass1993]

6. Hemming and hawing

over these issues will not be acceptable to a large segment of the population.

This is why Kerry was effectively called a "flip-flop." He tried to gloss over issues he thought wouldn't be palatable to many Americans.

Dems have to be able to mean what they say and say what they mean, and be able to give an acceptable reason why.

This is not complicated.

[el_gato]

8. you seem to be rather naive about the state of things

first of the leadership of the democratic party is part of the same collection of corporate servants that control the republican party

second, the media is how collective consciousness is created these days and no matter what Kerry did, he would still have been defined by those who control the big megaphone, i.e. the media

[umass1993]

13. naive?

<i>first of the leadership of the democratic party is part of the same collection of corporate servants that control the republican party

second, the media is how collective consciousness is created these days and no matter what Kerry did, he would still have been defined by those who control the big megaphone, i.e. the media</i>

I am not naive. If somebody thinks changes should take place, how does it help things to say they are naive for thinking this is possible?

If change is impossible, then this discussion board is moot.

[el_gato]

16. what I am saying is...

You are trying to blame the failure of the party on old platforms but that failure is actually due to something entirely different.
If we could take control of the party back from the corporate servants
and actually have people who care about pursuing a progressive vision instead of betraying it.

[umass1993]

20. I like one word you used

"care."

But what is that progressive vision?

I do not see many people who can put it into words. Unless you can phrase the vision, you can't select leaders to help make it happen.

And yes, clinging to some of the old platforms is getting in the way of the real goal. After all, the old platforms had special interest groups supporting them and sending checks to the Democrats.

We don;t need them any more. We have the Internet. We need the silent majority.

[umass1993]

9. Economics is a problem

because it is so complicated.

Moreover, our economic policies have so many contradictions and is so gluttonous that bringing it up gets one uncomforably close to being critical of the American people or telling them a la Carter that they will have to 'tighten their belts.'

Repubs have no such constraints. They have their media machine and they do not force the people to make difficult decisions.

Ultimately, reality is the arbiter of truth. When that reality is realized, the people will turn some group to help them, that group could be the Democratic Party if the Democrats are willing to embrace them as they are.

[el_gato]

10. well these republicans do ask alot of people to die for them

that seems like a difficult decision

[umass1993]

15. It seems like a lot

but most troops gladly go, they are volunteers.

The families of those who died number only 1300 out of over 100 million households. The vast majority are not being asked to sacrifice at all.

OK, they are being asked to put yellow ribbon stickers on their SUV. I'll concede that.

[umass1993]

17. I guess my main point is

we should focus more on attaining our goals, rather than being attached to the means of achieving them.

The means should be malleable because our understanding of the world evolves. However, our goals should be clear.

1) Food, shelter, clothing
2) Access to health care
3) A decent neighborhood environment in which to live and raise children
4) An environment manmade and natural that is suitable for our children
5) Opportunity for all to learn grow.
6) A decent, humane quality of life.

[el_gato]

19. what about liberty?

where does that fit in to your agenda?

[umass1993]

21. liberty fits in everywhere

when one thinks of quality of life.


The liberties are protected by the "Bill of Rights" and we should never stray from the spirit of the bill of rights.

Liberty can be an elusive concept. We need a narrative of american life that people can actually picture in their minds.

a narrative of American life....

[yurbud]

44. put liberty and democracy AHEAD of big business

No more coups because an oil company, or sweatshop or banana plantation owner doesn't like an elected leader who stands up for his workers or wants a fair price for his countries natural resources.

If the democrats had the balls to say that they would win and hopefully the GOP lite wing of the party would wither away and die.

We already have one party that represents big business, and their interests clearly don't always overlap those of the rest of us.


Maybe we really need three parties:

progressive party that looks after workers and consumers

religious party that fights abortion and spongebob

crony party that represents corporations

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Well, mighty full of yourself, aren't you?

The blustering tough-guy strut is the mark of the Reagan era, and it's only gotten worse.

Yes, the left is cowed by people like you, and it's allowed itself to be far too timid. It's a hazard of not being cocksure and posturing with extreme decisiveness.

Here's the liberal agenda: people who can pull their own weight should, and we should make adjustments to the economy and society to be inclusive. The wealthy should pay AT LEAST the same proportion of their income as others (that's TOTAL TAXATION, not just Income Tax) because they get more out of society. Taxation is billing for services rendered, and the rich get a lot more out of this society than the poor. We should live within our means. We shouldn't demand that our worldview is the only valid one, and that we have the right to impose it on others by any means we see fit. Social Security should be kept in its old form; it's a safety net. Pluralism should be fostered at every turn; that means bringing back the fairness doctrine and tightening up media ownership rules so huge money doesn't control the megaphone. We shouldn't make poverty more bearable, as you say, we should make education more available and help people help themselves; the less poverty in a society, the better for all. We should hold corporations accountable for their polluting, and we should be much better stewards of the environment.

If you want to kill this, you've got problems. Don't think so much about yourself and resent that others may just be slacking and getting away with something. That way lies conservatism.

The very fact that you can compose your posts and get them onto the board shows that you've benefited much from this society, and you should pay it back by thinking about others.

At the heart of essentially conservative arguments like yours is a disdain for others and a self-glorification. Those no-accounts should just "get it together". It's nothing but an egocentric trumpeting of one's own resolute power, and it's silly. People who swagger around with the libertarian gait of the strong, self-reliant pioneer type just look silly. Idiots may be impressed, but anyone who's actually lived for a while and associated with people in a non-domineering way are neither fooled nor amused.

[umass1993]

39. Mmm, are you talking to me??

The reply is to my message, but it doesn't make any sense in the context to my posting.

El-Gato (the cat) seemed more libertarian.

Myself, I agree with you, that libertarianism is a cop-out.


Sorry, I am confused. Maybe my communication abilities suck. The lack of positive responses to these postings seems to indicate so.

[umass1993]

41. "the less poverty in a society, the better for all"

Jesus was poor.
Ghandi was poor.
Buddha was poor.
Mother Theresa was poor.
Any number of Nobel Peace prize winners were poor. I do not feel sorry for any of them. They were living their life as they wished.

But they were happy and fulfilled and taken care of.

I think poverty and poor people fulfill an important purpose in society. Money isn't everything.

Clearly it is possible to be healthy happy and poor if an adaquate support system is in place.

If the poor are healthy and taken care of, then we know that everybody else is being taken care of as well.

I'm not saying I buy into this notion, lock , stock and barrel, but it is something to reflect upon when we think about what exactly we are hoping to achieve.

[whosinpower]

42. Tell that to the big corporations

And if they agree with you
then you have become liberal.

[umass1993]

53. I don't understand your post

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[umass1993]

54. thank you for your post

I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks everything is honky dorry in Blue America.

The thing is, Dean proved that the money is there through the silent Moajority. The Internet(s) has empowered them.

Dems don't need NOW, GLAD, AFL-CIO, NAACP they need all of America. It is clear that the above groups will not be sufficient to get it done. Before we needed their money to get elected. Now allegiance to them is alienating too many Americans.

Not that we should ignore the above groups, because they represent legitimate concerns of many Americans, but the backstage-pass should be eliminated.

[bemildred]

38. All this left-right liburul-conservative stuff is horseshit for the rubes.

It's all about issues, issues and nothing but. Run on issues people
care about and you can kick anybodies ass, regardless of which political
sect they claim to belong to.

[umass1993]

40. I agree that issues are important

in an earlier post I cited one from John Kerry's website.

My thought is that there are too many roadblocks to vote Democrat in the party platform. If 40% can't vote for you, that is a tough spot. Giving the Repubs a 40 point handicap really makes things tough for the Dems.

Sure, superstars like Bill Clinton can manage, but over the long haul, it hurts substantially.

The platform must be rethought, so the speeches and the "politicking" can connect to the vast majority of people, which we agree are in many ways Democrats at heart.

Like I said, roadblocks. Moreover, some of these roadblocks seem completely unneccessary for the Democrats to achieve their goals.

What am I saying that is so contraversial or unreasonable?

[bemildred]

46. It's not just any issues, it has to be ones people care about.

Populist stuff, things that get the "masses" moving, grass-roots
political organization. DEMOCRACY. SOCIALISM. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
I WILL NEVER ALLOW THEM TO WEAKEN YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTIONS!
CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET IN HALF IMMEDIATELY! END THE DRUG WAR NOW!
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYBODY, PERIOD! FAIR TAXES ON THE RICH AND
CORPORATIONS! MAKE BUSINESSES PAY A PENALTY WHEN THEY CUT JOBS OR
OUTSOURCE! You have to be willing to pick a fight. Look at the
response Ms Boxer just got. You have to put fear in the bastards
hearts.

Kerry, bless his heart, pasted George good in the "debates" and all
that, but he refused to distinguish himself from George on a long
list of issues that really matter to people. It's an old pattern.

The "leaders" of the Democratic party are primarily concerned with
retaining control of the PARTY, not with electing a President. That
is why they went all out to defeat Dean and yet were quite happy to
see Bush selected again after Kerry's just good enough to be credible
campaign. Bush doesn't scare them, Dean does, and politicians like
Dean do when they start to get traction, it happens every time.

Again, all this left-right liberal-conservative rhetoric is bullshit for
the rubes, intended to keep you (and all of us) distracted while they
pick our pockets and give us unending crappy government. They tell us
constantly that government sucks and then they make it so. Meanwhile
there are many countries that are much more democratic, much better
run, and much pleasanter to live in.

[umass1993]

51. To the evangelicals

the issue they care about is abortion. So said their leader on Tucker Carlson.

Until Dems change their tune on this issue, they will lose a huge number of those people. That is reality.

Perhaps, when Roe V. Wade is overturned, the Dems will be back in the game in the South. Right now, they aren't even in the game. That is the simple truth.

You can beat around the "bush" all you want. You can hem and haw about ecomomics and workers rights and civil rights and environment, but it won't mean a damn.

Frankly, the abortion issue bores me. I can't believe Dems are willing to walk off the cliff, like lemmings, for this issue.

I am a registered Democrat, but the behavior of some Democrats on this posting make me wonder if some of you are just reactionaries too. I thought a Democrats were willing to listen and weigh the arguments, not throw insults and use straw-man techniques like Sean Hannity.

To me, its the process that counts, not neccessarily the final policy decision. But the process of this message board is disappointing.

[bemildred]

55. Thanks for telling me about "reality". nt

[umass1993]

61. Not that you're bitter ;-)

[teryang]

45. You said it

I don't give a shit what that fat, self indulgent, greedy, corporatist gas bag says.

[rodeodance]

48. "a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development,"

This post was sent to me by email almost a year ago (so no link).
It DID pass and was signed into law.
How it will play out is yet to be detemined--but the legal personhood to the zygote, etc is very threatening indeed!

As an aside the title of the bill is very misleading!! My representation Tammy Baldwin--and other Dems voted against it!!


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: JENNY THALHEIMER, 202-628-8669 ext. 116
NOW Urges Immediate Action to Prevent Devastating "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" from Passing in Senate




NOW Urges Immediate Action to Prevent Devastating "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" from Passing in Senate

February 26, 2004

"Under the disguise of maternal and fetal protection, reproductive freedoms are once again under attack," said NOW President Kim Gandy responding to today's vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997). "This legislation is another despicable attempt to undermine abortion rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade."

"If members of Congress want to address the pervasive problem of violence against pregnant women, then they need to pass increased funding for education and for enforcement," said Gandy.

The conservative sponsors of this cynical bill are using a strategy to
redefine the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the law to persons, not fetuses. The inventive language of H.R. 1997 covers "a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development," so that even zygotes, blastocysts or embryos are included in the definition. This new definition would give rights to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses—ultimately, setting the stage to legally reverse Roe. ......

[Bridget Burke]

57. So, Newt Gingrich is a hero....

Women don't need the right to choose.

Unions are bad & poverty is OK!

Edited to add: Since this is the Editorial thread, do you have a link to the Gingrich appearance? Or a transcript?

[umass1993]

58. Newt is a hero.

I didn't say that.

<Women don't need the right to choose.>

I didn't say that.

<Unions are bad & poverty is OK!>

I didn't say these either.

I did say that others were using straw man arguments, as you so aptly demonstrated. You put words in my mouth, words that could easily be dismissed. That is a straw-man argument.

I find the straw man arguments to be rude and mean-spirited, and frankly counterproductive.

Dems have lost the South. That remains the truth. It is not a problem of perception, no more that the fact that Arabs hate Bush is a problem of perception. It has to do with policy. It stands to reason that if the attitude is to change, then the policy must change.

If the policy does change, wouldn't it be better to do it in a way that doesnt' destroy America in the process? Why are you giving me this static?

[umass1993]

60. Dems in Denial Cruise Article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1928-2005Jan11.html


Shipping Out for Inauguration Day

By Al Kamen
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A19

Too late to book space on what some have dubbed the "Democrats in Denial" cruise next week in the Caribbean. There have been persistent reports of disconsolate Democrats leaving Washington next week rather than confront joyous Republicans in town for President Bush's inauguration.

But Peggy Cusack, an events planner who did election night for the Kerry campaign and was a Gore veteran, decided "this would be a perfect week" to get way out of town.

[umass1993]

63. William Rasperry on the subject

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31596-2005Jan23.html

< What, in my view, threatens to test the American tradition of working things out are issues closely tied to religious faith: abortion, homosexual marriage, the teaching of evolution.
And not just in my view. Public Agenda has just published the results of a survey that serves to make the point. Support for compromise on issues that involve religious principles is diminishing among all Americans.>


Frankly, I think he overstates the importance of evolution. I rarely see anybody comment on evolution on the Yahoo message boards.

In light of his article, I am glad I started this thread, and I do believe it is worth "Editorial" section.

[xchrom]

66. the foetus is not the point.

whether the body is one's own is.
it doesn't make any difference if the body is walking into a fertility clinic or an abortion clinic.
your posts make it clear that someone else other than a woman has a say so about her body re:children's rights.
and that's wrong.
a child is outside of the womb -- outside of the body and to one extent or another -- on it's own.

you only make it clear to me that we{you, specifically} have not grasped what it means for a woman to own her body.

the only reason to listen to newt is to understand the repuke grasp of tactics.
liberals must realize that since nixon -- repukes have constructed a tactic that employs a two tier system.
1st is that ''traditional americans'' are victims.
2nd is that ''traditional americans'' need to fight back.
what newt hides -- and so do you -- is that the corporate oligarchy is the power behind the throne in american politcs today.
they are the puppet masters and pull the strings of so called ''traditional americans'' -- and the goal is simple -- and interestingly, you help them -- reconstruct the american economic model to one that fits with making the already powerful more powerful.
unions have, for the most part, been ideal structures to combat that.
you seems to be more in with reagan than anybody else that i can think of -- especially when it comes to the american worker.

[umass1993]

67. You seem to imply that I am stupid...

<it doesn't make any difference if the body is walking into a fertility clinic or an abortion clinic.
your posts make it clear that someone else other than a woman has a say so about her body re:children's rights.
and that's wrong.>

Says who? You? You say it's her body only, I say it isn't. Who is right? You? Why? Because you said so?

<a child is outside of the womb -- outside of the body and to one extent or another -- on it's own.>

Says who? You? So only children get protection, not fetuses? This is a false choice.

<you only make it clear to me that we{you, specifically} have not grasped what it means for a woman to own her body.>

Again, you assert as fact, that which is disputed. Moreover, you insult in the process. You act as if it were an educational problem. Perhaps you should send me to a re-education camp.

<the only reason to listen to newt is to understand the <<<repuke>>> grasp of tactics.>

Ah-ah. This is No-Name-Calling Week. Sponsored by the gay and lesbians, a group whose emblem you use as a handle on this site. Are some people more equal than others? Is that the message? Where is that re-education camp? I must really need it.

<you seems to be more in with reagan than anybody else that i can think of>

I consider this to be a mischaracterization. I am no fan, nor ever was a fan of, Ronald Reagan, although his son seems kinda cool. Right now millions of workers in the U.S. have no protection other than a weak Dept. of Labor. It stands to reason that this could use a little reworking.

[xchrom]

72. you might be right.

there is no negotiating on whether a womans body is her own.
there's no philosophising it away.
there's no little line in the sand that says this part of her body belongs to the state -- the rest does not.
your proposition supposses numerous slippery slopes.

i don't -- and seriously neither do you -- think i'm the only one to assert that a womans body is her own.
it is the very heart of the feminism --freedom from one of the last the last vestiges of pre-modern thinking -- that a woman is in any way chattel simply because she has a womb.

i really don't care how offensive it is to anybody that a woman chooses to have abortion -- it's none of their business -- crossing over into the right to privacy.
what i do in private and with medical procedure is none of your business.
it's not a false choice to extend protection children and not foetus' -- the latter are not people, children are.

i'm not a sponsered attack dog for gay's and lesbians -- why do you have a problem with my logo?
you'll forgive me -- or not, i really don't care -- but i see an extension in thinking about women and your irritation with my sexual orientation.

i'm not mischaracterizing your falling in with reagan -- you are using reasoning set out by reagan and newt re: unions.
yet you ignore a systematic history of assaults on unions vis a vis state and corporate collaberation.

in the mean time -- the population of people who most benefit from union organizing find themselves year after year losing economic ground from that collaberation.

[umass1993]

77. "there is no negotiating on whether a womans body is her own."

The problem is that this is a dispute over fact. You say the fetus is part of a woman's body. Others say that the fetus is a life of its own and not "part of a woman's body" like say, an arm or a leg or a kidney.

Both seem to have merit. Clearly, the fetus stage is different, but exactly how different? Moreover, what are the practical limitations?

Certainly, "Abortion is murder" is a disingenuous shibboleth.
But, "A woman's right to choose." doesn't seem much better to me.

why do you have a problem with my logo
no problem with your logo, I just thought it ironic that you were name-calling during No-Name-Calling Week, an event sponsored by a group that you publicly affiliated yourself with. you called republicans "repukes." It's just not a nice thing to do. And remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

Frankly, you seem angry. I really mean you no harm. "I come in peace.", as they say.

[xchrom]

81. who is it disputed by?

people who want a say so over a certain part of a womans body, that's who.
if a woman doesn't own her uterus -- then what part of her body does she own?

she certainly doesn't that part of her brain that would make a decision to have an abortion -- so what do we do, administer drugs or operations on the brain for women?

calling republicans names is not the same as calling you a name -- and i did not call you a name.

angry? hardly
amused? certainly.

the only reason to look at gingrich -- isn't to gain insight for leftist thinking -- there isn't any there.
conservatives, gingrich included, are notoriously short on intellectual capitol.

tactics are a different matter -- conservatives play for keeps.
in fact they play to destroy the opposition.
that's the only lesson democrats need to learn.
how to play for keeps -- how to play to the lowest common denominator -- with democratic socialist ideals.
be better sales people.

but to seriously put forward the idea that i.e. revisiting a womans right to choose?
why not go back to the 19th century and reintroduce slavery?
or re-fight the indian wars -- oh wait the repukes just did that didn't they?
how about bringing back war profiteers or robber barons -- oops -- they did that too.

democrats can win with the ideas they own --
they just need to play the game with the same ruthlessness the other side plays with.

[umass1993]

82. You Amaze Me

You really do. I have to say, I have some respect for the fight in you.

Let me address something you said that interested me.

calling republicans names is not the same as calling you a name -- and i did not call you a name.

This statement fascinates me. It really does. I think it encapsulates the difference between you and me.

To me, the reason No-Name-Calling Week was instituted, was to address the culture of calling people "homos" and such, as a means of stemming the culture of bias against homosexuals. Calling somebody a "homo" directly, or saying that somebody else "was a homo" both propagate this bias against homosexuals in society.

The sponsors of this movement were wise to extend it to all name-calling, because many groups suffer the same treatment. I have been watching the Auschwitz program on PBS and so Jews come to mind.

Is it OK, for one Christian to say to another, "What a kike!" I say no.

My question to you is, would such a thing be "OK" given your stated principles that: calling republicans names is not the same as calling you a name -- and i did not call you a name. ?

Once again, you fascinate me.

[bemildred]

83. Another transparent dodge.

I suppose I'm still "bitter", eh?

[umass1993]

84. Dodge?

There is nothing for me to dodge. I don't have time to respond to everything. Moreover, I would end up repeating myself. I hate repeating myself.

As far as being "bitter", your previous post just seemed to have a bitter tinge to it, so I responded, "Not that you're bitter."

Actually, it was supposed to be a little funny.

Look, I accept, and for the most part share, your view. However, the sentiment to preserve life seems perfectly human and normal to me. Hey, I'm against the death penalty. I value life. I also value privacy. I don't even like grocery stores tracking my purchases with those stupid discount cards.

So there is a balancing act here. There are the interests of the fetus, the interests of the mother, the interests of the father and the interests of society.

I don't think this view is extreme or crazy. There are precedents for all of these.

I suggest you listen to the song, "Black Chick, White Guy" by Kid Rock. He talks about a girl who gets an abortion and the effect on her boyfriend. Clearly, he is affected as well. he feels connection of some sort, with the fetus.

Good luck bemildred. You certainly have been a lesson to me.

[bemildred]

86. Dodge. Dodge, dodge, dodge. nt

[umass1993]

78. "i really don't care how offensive it is to anybody"

i really don't care how offensive it is to anybody that a woman chooses to have abortion

Abortion doesn't offend me. The last thing the world needs is more people.

But it does not make me insensitive to the views of other people.

I guess I'm just a sensitive guy.

[GOPFighter]

70. Wow, what a mess!

First of all, umass, you walked into a room full of liberals and said "There is a liberal dogma, and it needs to be killed" And you're surprised and dismayed at our reaction??

You no doubt have some good points somewhere in your arguments, but nobody's listening because of your heavy handed introduction ("...and it needs to be killed."

First of all, screw Newt Gingrich and his current Republican thugs. You think it's the Democrats who are in denial and are confused? What about a party that has us bogged down in a war that cannot be won, that spends big bucks on parties while our kids are getting killed and maimed? What about a party that excoriated Democrats for fiscal irresponsibility and then turned around and ran up the biggest deficit in history? What about a party that encourages bigotry against gays and consciously appeals to bigoted whites? I could go on and on. It's the Republicans that are in denial that they can continue on their present path and expect to win in the future.

If you want to argue specific Democratic/liberal policies, then do it, policy by policy, but don't paint our entire liberal philosophy with a broad brush and proclaim it must be killed.

GOPFighter

[umass1993]

73. DEMOCRATS LOST!!!!!!!!

If you want to argue specific Democratic/liberal policies, then do it, policy by policy, but don't paint our entire liberal philosophy with a broad brush and proclaim it must be killed.

I said dogma. Dogma is never good. It rears it's ugly head in the guise of inflexibility when times have changed. Quite frankly, it seems there is quite a bit of inflexibility out there. I did not say all positions were dogma, I said that there exists dogma, and it needs to be killed.

Myself, I think of liberalism as anti-dogmatic. But it doesn't seem like others do the same.

Whether the Republican leadership is in denial or not is not for me to say. They got elected, we didn't. Perhaps they misrepresented reality deliberately or maybe they are delusional. Probably both. But they won.

Democrats were losers. We LOST. The question is why, and what are we going to do about it. Maybe some expect better results in the future with the same formula.

[pointcounter]

80. The question is why

my 2 cents says asking this question gets one lifted from this list

[umass1993]

85. the moderators seem to be even-handed

they know I'm being fair.

What will draw Americans togother is a crisis. A real crisis. Not a trumped up crisis. Until then, this unseemly bickering will continue.

Hopefully, the bickering will not escalate as a result of whatever crisis comes from this foolishness.

[DaDeacon]

88. New Coke Politics...not smart!

The thing here is that Pepsi beat coke in a few taste test in the early 80's so what does the number one Cola maker do , change it's formula to taste like it's number two competitor! After public outrage the formula is changed and coke has to play catch up to the company it once saw as a cheep knock off! Dems need to get back to the real left. Not the left as defined by the repubs or the neo-cons! "How we treat the lest of us is how we are all to be judged" That is the true foundation of liberal thinking. We must take up for the poor, the discriminated, and the weak. In so doing we aren't tree huggers or wimps but Champions of the common man.

Some how The neo-cons and Repubs have fooled Americans into thinking that they are just like them by whereing blue jeans and using plain talk. The truth is that GW and friends have done a great job of selling the look without the backing. They talk ownership, but don't give you the tools to own! They say that you're safe but always tell you to be on the lookout!

The Moral here is that the left should be left and push truth over hype! Truth wins.

[umass1993]

74. Moreover you didn't respond to any of my points

in particular regarding the American Prospect questionnaire: "What does it mean to be a liberal?"

Clearly, there is soul-searching going on.

How are Democrats going to compete in the South? How? Without changing some of the platform? Just wait until the country falls apart and be the only viable option? I guess that's the strategy.

[Norquist Nemesis]

71. Saw him...he's using the Reagan method to run in '08

Right now, he's getting his message out there somewhat under the radar. He's sticking to traditional conservative positions while challenging Bush's extremism enough to pull right of center folks to take a serious look at him.

There's no doubt in my mind about it and we need to watch out. He's gearing up for a run.

[umass1993]

75. I don't fear Gingrich.

Moreover, the Dems can't do anything about that. We should work on ourselves rather than wring our hands about what the other team is doing.

Right now, we've taken ourselves out of the game. How are we going to get back into the game?

[CitizenRob]

87. Republicans

Republicans don't want respect, they want power. Ethics be damned. How can we fight that if we aren't willing to get dirty too?

[umass1993]

89. stop whining

Republicans don't want respect, they want power. Ethics be damned. How can we fight that if we aren't willing to get dirty too?

no matter how true it may be. It's not productive.

[bemildred]

90. Aw, c'mon.

You ask us what we think, and then you say we are whining.
That's not productive.

The notion that Gingrich has the best interests of the Democratic
Party at heart and just wants to help us out is like the stupidest
idea I've seen in a while, other than when Dumbsfeldt starts talking
about how things are going in Iraq.

[umass1993]

92. bemildred, I think we are miscommunicating again....

The notion that Gingrich has the best interests of the Democratic
Party at heart and just wants to help us out is like the stupidest
idea I've seen in a while

Who said that Gingrich has the Dems best interests at heart? His statement was merely a lead-in to this topic, about which many people are talking.

Again, if you misrepresent what somobody says, then it is easy to make it look stupid. Sean Hannity and his kindred spirits do this all the time.

The whining reminds me of when Bill Clinton was being impeached for his sexual advances in the white house. People just said over and over "He shouldn't be doing that! That was so dumb!" etc. It was like, "get over it." It's not illegal and it's in the past, why go over it again and again when there is nothing that can be done about it (although the Repubs tried). Meanwhile, Al Quaida was scoping out the World Trade Center.

We can't control the Republicans, no more than Congress can control the President's sexual behavior. We should be looking for changes WE can make to improve future results.

you are right. I probably shouldn't have admonished his whining. Then again, it may serve some good by pointing out a problem.

[bemildred]

94. Why post Newtie if he is irrelevant to your point?

But, anyway, I was making the point that because Newtie said it, there
is some reason to think it is a bad idea for the Democrats. Newt is not
a friend of the Democrats and he is likely to tell them to do things
that are not in their best interests. See?

[umass1993]

97. Newtie is a prominent person...

whether you agree with him or not. What he says does matter.. to some degree, whether it is true or not.

Frankly, I think he is full of it. But, if he said 2 + 2 = 4, I would beleive him. I wouldn't say, "He's a repuke, I don't believe him."

Actually, this is an M.O. for many of these conservatives, they draw you in with truth and then add falsehood at the end when they have the audiences trust.

[bemildred]

99. Newt is an asshole.

He has the credibility of a used-car salesman.
If you want to make a point about your opinions as to the
future of the Democrats and what it should be, Newt is the
wrong spokesperson, especially here.

[umass1993]

102. I also cited

william rasperry and another article in the Washinton Post.

But, given the way this thead has gone, absolutely nowhere, I suppose you are right.

Next time, I will have a more gentle lead-in. Sorry, this was my first time.

[bemildred]

108. I have some respect for Mr Raspberry, but disagree with him here. nt

[umass1993]

103. see post 60 eom

[CitizenRob]

95. Dude,

stop your whining about whining. If you're going to ask for opinions in a discussion forum you're going to hear all kinds of stuff. By the way, you seem to be projecting your emotional state onto posts. I know when I posted about dealing with an unethical Republican party it was to point out that we must be willing to fight just as hard. It certainly wasn't whining. How interesting though that you took that text, void of emotional context on your screen, and somehow made it sound like a whine in your head when you read it.

I suspect that you are internally whining, and that you're projecting your feelings onto the emotional context free text that you are reading.

[umass1993]

98. OK, my apologies..

You said we need to get dirty too. How should we get "dirty" to, in order to win?

I mistook your question as being rhetorical. I didn't think you were really suggesting that the Dems "get dirty too."

I would support insisting that both sides "fight fair." Myself, I would not be willing to "fight dirty."

[CitizenRob]

101. You

aren't willing to win then.

What we have going on in this country right now is a political war. The only problem is one side doesn't seem to realize that they are being attacked and losing battle after battle. That side would be us, the Dems. During times of war it becomes neccessary to suspend normal rules of conduct in order to insure your survival. We must be willing to fight dirty now so that we can regain control of the government and then put laws into place that will prevent this era from ever being repeated.

Make no mistake: WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE REPUBLICANS.

[umass1993]

105. WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE REPUBLICANS.

For me, the means is as important as the end.

Abu Ghraib was a means, I do not think it was justified by the end. Others disagree(e.g. Alberto Gonzales)

J. Edgar Hoover was at war with the Commies, he was willing to win by any means possible.

For the Nazis, the fight was against the Jewish conspiracy. The SS were quite content, and indeed, felt a duty to fight "dirty." 60 years later we watch a program on Aushwitz.

For me, the process is as important as the goal. Frankly, I can not say I respect your viewpoint, that the end justifies the means.

[CitizenRob]

107. I'm not talking torture, or death camps.

I'm talking about using the same tactics the Republicans use to supress the vote. If they do it to us, we should do it back. God knows the Republicans would lose if they had to fight an enemy that was on equal footing. You know, if we did that there might actually be strict laws against vote supression that would pass a Republican controlled congress by the time the next election came around.

[umass1993]

106. If you want to see me whining........

I am afraid I am not above it.....

go here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=2508385

[CitizenRob]

109. see...

We have common ground, I took think Dumbya is a deviant chimp. :-)

[CitizenRob]

93. okay...

Why don't you offer something productive then. Tell us Mr. Productivity how the heck are we going to win against unethical, criminal, uncaring, power hungry political warriors (ie, The Republicans.) Let me guess, being a typical DU reader you're going to suggest that we continue down the road to extinction with a happy smile plastered on our face begging the Republicans to play by the rules and be nice.

So please, do tell me Mr. Productivity, what ideas have you got?

[umass1993]

100. I listed a few changes that could be made

I think the "fight dirty or lose" is a false choice myself.

I think the issues are causing the Dems to sink into extinction. As I said, a few roadblocks on what I consider to be peripheral issues are preventing us from connecting with many voters, about 37% of them.

A 37 point spot is tough to overcome. Perhaps you deny this 37 point spot exists. The numbers and political power swing speak differently.

[CitizenRob]

104. We are at war

against a party that is willing to do whatever it takes to obliterate us. We must fight dirty if we are to regain control of the government and restore order. The media is against us, we cannot win with a strong message because nobody will ever hear that message.