about this "I" vrs "WE" thing...

[bearfartinthewoods]

all i know is that "I" can't unseat bush but "WE" can. the only way WE can do that is if WE all come together within the next 14 months.

[emad]

1. Cometh the moment, cometh the man?

or maybe, Cometh the Woman, Cometh the Moment????

[HFishbine]

2. Question

I am wondering what YOU are asking me to do.

[sangh0]

3. IMO

WE are asking YOU to help all of US by placing greater emphasis on what would help US, instead of placing greater emphasis on what YOU want.

IOW, it's not a demand, or even a request, to change your opinions. Instead, it's a request to mind how you communicate your positions, and try to use the pronoun "We" more often, and "I" less often.

[HFishbine]

4. Okay

But first WE have to know who the WE is of whom you speak.

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. I believe it is the WE that THEY would have placed in prisons for all of

OUR radical left, unpatriotic beliefs-that don't follow along with THEIR rhetoric.

[sangh0]

6. Answer

WE = Americans

[Bandit]

7. First come the Primaries

Until then we can all stump for our candidates. After our champion is selected we need to get behind whomever it is. If there is still more of this sniping going on it will be time for your "we are in this together" speach. Until then it is our right and our obligation to put forth any who we feel will do the most good in our opinion. I am an individual with my own wants and desires but I am also somewhat pragmatic and do vote. I will support the Democratic nominee when the time comes but until then I will support who ever I feel like supporting.

[Walt Starr]

8. BUAHAHAHAHA

This cat don't herd that easily.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Stubbornness is not a family value

[DemBones DemBones]

10. And how do you distinguish "stubbornness" from

"upholding principle"?

[WilliamPitt]

11. Usually when I see BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It means someone is enjoying throwing mud in the gears, as opposed to doing it on principle.

[Walt Starr]

15. Why didn't you ask me why I thought that was funny?

I laughed, because I didn't want to cry.

See, my vote has been taken for granted for more than two decades.

No more.

I will never again vote for somebody simply because they have the (D) after their name. My vote must be *earned*.

That's not selfishness. That's doing what is right for the United States in the LONG TERM.

Fuck the short term nonsense.

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. SCOTUS APPOINTMENTS ARE FOR LIFE

that's not exactly what i'd call short term nomsense

[WilliamPitt]

19. Still waiting for an answer to post #16

[DemBones DemBones]

26. Still waiting for an answer to MY post.

It was Walt Starr who said BUAHAAHAA.

I asked you a question and you haven't answered it. Your "reply" to my post was about Walt's post.

[bearfartinthewoods]

40. from me?? you don't want to hear my opinion on this

or better said, i'm not about to say it because i am swallowing hard and trying to put the WE before the ME.

[Walt Starr]

20. I will not vote my fears any longer

Voting out of fear got me here.

I vote my conscience from here forward. And yes, SCOTUS terms are for life, that is still short term as far as I'm concnered.

Long Term concerns require we look to the 22nd century and how it will look and be concerned with that. Fuck this petty nonsense about right now.

[WilliamPitt]

22. Hee hee hee hee

Irony. I do love it. I got flamed for saying "Fuck what you want" and that "We" needs to be all-important.

Should I flame you for saying "Fuck this petty nonsense about right now" when people are suffering right now and dying right now and the planet is on the edge of disaster right now?

Or should I just revel in the humor?

OK. Enough GD for me today. This place is fucking hilarious.

[Walt Starr]

30. People have always suffered and died

and both parties have been responsible for this over the years. Yes, and nearly half of the current candidates for the Democratic nomination are responsible for this today.

The biggest joke of all is that some will blindly vote for those who are every bit as responsible for the death, destruction, and suffering going on today as the person currently occupying the White House. They will do this because those responsible parties have a (D) after their name instead of their opponenet who is also responsible for it because that opponent has an (R) after his name.

[sangh0]

45. How compassionate of you

and how revealing of your "principles"

[Walt Starr]

47. Yes it is compassionate and "revealing"

I choose not to vote for anybody who is directly responsible for the deaths and suffering.

It's also pretty revealing about those who are willing to vote for somebody who is directly responsible for the deaths and suffering simly because of the (D) after their name and for no other reason whatsover.

[sangh0]

49. LBJ is directly responsible for the deaths and suffering

of thousands, if not millions, but I would have no problem voting for the man who was instrumental in providing civil rights to millions of Americans.

You see, I'm more concerned about what someone is going to do than what they've done in the past.

[Walt Starr]

51. I wouldn't vote for LBJ if the choice was

him or ten more years of Bush.

[Sterling]

Are you sure "we" want the same things?

I am not convinced.

[DemBones DemBones]

36. You were criticized for

posting a smug, narcissistic rant that accused other DUers in general of engaging in "ideological masturbation." You also included the edifying statement "Fuck what you want." It was an adolescent and inflammatory piece of writing and I'm amazed to see you still attempting to defend it in the harsh light of another day.

[Forkboy]

43. You were wrong Will

I like you,I really do,but your post was garbage and you were,rightfully,called on it.

Revel in the humor all you want...your post was still crap.

[neuvocat]

55. He can't tell between

"Fuck what you want" and "Fuck the short term nonsense", huh? I guess some people can't pick up on context. How sad.

[w4rma]

54. It's going to take more than only voting to slow this Corporatist mess

we're in. The folks in the top 1% mostly seem to care more about their money than the welfare of our nation. They have decided to use government as a means to invest. They give money to Bush in hopes that he'll redirect more money back to them, from the rest of us. While folks may get angrier and angrier as this happens, it will also become tougher and tougher to fight this as more and more of our resources are redirected towards these oligopolists.

IMHO, it's best to do everything we can to throw obstacles into their path until we can organize a strong enough defense to turn around the trend.

That means pushing for policies that hurt the corporatists at every turn while voting for the best candidate whose polls are high enough on election day that they might win.

[indigo32]

32. Walt....

what have you done to earn their allegiance to YOUR VOTE?
And do you not feel any obligation to the world that is waiting breathlessly for us to remove the shrub?

[Walt Starr]

33. Do I really need to list this all again?

I have voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since 1981.

I ran as a Democratic Candidate for local office when no other Democrat was willing to do so, twice.

I have worked campaigns and donated money.

And I feel no obligation to the world to remove the shrub if the Democratic PArty feels the same way because, from where I sit, an unacceptable candidate means the Democratic Party does not want the shrub removed.

[indigo32]

37. I apologize then

forquestioning your credentials, I must admit I've never gone so far as to actually run for office.

But your last paragraph still doesn't make any sense.

[Walt Starr]

39. I admit, either the Democrat or the Republican will win in 2004

It is my considered opinion that putting up a candidate that is wholly unacceptable to the liberal base of the Democrtic PArty will be tanamount to an admission that the Democratic PArty does not wnat to see Bush out of the White House.

Is that a good enough clarification?

[indigo32]

41. 1. We don't know who is going to win the nomination yet

2. the World doesn't give a crap what you think the Democratic party wants regarding Bush... I'm pretty sure they just want Bush out

3. the logic of if Dems don't please the left wing they want Bush to remain just doesn't wash out.

[Walt Starr]

53. 1) There's still a pretty good chance I'll be voting Dem in 2004

2) The rest of the world has no say in whether or not Bush gets dumped.

3) It doesn't have to. It washes with me which is why I will walk away from a rightwing Democratic Party nomination should it occur.

[bearfartinthewoods]

42. unacceptable to whom? you??

so, if i'm understanding you, unless the majority of the party votes for who you want, it means we don't want shrub gone. do i have that right?

[Walt Starr]

44. Yep, that pretty much sums up how I feel about it

Right now, there's only one candidate I would put in that category definitely with the potential of three others, but that's where I'm standing. If I find the candidate unacceptable I will figure the Democratic PArty doesn't really want to push shrub out and will vote accordingly.

[sangh0]

12. How I distinguish it

is by asking "Does it do any good for others". Somehow "Bwahahaha" doesn't pass that test.

[Walt Starr]

14. Neither is dictating that somebody else must accept

what s/he finds unacceptable.

I'll take a long haul approach to reform. It stands a better chance of lasting.

[WilliamPitt]

16. Dictating?

Oy. Stated opinions don't do well here, do they.

I have to ask, Walt: Exactly what is the plan for your 'long-haul' reform? What, specifically, is the plan? What long-haul reform do you see happening after Bush wins in 2004? Do you have a plan, or is your 'long-haul' reform rhetoric just ass-covering so you don't have to soil your principles in 2004?

[sangh0]

21. There is no plan

They spend so much time contemplating THEIR PRINCIPLES, there's little time to think about actually doing something that helps others. The best they can do is figuring out how to get a good night's sleep and avoiding holding their noses.

That's their "plan"

[Walt Starr]

28. My plan is simple

Dump the Democratic Party if it is no longer representing my values in favor aof a party which will.

That serves one of two purposes towards reform. Either the Democratic PArty realizes it must move closer to the left to shore up it's base, which is successful reform quickly, or it forces the Democratic PArty to move even further to the right to comepete with the Republicans, alienating more on the left which ultimately must turn to the increasing thrid party on the left for representation. This would be successful reform over a much loinger period of time.

Either way, there is reform. I would hope for the quick method, but I realize there is too much idiocy in the leadership of the Democratic Party for that to have much of a chance for success.

[sangh0]

34. Are you kidding us?

The "plan" is "After Walt Starr 'dumps' the Democratic Party, it will move to the left"

[Walt Starr]

35. Nope, Walt Star iss simply one

of many.

It happened in 2000 and if the wrong person is nominated, it will happen again.

Thousands have already thrown over the Democratic PArty because they saw the Democrats moving too far to the right. If they continue the move to the right, I will only be one, but I guarantee there will be others.

[sangh0]

46. Nope, Walt Starr is simply one

The "many" continued to vote Dem, in greater numbers than ever. It seems your "plan" of wholesale "dumping" by Dems is nothing more than a fantasy. If it were more than that, you'd be able to describe your "Plan" to get those Dems to "dump" the Dems.

[Walt Starr]

48. My plan is simple

It allows Dems to make up their own minds. As the party moves right, there will be more disaffected Democrats who will jump ship, just like what happened in 2000 resulting in an election so close that it was stealable.

[sangh0]

50. What is the plan?

Dems already make up their own minds, and it's obsious they are not dumping Dems and voting for Greens.

So tell me again about the plan for moving the Dems to the left. So far, in your very own words, you only plan to move the Dems TO THE RIGHT.

That's the opposite of what you claim to want.

[Walt Starr]

52. um...look back to 2000 and you will see you're wrong

Dems already make up their own minds, and it's obsious they are not dumping Dems and voting for Greens.

Then I guess George W. Bush is not in the White House and the past 32 months have all been a collective dream from which we should be awakening, when?

Oh, I'm sorry, they dumped Gore in favor of Bush by nearly three times the rate they went for Nader. Excuse me.

The Dems need no help from me in moving to the right. They are already there and are preparing the final push into the dark side if Lieberman has his way.

See, there are thousands of Dems who couldn't tell who was further to the right in 2000, Gore or Bush. They decided it was Gore and went with Bush.

[neuvocat]

57. That will almost happen on its own.

The democratic party won't go away primarily due to the infrastrue and funding it has going for it. It has the means to stay in power at least for a while.

That being said, it is still eroding because of the support it is losing while moving to the right and declaring itself as "centrist", which is a highly subjective term. IMO I think these reforms you're talking about will take place when the party leadership is forced to undertake them.

Then again you might see things differently, given your background, which is more qualified than mine.

[Sterling]

27. I love being preached to.

That is why I love these rants like the one yesterday that started this second thread.

I don't want to preach at anyone but I will say I wish people would spend less time telling me how to think, feel, and act and more time working towards their stated goals.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. O.K. Stop suggesting Kerry is a phony "war hero". nt

[bearfartinthewoods]

38. i have NEVER used the term phony

just keep pretending no one but me will ever ask about this.....

[ibegurpard]

17. I agree that WE need to come together

but again this begs the question for what and for whom?
That's what the primary is sorting out. If you want to make calls for more courtesy between members on the forum, then fine. I agree that a little more of that can be a good thing. However, these calls for unity when we're trying to sort just what exactly it is WE want and WE need to focus on sound condescending and sanctimonious.

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. if you are actually responding to my thread

you have an extremly low threshold for the terms condescending and sanctimonious.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. You quite reasonably said we have 14 months to

come together. Others seem to be demanding that we

Come together

right now,

over WE.


(apologies to Lennon & McCartney)

[ibegurpard]

31. Again:

WHAT is it you think WE should unite behind? There are an awful lot of US that are pretty unhappy about the past performance of many Democrats, including some of the candidates. A lot of that unhappiness stems from positions and votes that WE perceive as being indicative of a lack of willingness or ability to stand up for Democrats in the face of a brutal Republican onslaught. Are WE expected to ignore that and continue to go along to get along when WE perceive that sort of behavior as continuing to exacerbate what WE think is a problem in the Democratic Party? WE want Democrats to appeal to the people who have been disaffected by Democratic timidity in the past and WE think that supporting candidates who have been a part of that is not going to accomplish it.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Exactly. And I will uphold my principles, no matter what

anyone says. That doesn't mean I insist on Kucinich winning the nomination. It does mean that I have to be convinced that anyone whom I vote for will uphold enough of my principles, which are good, progressive principles and therefore benefit the common good more than they benefit me individually, to deserve my vote. To vote in a warm body calling itself a Democrat in 2004 could do more harm than good, allowing a Republican worse than GWB to take power in 2008.

It must also be remembered that WE have the power to vote in a Democratic Congress (if not Democrat-controlled, at least one with a higher percentage of Dems holding seats) to work with a new Dem president OR against Bush* if he remains in power. The current Dems in Congress are very much part of the Bush* problem. He could not do all he has without Congressional support and too often the Dems are going along with the GOP.

[chadm]

23. So who are "we"?

If someone can define a movement that represents me and a viable way of creating change in that direction, I'm in.

[neuvocat]

59. More like "we" is "they".

[DrGonzoLives]

56. We and I be thinkin'

that we and I be needin' a little :smoke:

[buddhamama]

58. the 14 months is a big deal

after all we're in the midst of the primary season.

you make a good point though,much better than the who gives a fuck what you want thread.

i'm concentrating on the here and now, we'll see what happens later on.