The circular firing squad

[BL611]

You know, every so often I like to look on Freerupblic, and one of the things that strikes me is while not everyone on there agrees with everyone else, there is little vitriol thrown at each other. Here on DU it seems as if every disagreement quickly turns into hyperbole and name calling, it seems as if every time I look on here I see someone calling either another DU member or a Democratic politician a Republican (obviously if they were really a Republican they wouldn't be a DU member or Democratic politician).

Frankly I am probably more "moderate" then many on this site (although I am probably as far left as the most "liberal" of Democratic Senators), part of the reason I post here is because there are so many people I have DIFFERENCES with,and would like to engage in REASONED discussion on those differences, however what should be recognized is that people on DU probably agree with each other on at least 80% of issues, and yet the sort of antagonism shown on the things we don't is reminiscent of people on opposite sides of a war. I know that there are people here upset with Hillary's vote on the war resolution, or that Kerry didn't support gay marriage, or some of the positions of the DLC, but can't we have these disagreements without descending into McCarthyite freeper purges?

Also this should not be limited to just fights among Democrats or the left. I am also troubled by some of the more extreme comments made about Republicans, the fact of the matter is, believe it or not, we are all Americans, and we all have a shared destiny and common concern, if there are some factions of the right that won't acknowledge that, that doesn't give us any excuse to sink down to their level. The fact is America's greatest asset is its diversity. Thats not just diversity of color,or religion, or region, but of IDEAS, it is great that we live in a democracy (however imperfect of a democracy it may be), and resolve our differences through the Democratic process. But the key to doing so is an understanding that not everyone will see things the same way that we do, and that does not make their point of view illegitimate.

Not everyone is going to see eye to eye on abortion, or marriage, or how our economy should be structured, or how and when to go to war. That is why it is so important to have a REASONED debate, instead of falling prey to our more destructive emotions, and hiding behind name calling and self righteousness.

[Kagemusha]

1. FR has extremely aggressive censorship though.

Is that really what's desired here?

[BL611]

2. I am not aware of FR's censorship policies

however the point is not as much about FR as it is about, DU, the left, and America as a whole.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[SoCalDem]

3. Democrats are thinkers/debaters.. Repubes are mindless drones

who readily accept the "party line" and spend endless hours talking about how "dreamy' Rumsfeld is, and how smart W is..

Debate is better..

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Debate is good.

Screaming matches, which degenerate quickly into misplaced charges of racism/homophobia/corporate whoredom are not useful. Unfortunately, the latter happens far more often than the former.

[Inland]

19. Contradiction and antagonism don't equal thought or debate.

Time for a Python sketch.

[SidDithers]

49. Yes they do...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[BL611]

8. This is what I'm talking about...

Those comments are platitudes ane generalities, there are plenty of mindless Dems that refuse to budge on their dogma, and I have met many a thoughtful Republican who I just happen to see things differently then. This is the type of reductionism that leads to the divisiveness we see in our society.

[SoCalDem]

13. :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Yeah, but the circular firing squad is what we do best.

:sarcasm:

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, rather than seeing the big picture and realizing that we all need to work together, too many people here are single issue minded, meaning they will never work for or support anyone who doesn't agree with them on that one particular issue. This is probably the most ignorant thing we can do. We fail to realize that EVERY Democrat brings us closer to ALL of our issues, and yes, that includes Joe Lieberman. The Liebermans and Landrieus will allow the Kennedys and Boxers to do their work, as we NEED each and every seat we can get.

[PunkPop]

12. I believe you have that backwards.

The Liebermans and Landrieus allow the Republicans to do their work - The Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the tax cuts...

Lieberman specifically is an absolute disaster for the Democratic party. Holding him up as an example of something to be emulated is folly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. No, I had it right the first time.

Perhaps you failed simple math, but we need 51 Senators to take control of the Senate. If we don't have Senators like Landrieu, Nelson, Nelson, and Lieberman, that's 4 more seats we have to somehow make up. And in states like Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida, you're not going to get much better than them. Connecticut MAYBE, but hey, that's THEIR choice, you know, being THEIR Senator and all. And as long as he has (D) next to his name, we really shouldn't be complaining all that much. If you REALLY hate him that much, contribute to his primary challenger. Otherwise, focus on getting acceptable elected officials to represent your state. But bashing him endlessly and wishing death upon him isn't exactly productive.

[PunkPop]

21. Well you didn't really address my point.

Which is (D) or not next to his name, he seems to be more help to Republicans than Democrats.

You did however claim that I bashed him "endlessly" and wished death (???) upon him. How odd.

[tx_dem41]

26. I must have missed the part where the poster claimed that YOU did.

Can you help me out?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. I think I missed that too.

:hi: Thanks.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. I didn't claim YOU said those things at all.

But others here have.

And if you actually looked at his voting record, you'd know that was not even close to being the case. He votes with Dems around 85% of the time. But, you know, facts are meaningless for some people.

[PunkPop]

33. Right, the same Dems that voted for

The Iraq war

The Patriot Act

The tax cuts

etc.

etc.

[tx_dem41]

38. You're always welcome to form your own party.

I have a feeling that you like about 3-4 Democratic senators.

[PunkPop]

41. Oh, c'mon. At least 5 or 6.

Hold on,

Boxer
Kennedy
Feingold

Damn, you're right.

[tx_dem41]

43. LOL...those were the 3 I was going to guess. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. And what do those three all have in common?

This is an easy one...

None of them fear re-election difficulties!

[PunkPop]

50. Why don't they fear re-election difficulties though?

I mean, if they're so liberal and vote against things that are so popular, shouldn't they have something to fear?

I think a lot of Dem senators make poor voting choices because they are just wrong - not because they're making some kind of strategic decision.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. Gee, California and Massachusetts aren't known as liberal bastions...

C'mon - you're smart enough to answer that question for yourself.

[PunkPop]

52. They both have Republican Governors.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. Oh give me a fucking break.

Both their state legislatures and their Congressional delegations are DOMINATED by Democrats and it's been DECADES since either state has come even close to voting for a Republican President. How in the goddamn world can you possibly deny those states are liberal bastions?

[PunkPop]

56. Ok, ok.

What about Wisconsin?

Or Florida? Bob Graham did pretty well there until he decided to retire. He voted against giving Chimp the authority to go to war and the tax cuts. He also repented for voting for Patriot Act I by opposing Patriot Act II.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. Two words: Incumbent advantage.

Robert Byrd wouldn't have a chance if he were running in West Virginia for the first time today. Hell, he's going to have a fight on his hands as it is (though he should win).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. What you mean to say is...

Dems that voted for bills that were going to pass anyways largely because those measures were either highly popular among the people that actually elected them or throughout the majority of the country and they had Presidential aspirations?

My question to you is why do you really care how a Senator that you did not vote for votes on bills where their vote had absolutely no impact on its passage? Do you prefer idealism over actually getting re-elected?

[Geoff R. Casavant]

5. Reasoned debate is not always feasible

in a message-post format, alas. In order to make a complete coherent argument would require far too much typing than most folks could ordinarily spare, what with the demands of work and home. Plus, reasoned argument requires a bit of give and take between the arguers that it simply not possible in a reasonable time in this format.

So in order to fit in the constraints of the format, arguments necessarily have to be altered, watered down in some instances, exaggerated in others. And that leads to misunderstandings, and thus to flaming.

I think if more folks recognized these limitations, there would be less offense taken.

[BL611]

11. I can't think of a better platform then message post format

If instead of typing I disagree with you because point A,B,C, people just type you're wrong because you're a douche bag, maybe its not worth typing...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. You may not be looking in the right places in FR

Check out the Religion forum sometime. The Protestant/Catholic and Crevo debates can get every bit as messy as DU. I agree that there's probably more homogeneity overall, though.

[tx_dem41]

9. I agree with you BL...

About what you said about fellow Democrats AND what you said about Republicans. A lot of the silliness and pure hatred that I see sometimes on here is very disconcerting, because I realize that silliness and hatred never accomplishes anything. In fact it detracts from progress. I have been happy to find a group of posters (you, Vash, DemocratSinceBirth, Bryant69, rinsd et.al.) that are always thought-provoking and rarely descend to non-reasoned debate.

Thanks for posting this.

[TayTay]

14. Wonderful post!

I applaud these sentiments. Dems are a loud, noisy bunch and we have loud noisy fights with each other. I too hope that these fights are not so out of hand that we stop listening to each other and learning from each other's arguments.

Sometimes the arguments remind me of that old joke about Methodists: (paraphrased to fit DU)

A man was standing off the edge of the Boston Harbor Bridge --about to jump. A passer-by tried to talk him down; he asked: "well, are you a Democrat?" to which the man answered "yes."
He exclaimed: "great, me too; what kind of Democrat are you? Liberal or Moderate?" The answer was: "Liberal."
"Me too; what kind of Liberal? Social issues, economic issues? War and peace? The answer was: all of them.
The man got excited: "me too; are you completely sickened by this disgusting war in Iraq?" "Gawd yes." "Me too! Do you want * to start withdrawing troops?" "Gawd, yes."
Now, the passerby got really excited: "Me too; Do you favor withdrawal in phases or immediately?"
The guy on the bridge said: "gradual, in phases" and with that the passer-by, becoming very angry, screamed: "Die, heretic!" and pushed him off the bridge.

Sort of like that.

[tnlefty]

15. Don't these types of statements kinda chill REASONED debate?

"Single issue Democrats are not really Democrats."

"I can't stand any Dem who leaves the party because it's not left enough on...(2) corporate connections, (3) war."

I believe I also read a comment about a swift kick in the pants??

Prior to now, I've never been a single issue voter, but the war (for corporate greed) and the lies that got us into it are now my most important issues. I honestly believe that this war is gonna destroy my country, so it's a REALLY big deal to me.

Oh, and as for comments about republicans - I don't understand why they should bother you so much, and if they do couldn't you make an effort to ignore them? You may think of them (repugs) as benign, harmless Americans, but I don't share your opinion of them.

[tx_dem41]

20. I'll hazard a guess...

because unlike a lot of DUers that advise disowning their parents or family because they are Republicans, or dumping lifelong friends, some of us actually communicate with Republicans on a daily basis. We experience the progress that can be made through such reasoned, informed communication.

[tnlefty]

30. If someone is having difficulty getting along with family and makes

a choice to stop being around them it is a choice that person has made, and it is none of my business so I don't quite understand your response to my post.

You're not the only person who has to deal with repugs, and some of them are capable of conversation, but I don't understand why it would bug you so much if I or anyone else might say something negative about repugs on this forum.

[tx_dem41]

32. For one thing...I agree that it is none of your business.

So why do so many DUers make it their business and tell people to dump their family and loved ones?

I don't have to "deal" with "Repugs". I have co-workers, family and friends that I like. Perhaps that is the difference between you and me.

[tnlefty]

39. Why are you expecting me to answer for other DUers?

I can express empathy from me, but I can not speak for others.

Since my original post wasn't directed to you, I don't understand why you seem to be so antagonistic with me.

[tx_dem41]

42. I'm not meaning to be antagonistic...

so I apologize if I am. And, I probably am asking you to answer for other DUers, since you are the one stepping up to the plate (which I admire btw).

Anyway, yours and my approach are quite different, but we seem to be happy with them. So let's leave it at that.

Have a nice day and thanks for responding.

[tnlefty]

47. Perhaps the difference is that you really like your (R) friends,

relatives and co-workers and that you enjoy your interactions with them and I say good for you, live and let live and enjoy it. I don't particularly like my (R) relatives, etc., and I don't always enjoy my interactions with them.

[tx_dem41]

48. "enjoy" is not always the correct word.

Most of my interactions with them have little to do with politics. I am stimulated by friends/family that are knowledgable about politics and can interact on a rational basis.

Maybe I'm lucky that most of my Republican friends/family are like that. I wish everyone was so lucky.

Thanks, again.

[meganmonkey]

17. I would recommend the following

Say you post something and you get three replies that indicate disagreement.

Ignore the 2 replies that have an underlying feeling of emotional reaction/animosity and start a conversation with the one who makes a reasonable disagreement. I think that's a fair ratio, at least in my experience.

Also, keep in mind that there are lots of people lurking on any given thread, either DUers who don't post a whole lot, or other folks who are checking us out. IMHO, those are the people we are opining to, if you will. If one poster is being irrational and nasty, but you are posting comments and backing them up with links, YOU will be the one making the more powerful statement. The other poster looks like a fool if you cite 3 varied and independent sources for something and they call it 'propaganda'.

Just my 2 cents.

[PunkPop]

18. Ok, you're right. I'm sorry.

The next time somebody gets on DU claiming that Cindy Sheehan is a publicity hound and that the Iraq war was simply an honest misunderstanding, I'm going to keep my mouth shut like a good little Democrat.

Better yet, I'm going to reach out to them. Because although there is a mountain of factual evidence to prove that the war is a sham and the reasons given were nothing more than a calculated marketing campaign based wholly on distorted and outright false information, it's better that I make them feel comfortable. They should feel good about their misconceptions. Can't we all just get along?

[BL611]

23. Again you validate my OP

The point is to not make people feel "good or "bad" about what you consider their "misconceptions", you can certainly provide evidence for their being misconceived with descending into name calling, indeed if you are truly confident in your opinions (and that is what it is AN OPINION) you will not feel the need to...

[Inland]

24. good example of pointless antagonism, there.

Since no DEMOCRAT claims Sheehan is a publicity hound from the democratic party, or that the Iraq war was an honest misunderstanding, you've added nothing to a thread to a "circular firing squad" except proof of your own willingness to be contradictory and slam democrats for imagined slights.

Why would someone go out of their way to make up stuff about democrats in order to justify their opposition? Besides being a republican, that is.

Keeping your mouth shut won't make you a good democrat, but thinking before you open it might.

[PunkPop]

31. Sorry. That was an inside deal.

The OP was in another thread defending some fool who was claiming those things. Then all of a sudden he started this thread.

I guess I'm off topic. Sorry.

I like to believe I think before I open my mouth.

[BL611]

36. Once again you took what I said in another thread

and used reductionism, to get something different then what I said. I said in another post I did not believe Cindy has a right to say only her position is valid among Goldstar moms, I'm also quite sure that despite straying from some DU dogma about Iraq that I thought the war was an honest mistake (I might have said that about certain Senators vote), but you're right, that is not what this thread is about if you respond to my posts in those appropriate threads I will be happy to respond....

[BL611]

55. Self Delete

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Gee, I seem to recall posts wherein it has been suggested that we

ignore women's rights, racial civil rights and gay rights for the sake of economic rights. The problem is, if one focuses solely on economic rights and does not include those three groups, then there is no economic justice.

If we are all Americans then none of our rights should be traded as barter in order to win.

I have to leave now, so unfortunately I won't be able to engage in debate, but I have bookmarks if you are interested in revisiting the arguments.

edited or punctuation

[BL611]

25. Thank you for keeping running documentation on my post archive

I'm sure there are things I could/should have said in a better way, that being said I do not believe I have ever called someone a name or brought up an opinion without trying to substantiate it, and if I have I apologize.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. You Sure She Meant You Specifically, BL?

The arguments that i see as most heated, aside from religion, are those in which "Winning Strategies" are based upon trading one set of rights, by ignoring the issues, in the interest of "winning".

That's sure to ignite an argument among any group of politically aware folks. That would include the light thinkers over at FR, as well. If you didn't see the balistic level arguments over Miers, or over Arnold's ideas, or the elimination of the mortgage tax credit, then you were lurking there on the wrong day.

They are just as vitriolic as anyone here, probably much more so. The difference, i would suggest, is that they are far more lock-step in their views than DU, and as a result, the vitriol is far more outward directed.

I for one am not willing to compromise on fundamental issues of fairness, justice (social and economic), and equality. So, any strategy that requires it will not meet with my agreement. I tend not to be too vitriolic, but i can get into fights here, like anybody else.

Better to be thinking and occasionally disagreeing, even to the point of anger, than to not be thinking at all.
The Professor

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Thou doth protest too much

nice day, mate ;)

[sufrommich]

27. I agree with you BL

I'm fairly new here and my pet peeves are anyone using the term DINO as cover for lack of debating skills.How self involved does one have to be to believe themselves an arbiter of what a "real" democrat is.
Another is trying to silence a poster by calling anyone who dares to question simplistic dogma a troll.

[BL611]

64. Part of the terrain I guess

I wonder if the moderators ever considered creating a hyperbole free discussion page:think:

[TreasonousBastard]

65. Now that you mention it...

it is one of our fondest dreams. If you find a way, let us know.

:hi:

[KG]

37. i totally agree. the right things should be done only when it's convenient

for the dem party. :eyes:

[Inland]

40. Setting up and knocking down straw men not reasoned debate.

Just saying. Another exhibit proving the point of the OP.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. There are no moral victories in politics.

Personally, I would think every Democrat would understand that it's better to be pragmatic so that doing the right thing will actually have some meaning behind it at some point in the future. Right now, "doing the right thing" is little more than going through the motions. It is completely and totally meaningless without any power behind it.

[BL611]

58. Well, while thats not really the point of the post, ummm

yes, thats kind of how representative democracy works, maybe I'm not getting your point...

[Zynx]

53. If we banned people like FR, we'd have more purity of thought too

[txaslftist]

59. But boy, can those Freepers spell.

[OKNancy]

60. Here is what I do, as hard as it is

I ignore them.

Those who can't or won't state their point without over-emotionalism or thoughtfulness aren't worth my time.
Those people don't help our cause in the real world. They just type away, thinking they are great political minds, but they have no power at all.


"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing."

[nashville_brook]

61. narscissism and cyberbullies

in "The Forums," people conflate their position in the language game with their personal identity. it's a form of narscissism that's understandable in children. if you KNEW you are talking to a child, you'd want to treat them gently -- but there's no such proof of age here.

so, sometimes you feel the need to draw diagrams and work thru personalities. other times, folks are just having a public caniption (engage ignore).

[yodermon]

62. The Democrats have been Punk'd

for decades but the organized thuggery of the right. Remember Newt's memo http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm from 96 about how to use words to describe Dems? Guess what, it worked.

They have the media.
They have the echo chamber.
They organize their talking points.
They convice middle America to vote against their own interests.

They are piloting the Titanic and you wish to rearrange the deck chairs instead of wresting control from them. THEY MUST BE CALLED ON THE CARPET FOR THEIR DECEPTIONS. And Democrats need to communicate to Kansas that they have been massively PUNK'd by the right wing for years.

We DON'T need moderate, mealy-mouthed intra-party debate on the finer points of the platform. We need to expose the rethuglican party machine for what it is. Dr. Dean is doing a fine job so far; here's hoping the rest of our congressional Dems follow suit.

[BL611]

63. I'm not sure how this post is relevant

But if your implying that the only way the Democrats can advance their agenda is by being mean and divisive, I think you're misreading the American political landscape.