Should bashing of "the left" and "liberals" be allowed at DU?

[CTLawGuy]

This is a Democratic site, but it is also a progressive site. The rules say members should hold progressive ideals.

Are people who constantly bash "liberals", "the left", and "progressives", keeping with the spirit of this site?

I think people who are more centrist should be allowed of course. I myself am not the most liberal person here. But, I don't constantly attack "the left", and neither do many good centrist members of DU.

I think that being a centrist does not mean you are not a "progressive" or "liberal" or part of "the left". It means you are not as ideological.

That means when one bashes "the left", they are bashing the entire DU community. And that concerns me.

[Solon]

1. I'm still trying to figure out exactly WHO they are talking about...

If it people like the Greens in national politics, then I can sort of understand, but when they talk about the liberals WITHIN the Democratic party, then they just need to STFU about that shit. I'm losing tolerance of it myself.

[CTLawGuy]

4. think about it

it's easy for a freeper to come on here and bash the hell out of liberals, as long as he claims to be a centrist and he says that liberals are bad becuase the stop the dem party from winning.

I say that we are all liberals, and thus anyone who bashes liberals is a conservative.

[Solon]

8. You know, one or two names seem to pop up for me...

now that you mention it. ;)

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Agreed! There is nothing Centrist or Moderate about many of the issues

the dlcentrists seem to support.

[Boojatta]

24. That almost makes sense to me.

I say that we are all liberals, and thus anyone who bashes liberals is a conservative.

I would change "is a conservative" to "is not a liberal." For example, a non-conservative Libertarian might bash liberals.

However, the OP was about people bashing "liberals." If Warren Buffett and George Soros are liberals, then is anybody who bashes them bashing liberals? Can you conclude that a person who bashes them is not a liberal? Maybe, but shouldn't we look at the grounds on which Buffett and Soros are being bashed?

[CTLawGuy]

28. liberal is used in the abstract

"liberals" do this, "the left" is bad, etc.

[gully]

32. It's just as easy to pose as a "green" and do the same thing.

In fact, I'd say it's easier. To be "DLC" around here isn't very popular.

[CTLawGuy]

34. yes

saying Dems are no different than republicans and telling people to vote green is also not cool here.

[Kutjara]

2. I think that such people are not fully aware of their own...

...political alignment. Public discourse has shifted so far to the right in recent years that what would, in former times, be called 'centrist' is widely regarded as 'left' today. One of the great victories of the right wing has been in reframing the political spectrum so that even the most appalling rightwingers can clothe themselves in the 'legitimacy' of being 'centrist.'

Anyone who posts on this site seriously would be regarded as a 'leftist' by the majority of Americans. So there's a bit of 'pot calling the kettle black' about anyone on here getting sniffy about where other DUers are on the political spectrum.

[sandyd921]

106. Yes and as a result of that

re-alignment and reframing of the political spectrum by the right there are lots of people who self-identify as centrist, moderate, or even conservative who, if they examined their beliefs about issues and policies and had a clear understanding of the right to left continuum, would call themselves liberals, progressives, or leftists. I think there are many who have been scared away from claiming and being proud of their political leanings. One of the things I have noticed are DU posters who call themseleves centrists or moderates, go on to say that even though they agree with many or most liberal positions, but that us big, bad lefties are scaring away the moderates from the "big tent". Their self-identification is centrist/moderate, but in reality, based on their positions, they are left of center but scared of showing any solidarity with us lefties and instead bash us! :shrug:

[Warpy]

3. Like it or not, there are conservatives in the party

especially in the south and midwest. They have always been in the party. We inherited them at the end of the Civil War when their families would rather die than vote for the party of Lincoln, a veiwpoint I now understand when I look at the religious nuts, crooks, and insane ideologues controlling it now.

I would greatly prefer they bash liberal and/or progressive ideas rather than lashing out at "the left" or "progressives," but it seems the conservative mindset is generally one that ignores policy and turns against people.

The truth is that thoughtful party conservatives occasionally tell us things we might not have thought of on our own when we're off posting and deigning the perfect party and the perfect world. We need to come to terms with them, and they need to come to terms with US.

It's obvious by the loss of all 3 branches of government that having conservatives in power has been bad for the party and bad for the country. However, I don't expect them to go away. I would greatly prefer they stay and give input on issues.

[CTLawGuy]

7. true, there are conservatives

but in the rules, one of the elements of membership on DU is holding "progressive" (non-conservative) ideals.

Now if the mods want to eliminate that element, that's their perogative.

[MrBenchley]

5. It's a Democratic site....

and there's a goodly sized chunk of the far left that HATES Democrats and isn't shy about proving it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. No!

<gasp>

I nevah, nevah noticed! Really! No, really! ;-)

[CTLawGuy]

13. wanting different people in office is not "hating democrats"

if you are talking about Greens, they violate the rule against promoting non-dems.

But people who are unhappy with Dem incumbents don't "hate democrats", they want different people in office (different democrats), which is what our democracy allows and encourages.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. Are you referring to the far left gun grabbers like yourself.

Or are we back to your rants against the Democrats from last quarter?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. Give him a few months, he'll flip flop.

lol :hi:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

91. do you always announce your arrival like that?

[EST]

6. Of course not!

We come here to get away from that shit.

[Maven]

9. No, but I can't say that I've seen any, myself...

Did i miss something? :shrug:

[MissWaverly]

10. conservatives are welcome for honest ideas, trolls no

Like I saw a post at Daily Kos yesterday stating George Bush and Cheney are right about just
everything, they already have enough propagandists w/o us turning our board over to trolls
to shout Bush's virtues when only 36% of the country supports his policies. I can listen
to someone who disagrees with me, but those who start attacking me personally, yes, I do have
a big problem with that.

[The Straight Story]

12. It's fine with me

The left is a huge tent, and the people in it are as diverse as the popultation.

Sometimes the left is off kilter on issues in the opinions of myself and others - and sometimes progressives don't seem all that progressive really.

Start a thread about guns, smoking, etc and so on and see how diverse the response is. That ain't bashing, that is holding the line on your interpretation of what progressive means (ie - does it mean the government controls more and more of your life for the common good or do we get less goverment for the freedoms individuals deserve?).

I don't agree with some things - but that does not mean I am not a progressive, I just see progress as being a different road than other progressives. Defending my position ain't bashing, it's defending.

When bashing comes in is when some people see progressive ideals as losing votes, hence holding back the progress. Banning guns, smoking, calling religious people all idiots who believe in fairy tales, and so on and so forth some progressives see as regressive.

It is a 'discussion' board afterall :)

[CTLawGuy]

19. what I am talking about are people who say

"the left" lost the party

"the left" is unelectable

"liberals" are all insane

"prooooooogressssiiives" hate democrats. (I especially hate this one).

"liberals" who want to challenge dem incumbents in the primary are "junior McCarthyists" and "purists"

people who have policy differences but who are respectful are fine.

Again, I am not the most liberal person here by any means.

[The Straight Story]

26. Well we have to look at 'the left' and see what is true and not

in those regards.

"Liberals and the left" can be darn dirty words to people in my neck of the woods.

And what does that mean?? Well - my thoughts on it:

If you are 'left/liberal' you are voting dem. That vote is sewed up in a two party system.

What some dems want is to get the votes of people who are middle of the road and could swing one way or the other. Without them it is hard to get a majority and have the power to make change.

Let's take an example from the 90's that I remember quite a bit of:

Sex ed teaching kids about fisting. While some may see this as progressive, middle America sees it as something that does not belong in sex ed. If you speak out about it and say you think 'the left' is losing votes by saying it is a good idea are you bashing people or being realistic about things?

When those on the left want to ban gun sales and sue gun manufacturers middle america sees it as crazy talk - and they won't for someone who holds such views.

Abortion and gay marriage only resonate with the fundies - but there are a lot more in middle america who don't hold those issues as key. Hell, I know fundies who don't see those as wedge issues at all - they just want the freedom to practice their faith and such: but then see progressives as wanting the government to get bigger and give people less freedoms overall.

Bottom line is, we ain't winning votes on some issues, some issues people really don't care about enough to change their vote, and some people won't change their vote no matter what (fundies on the right will vote repug, and liberals will always vote dem no matter what).

[CTLawGuy]

33. that's a policy difference

"If you speak out about it and say you think 'the left' is losing votes by saying it is a good idea are you bashing people or being realistic about things?"

that's different than a fairly recent posting that said "the left" wrecked the party and the country in the 60s. Not sure if anyone remembers that. that's bashing.

saying 'the left' should not support say slavery reparations because they are unrealistic, that's a policy difference.

[Ken Burch]

37. Sex education does NOT teach about "Fisting"

stop repeating dishonest Christian Coalition talking point.

[The Straight Story]

45. Maybe you weren't around in the 90's

I had kids in school and this was brought up, we opted out of the sex ed class for them.

I am not saying all schools teach such things - but see below-

And I don't know a lot about this site, but it turned up some gems:

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Schools/fistrep.htm

And on this whole thing - do you think it should be taught in sex ed? And if it was, do you think it would help or hurt our cause?

The idea in the OP is reflected in my comments I think - sometimes, some progressives get a little 'wacky' imho. Have you seen instances of this?

[Solon]

46. You have to look at a Gay Bashing site for this shit?

What the FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT!

[The Straight Story]

48. Sorry

I just typed into google and it came up.

But then - is it false? Did any of it take place?

But then I guess the real question really is: IF it is not false, do you think it helps or hurts the party? THAT is the question I think that goes to the heart of the OP.

[Solon]

49. I would side with it being an exaggeration at best...

Having a Sex Ed class that says, "Hey, being Homosexual ISN'T deviant" is conflated in these Homophobes minds as actually teaching the sexual positions. Hell, look at how they exaggerate all that stuff about condoms and safe sex. I don't believe it, not in a million years.

[The Straight Story]

51. I agree

And sorry if my post was offensive in anyway, was not meant to be.

I DO remember this from the 90's, and in my kids' school. To me it had nothing to do with sex ed.

I don't have a problem with teaching kids that some people are gay. My best friend is gay, my wife's best friend is gay and is staying with us right now (in fact, she and he are heading out tomorrow to see some underground railroad places in Cincinnati and are staying in a hotel room together while I will be here at home working).

But this to me all goes back to the OP and my own thoughts on it all - if we call out someone on the left (or some group) because we think they crossed a line does that equate to bashing or just common sense?

I don't care that people do 'fisting'. Hell I did so with my X girlfriend :) But if someone on the 'left' promoted it and I argued against it - would I be wrong to do so??

[Solon]

54. Problem is, I have NEVER heard of anyone on the "left" promoting it...

Hell, we should bash all those "whitey needs to be killed" lefties too, don't you think?

See how that sounds, its a fucking conservative, gay bashing, strawman, nothing more, nothing less. Why strengthen THEIR arguments by actually believing in their bullshit.

Conservatives spew out lies all the time, especially about others, a classic example is by equating Homosexuality with NAMBLA type pedophiles, yet NAMBLA isn't even a "left" organization, just a thinly veiled criminal organization and not associate with Homosexuality in any way, scientific fact there.

Why accept Repuke, hateful, framing in any way. Other examples include supporting let's say criminal background checks and registration on gun purchases makes you a "gun grabber" regardless of the fact that you don't advocate for anything more than that. This is all bullshit, don't fall for it.

[The Straight Story]

57. Hell, I agree with you on that

And that goes back to the whole christian thing to me. I am a christian, was not always, and yet I see people here bashing people like me. No qualifiers, etc, just that people like me believe in fairy tales, we are dumb, etc and so on.

And that, to me, hurts our cause.

And I don't fall for the repuke bullshit on many things - but so many I know do - and who on the left is speaking against the left extreme (as it can be called)?

SOME on the left do hold idelogies that cost us votes - and I for one don't think it is wrong to argue with that and call it out.

I think most americans are good people, not dumb, etc - and calling people names (christians, nascar folks, etc) is to me counter productive.

Again - this goes back to the OP - is bashing people on the left wrong? I don't think it is. I bash people on both sides :)

[Solon]

61. As a Non-Christian person, I usually use qualifiers like...

"Christian Supremicist" to describe those that I oppose. Usually this refers to those Christians who believe they are entitled to "preferred religion" status in Public Schools, Courtrooms, stuff like that, this includes coercive prayer in school, ten commandment monuments all over the place, etc.

As far as who are the "extreme" left, the only ones I can think of are the Communist Party of the United States, but then again, they don't vote, so I don't think they count. The Greens are REALLY mild, more like moderate enviromentalists, but they are a third party that some claim cost votes in national elections, so bash away at them for that stupidity. The Democratic Left, on the other hand, are also rather mild, but I always wonder what issues they would lose on in national politics outside of Gay Marriage. I mean, Universal Health Care seems to be rather popular with most people, so is Abortion actually, the majority of the American People actually support both.

Same for protection of the Enviroment, regulation of Business, opposing Free Trade etc. All these are things most on the Left support, yet we seem to not be able to, especially with the Fairness Doctrine gone, to get those messages out.

[Ken Burch]

52. I don't think it should be taught as such.

I do think that condoms should be taught about, and taught about non-judgmentally. If we've learned anything, it's that sanctimony and silence don't stop young people from having premarital sex.

Hillary was once quoted as saying(obviously for the benefit of Red State voters)that her attitude about premarital sex was "don't do it until you're 18 and if you do don't talk to me about it". I can agree with the first part, but "don't talk to me about it"? What the hell good has it ever done to discourage parent-child communication on anything?

(BTW, on your other points, there was no way for us to dodge the gay marriage bullet in 2004 unless we were to say "we hate faggots" as much as Republicans say it. We were never going to get the Fred Phelps vote, and we should have concentrated on trying to get out the vote of those who favored justice on the issue. There simply WAS no center ground on that issue.
And when it came to abortion, we were never going to get hard-core pro-lifer votes, so we should have concentrated on rallying the base there.)

[Solon]

42. And your post is to be held up as an example of BS and strawmen...

Congrats, you win the BS award, the "left" is for teaching "fisting" in Sex Ed classes, since when? Show an example or stop bashing.

As far as Abortion, the majority support it, so its a good electoral practice to be pro-choice, in fact, its the moral choice as well. Same for Gay Marriage, the thing that you need to hammer home is that no one's church would be FORCED to perform said marriages, churches don't HAVE to do anything in this regard, they already have a huge amount of restrictions for you to get married in them that the state cannot restrict itself from, like interracial or interreligious marriages. etc.

Stop posting these fucking strawmen!

[The Straight Story]

47. Strawman eh?

Go tell that to people in small towns I have lived in that believe such a thing - without a word from the left otherwise.

Your perception of the left and it's ideals is not being well communicated - why is that? Is it because SOME on the left ARE pushing such things that those in the swing pool don't like?

I often hear folks say 'why don't the religious people speak out about the crap from the far religious right' and then go off bashing all christians as dumb asses who want to destroy america and usher in a theocracy. Well, maybe more should speak out against the religious wack jobs. The same is true for the left - there are some who speak out and get heard (ala, we deserved 9/11, etc and so on) and it would behoove the left to speak out on such things.

Fisting was ONE example. It may be all BS to you. But If you can't see there are more then look around and talk to people. Those I know who don't like the left see us as hating america, hating the troops, blaming americans for all the world's ills, and so on. And we expect them to vote for us why?

The perception people have of the left IS important. And if some on the left are hurting us why shouldn't we discuss it and debate it?

[Solon]

50. Who owns the media again, oh yeah, CONSERVATIVES...

Look, we could argue this all day long, but if you actually believe they taught FISTING in High School, then you are truly lost.

[The Straight Story]

53. Again - THAT is NOT the issue here

Pick another one if you want.

The ISSUE, to me, is - IF someone did, and middle america bitched about it and such - would it be bashing to disagree with the left on it??

I don't always agree with the left/liberals on things they do. Does that make me a basher?

I see a lot of things costing us votes - little things like manger scenes and christmas displays. When I was in school we had fun with christmas, halloween, hannukah, et al - and people loved it. Now people in Middle america are told it is bad and wrong. I don't see it winning us votes - which hurts us on the bigger issues.

Compromise is the keyword - and I don't see that as bad in a big tent.

[Solon]

56. Compromise on the First Amendment? Screw that...

Being a member of a religious minority, I actually relish in the fact that Christmas Trees(Pagan practice) are allowed, but Crosses aren't. Then again, I never heard of any elected Democrat that comes out for any of that stuff anyways, so why the fuck should it matter? Religious freedom means religious freedom for ALL or for NONE, deal with it.

[Bjorn Against]

55. So we are supposed to go around pumping our fists in the air and yelling..

"Fisting should not be taught in schools!!!"

Gee, that's is exactly the issue I want to focus on in the next election.

:sarcasm:

Look the reason the people in those small towns who believe that kind of crap have never heard us say otherwise is because that is not the first issue on our minds. You better believe however that most of us would laugh at any such suggestion that we should teach kids fisting techniques.

[robinlynne]

59. never seen any of those things said here.

maybe over at that other forum free republic?

if anyone says that here they get chased away and laughed at pretty quickly.

[wyldwolf]

75. but darboy...

"your" side says...

"the DLC/moderates/centrists" lost the party

"the DLC/moderates/centrists" are unelectable, etc., etc.

And your "side" said it first. Starting in 2002, my stripe of Democrat was used as target practice here. But now that there are actually responses, you're going to whine about it?

Now, you can go off and start your own message board like some did after the 2004 primaries so they could "bash" other Democrats, moderates, centrists,DLC with impunity if you want to.

But if you stick around here. be prepared for as much "left" bashing as there is "any other type" of bashing.

[CTLawGuy]

100. people who say those things are less likely to be closet

freeper disruptors. They are, however, somewhat likely to be Green disruptors, and I think that Green disruptors are just as annoying.

But it's more plausible that posters who dislike candidates and politicians who are conservative are legitimate democrats, rather than posters who criticize people for being too "liberal." Democrats are on the liberal side, and on this site, we are supposed to be holders of "generally progressive views" (or as you would say "proooogreeessssiiive") So we should be more concerned with liberal-bashing, than conservative bashing.

and I remember you were the one who posted the article that said the "left lost the country in the 60's" or some shit. That was one of the posts that inspired this thread. So thank you.

[wyldwolf]

109. but the biggest supposed lefty here turned out to be a freeper disruptors

But it's more plausible that posters who dislike candidates and politicians who are conservative are legitimate democrats, rather than posters who criticize people for being too "liberal."

No it isn't. Your experience might tell you that, but my experience says the opposite,

Democrats are on the liberal side, and on this site, we are supposed to be holders of "generally progressive views" (or as you would say "proooogreeessssiiive") So we should be more concerned with liberal-bashing, than conservative bashing.

ALL Democrats are holders of "general progresssive" ideas.

and I remember you were the one who posted the article that said the "left lost the country in the 60's" or some shit. That was one of the posts that inspired this thread. So thank you.

Well, who started THESE threads?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2313108
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2308512
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2311497
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2251474
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1469307
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1452850
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1430615
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1418423
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1607948
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1575183

[CTLawGuy]

111. I know you don't like bashing of the DLC

but this isn't DLC underground. There is no requirement in the rules that anyone not criticize the DLC.

"ALL Democrats are holders of "general progresssive" ideas."

If that is true, then why are there two elements to DU membership, "supporting Democrats" and "holding generally progressive views" if one necessarily implies the other? Wouldn't that be redundant?

The rules of construction say that rule or law should not be read to make any language redundant. Basically, we should assume that "holding progressive views" is not necessarily true of anyone who "supports democrats". The mods intended the people here to be liberals and not just anyone who backed Democrats in some way.

It's true that all dems are part of "the left", but some people can come here, claim to support dems but spend all their time bashing liberals and anything liberal. That is what I don't approve of. There's a lot of cover (especially using the "electability" excuse) for that.

[wyldwolf]

113. I know you don't like bashing of the left

but this isn't DLC underground. There is no requirement in the rules that anyone not criticize the DLC.

this isn't LEFT underground. There is no requirement in the rules that anyone not criticize the left.

"ALL Democrats are holders of "general progresssive" ideas."

If that is true, then why are there two elements to DU membership, "supporting Democrats" and "holding generally progressive views" if one necessarily implies the other? Wouldn't that be redundant?

No, it wouldn't be redundant because the passage you quote is prefaced with Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives, indicarting that Democrats are progressive, but the community is open for progressives who are not Democrats as well. DU was founded in protest of the outcome of the 2000 election. Al Gore, a founder of the DLC, was the candidate.

it's true that all dems are part of "the left", but some people can come here, claim to support dems but spend all their time bashing liberals and anything liberal.

No they don't. Show me examples of threads where anyone has bashed all things liberal.

I'll bet you can't. Because the left is such a big tent, you can be a Democrat an not have to adhere to litmus tests.

[CTLawGuy]

114. No requirement that people not criticize the left

Agreed. If it is criticized by a legitimate Democrat who is legitimately left of center, then fine for this site.

-------------
If that is true, then why are there two elements to DU membership, "supporting Democrats" and "holding generally progressive views" if one necessarily implies the other? Wouldn't that be redundant?

No, it wouldn't be redundant because the passage you quote is prefaced with Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives, indicarting that Democrats are progressive, but the community is open for progressives who are not Democrats as well. DU was founded in protest of the outcome of the 2000 election. Al Gore, a founder of the DLC, was the candidate.
--------------

This doesn't disprove what I am saying. You cannot oppose Democrats on this website, so you can either say nothing or support democrats. I assume people don't come here NOT to express an opinion. What does it matter if "other progressives" who aren't Democrats are allowed? As long as they support democrats, that's fine. IOW, there is no requirement to be registered as a dem to be here.

From the rules:"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

Again, there are two clear elements for membership. A conservative who spends all his time bashing liberals, especially for opposing more conservative dems, is not, under the rules, welcome here.

I'm less concerned about certain threads and more concerned about certain posters.
If someone is going to criticize liberals a lot, they should at least demonstrate in good faith, that their views are somewhat left, or they should not be allowed to troll on here.

[wyldwolf]

118. It most definitely disproves what your are saying

The sites own rules state that Democrats are progressives.

From the rules:"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

Right. Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. The rules state that Democrats are progressives. Thus, if the left can't be bashed, then moderates/centrists/and adherents of the new Democrat philosophy cannot be bashed.

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals

Right. And we are. I am.

and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

Right. You must meet two qualifications - support progressive ideals and support Democrats for office. What's your point?

I'm less concerned about certain threads and more concerned about certain posters.

Would you like a list of anti-moderate/centrist/DLC posters to be concerned about as well? I can provide it.

If someone is going to criticize liberals a lot, they should at least demonstrate in good faith, that their views are somewhat left, or they should not be allowed to troll on here.

What, should they preface each post with "I have passed the Darboy litmus test for progressives?"

[CTLawGuy]

121. I agree that Democrats are progressive

but not everyone who supports democrats is a progressive. You can be a non-democrat who supports Democrats, or certain democrats, and not be progressive. That's why there is a second element of "supporting progressive ideals."

I have no evidence that you fail any of those two elements, Wyldwolf, even if I didn't appreciate the "left lost america" post. Many centrists, for example, including you I believe, expressed diappointment at Lieberman running as an Indy. Those people are real Democrats, they legitimately believe that the party process is valuable and worth supporting, and that conservative candidates don't have special privileges.

but certain people will complain when liberals do it, but be silent when conservatives do it. These people I am suspicious of.

And if you believe that certain people are Green or Left-independent disruptors, then they are a concern too, I agree. There are people who do nothing but bash democrats, but don't seem to support other democrats, but only like 3rd parties.

However, most people who are opposed to Lieberman, for example, support another Democrat, and will support lieberman as the nominee if he wins the primary. These people are not disruptors, even if critical of more conservative dems.

[wyldwolf]

127. everybody HERE who supports Democrats are progressives

but certain people will complain when liberals do it, but be silent when conservatives do it. These people I am suspicious of.

Like who? I know you can't call out other DUers, so PM me with names and examples. I don't think you have any.

[EFerrari]

20. A big tent? These days the left is everyone to the left of

George Wallace.

:)

[leanin_green]

133. And that, only in whispers. n/t

[GreenEyedLefty]

15. Sure, why not?

This is a crucial time in American politics and frankly, it's time both parties did a little introspection. Democrats, progressives, and others who are left of center should listen to thoughtful opposing viewpoints, even from fellow lefties.

(I haven't seen any of the bashing noted in the OP, so please take this post with a grain of salt.)

Peace.

[Boojatta]

17. Can you link to examples of the kind of bashing you have in mind?

As it is, you are talking about words: "liberals", "the left", and "progressives." Bashing those words reminds me of flag burning. This thread reminds me of proposals to ban flag burning. Both sides of that debate seem silly to me.

However, if you give some specific examples then we might find some serious issues lurking in the underbrush.

[Solon]

21. Look at this tread, its rife with this type of BS that the OP is...

talking about!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2721957&mesg_id=2721957

[CTLawGuy]

43. exactly

It bothers me when people exercising their right to a nominee of their choosing is bashed.

The more liberal element of the party didn't bash the DLC for running Ed Case against Daniel Akaka.

We didn't bash Lieberman as "hurting the party" by running in the presidential primary. That's his right.

yet, we are subjected to being slammed because we dare desire to have a primary against a DLCer to decide who we nominate.

We have to make sure criticism is constructive and not promotion of conservatives in disguise.

[CTLawGuy]

23. sure

what I am talking about are people who say
"the left" lost the party

"the left" is unelectable

"liberals" are all insane

"prooooooogressssiiives" hate democrats. (I especially hate this one).

"liberals" who want to challenge dem incumbents (always center-right or outright conservative ones) in the primary are "junior McCarthyists" and "purists"

[gully]

22. Should bashing of Democrats be allowed?

I think we should "bash" anyone who bashes "us/Dems" left, right, upside down - it matters not.

[CTLawGuy]

27. of elected officials, yes

if someone is on here saying the dems are no different than repugs and we should all vote green, they are NOT keeping with the spirit of this site.

If someone is a dem and is criticizing some aspect of the Dem party, but yet still remains a proud member of the dem party, then fine.

The type of bashing Im talking about is from people who place themselves outside of the group they are bashing. They will never admit they are "left", "liberal" or "progressive".

If I criticize the dem party, I still say Im a dem.

[gully]

30. I guess I've not seen much of what you're talking about?

I've seen alot of "Dem bashing" here, but not "left bashing?"

I am LEFT, LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE. Label me as you wish. But, I'm also a Democrat through and through.

[CTLawGuy]

39. there are only a very few people who actually engage in what I am

talking about. but they are quite loud.

[gully]

40. Ahh.

Thanks. I'm glad that I haven't crossed their paths very often.

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. You've never seen left bashing here?

Say What? :hi:

Would you like me to link them in blocks of 25, or blocks of 100?

[gully]

78. Depends on what you consider "left."

If it's Nader I don't have an issue. I've not seen Wellstone bashing for example. He was about as "left" as it gets, but he was a Democrat.

[bloom]

97. If they are opposed to progressive, liberal ideas - yes. nt

[YOY]

25. I can take a little criticism when it's not Rushbot rhetoric babble

Especially from other libs or even moderate. There times when I go too far left and times when I'm not left enough.

Definitely room for criticism, just not insults.

[zalinda]

29. There is a lot of "bashing" going on at DU

on both sides. I think what's happening is that some (not all) of the leftys, berate those who don't think that the DLC is evil. Some think that Nader is pretty much the only sane voice in politics, and remind us of that frequently. You have those that are pretty much one issue voters and tell us over and over how they couldn't vote for someone who doesn't support that one issue. They opine about candidates who have just as much change as Nader had to get elected.

Here are the simple facts. Most Americans are a little left of center, but not much. They want health care, but are afraid of higher taxes if the government does it. The majority want choice, but are afraid to support it because their church might object. The could care less if gays want to marry, but again, what would their church say. They don't want their guns taken away, even if they don't own guns, because that would be a loss of a freedom. You have to remember that the RW media has been brainwashing these people for decades. They will not vote for someone they think is too far to the left. We have to patiently bring them more to the left.

Now, in a sane world, we would all have free health care, with a top tier of luxury paid by the rich so they wouldn't have to mingle with us poor. We would be paying our teacher, police, firemen and emergency personal much more and our sports figures and entertainment stars much less. No one should be homeless and there should be no need for war, unless to defend yourself. We should be making this planet into a paradise, with renewable energy, food sources and clean water. We should all be working for the betterment of man, not catering to his basest instincts. But this world will probably not be achieved in my life time, so I am grooming my son to carry on the work.

I don't dislike leftys, but they do bring a childish "I want it now!" to the table, and it gets old. Us old timers who have lived through Vietnam, know that it doesn't work that way. The neocons had it right, you invade a party and grow and train it to your standards, even if it takes 30 years.

zalinda

[Ken Burch]

31. Unfortunately, on free speech grounds, yes.

If we don't allow any, then the enemy(the GOP-DLC) will be calling us "Stalinists" or some shit like that.
So yes, allow it, and fight the posters who do it with fire and eloquence.

[CTLawGuy]

36. a very reasonable position

:)

[robinlynne]

60. I second that motion.. fire and eloquence!

[The Magistrate]

62. The Problem With That Line, Mr. Burch

Is that members of the D.L.C. are Democrats. Calling them Republicans is smearing Democrats, and defending Democrats under such attack is not evidence of rightist allegiance.

[Ken Burch]

63. Given that virtually ALL DLC'ers are defending Joe Lieberman

and his decision to lead a conservative, pro-war, anti-Democrat independent campaign in the fall if Connecticut Democratic voters have the temerity to deny him the renomination that is his by divine right, I'm not sure you can really call them Democrats anymore.

Which concludes the cycle begun when the DLC's intellectual forbears formed Democrats For Nixon.

[The Magistrate]

66. So Far, Mr. Burch

That fellow is a sitting Democratic Senator contesting a Party primary. Expressions of support for a sitting Democratic office-holder can hardly be counted here as trolling or disruption....

[Ken Burch]

69. But they are also defending his announcement that,

if beaten in the Democratic primary, he will deliberately work to throw Connecticut's Senate seat to the GOP by launching a hopeless and vindictive right wing independent candidacy.

No pro-DLC poster in all of DU has yet called for Lieberman to accept the results of the primary should they go against him.

[The Magistrate]

71. Some Would Count Me A Defender Of That Group, Sir

And I have done precisely that, and at some length in various threads.

[Ken Burch]

72. I'd consider you a defender of the rights ot the DLC to participate

in DU, and you have every right to do that, but I'd NEVER insult you by considering you DLC.

[wyldwolf]

76. I have

[Ken Burch]

96. I wasn't aware you had denounced Lieberman for his threat

And I want you to know I sincerely appreciate you for doing that.

Thanks.

[rman]

88. What's a democrat?

Anyone who calls him/herself a democrat? Anyone who is registered as a democrat?

[rman]

73. Like we should care about what the Right calls us...

They will call the Left anything that makes it look bad in the public eye, as to increase the chances of RW domination.

[Ken Burch]

132. Point is, we shouldn't give them any ammo they don't currently have.

It's in our interest not to censor.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Sure, we need idiots to mock. Saves us from in fighting if we bash RWers

instead.

If they want to wander in here and start spouting stuff they learned from Ann Coulter, they know what they can expect. It is all good clean fun. Much more productive way to let off steam than for Dems to battle Dems about whether Clinton is more of a true Democrat than Clarke or vice versa.

PS Probably most people who spout off like Archie Bunker are lefties like Carol O'Connor pretending to hold RW positions in order to get the left wing base fired up. The Freeper moles will usually come in taking one side of an issue that divides democrats ( like which is a better Dem, Clinton or Clarke) and then start trying to get people at DU to bicker among themselves.

[nealmhughes]

58. I took that political compass survey a day or two ago and I was in an

odd quadrant: the lower lefthanded one: socialistic and high rating for supporting personal liberty, I was right around the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela, as a matter of fact...
I have never made a secret around here that I do not like the DLC agenda, however, I will and would support the Democratic candidate over the Republicans unless that party has a sudden history lesson and Nelson Rockefeller is reincarnated and there is a further right Democratic candidate.
I have never once posted a word about abortion or issues of slavery repartations, nor will I. My sister said it best: "It has to be legal to keep women from using the coat hanger like they did before the 70s. It never stopped one abortion." My sister is very, very, conservative in her religion and yet she is prochoice. She asked me to chime in and I said simply, "The church teaches that abortion is unacceptable as a form of birth control and that viable fetuses should not be aborted unless the life of the mother is in danger." I am an Episcopalian. I do not always follow my church hook line and sinker, but in this case I do.
We all should realize that this is a Democratic site for progressive/liberal Democrats. The DLC has its own blogs and sites. I don't read them. They do not interest me.
But when the push comes to shove, whether one is "really" for Dennis, as I am, but realize that Gore and Clark are more realistic electable candidates in these times, I will support whomever the party raises, as there is no other alternative. We saw what Nader did to 2000, and while I admire almost all of the Green platform, I still thought it was a shame that the vote was split and the Supremes came to Georgie's rescue.
I am pragmatic. I am not doctrainaire. But, Lord help me, Please don't let Hillary get the nomination! I have never forgiven her for dumping universal health care when the potato got warm.

[Elidor]

64. As someone on the left, I'll tell you

We can take all the bashing anyone can dish out. Woe unto anyone who can't take being slammed.

[Tarc]

80. I agree

I am quite a proud lefty, and will dish back criticism tenfold when it is warranted.

Lacking the ability to handle dissent/criticism is decidedly righty trait...I have encountered many that go into such apoplectic rage if you speak out against their opinions. I think it is a symptom of Rush-itis; they have been reared on listening to a singular fat bigot whose show consists of him pontificating, and the listeners listening to one side, all day. No interaction with opposing ideas, no questioning, no nothing. When the dittoheads go out into the real world, they just lack the ability to interact.

[SlipperySlope]

65. The fundamental tension

This board is for Democrats, and this board is for Progressives.

Unfortunately, this creates a fundamental tension, because "Democrat" does not equal "Progressive".

I've seen progressives here who would walk away from the Democratic party because it wasn't "Progressive enough".
I've seen Democrats here who reject Progressives because their positions are "unelectable".

As long as this board caters to Democrats and to Progressives, there will continue to be this tension, because these two things will never be exactly one and the same.

[MGD]

81. The party is a coalition. Occasional disagreement is unavoidable.

and not entirely unhealthy in terms of establishing priorities and agendas that will work for us in the primary elections. What's more, there is much that we can all agree upon around here I think in terms of fundamental core beliefs.

[SlipperySlope]

83. Some disagreement is helathy

I agree some disagreement is healthy, but we do have our share of people here who are uncompromising in their beliefs.

But without internal compromise, we aren't a party, we are a collection of fractured platforms.

[MGD]

84. Which beliefs do you speak of?

Politics is the art of compromising IMO. Nothing is freely given or taken. We all just need to agree on what is given and what is taken and, on an internet political forum, that seems to be most readily accomplished via discourse and dialectic. Incidentaly, you and I both know that we are infiltrated by Republicans here at DU who attempt to undermine our platforms at every possible opportunity. I see them bragging about it on the Conservative web-sites.

[SlipperySlope]

90. Which beliefs?

There are a lot of points of view on DU, it is hard to generalize all of them together. That said, if I do try to generalize, this is what I perceive:

There are those who want the Democratic party to take an uncompromising progressive stance on all issues, regardless of whether such a platform would be attractive to voters. Sometimes these people go as far as to imply that they would be happy to vote for some other party if the Democratic party wasn't progressive enough.

Then there are those who want the Democratic party to do whatever it takes to win, regardless of whether that position embraces progressive ideals. Sometimes these people would almost go as far as being "Republican light" if that is what it took to win the election.

I see this tension over and over on DU; one side accuses the other of not being progressive enough, and the other side charges back that we aren't taking an electable stance.

Yes, politics is about compromise, and for our internal discussion our question should be "how can we be progressive" AND "how can we win elections"?. Instead, I think sometimes some people only look at their half of that question.

Just my two cents, but sometimes it feels like we treat ourselves as the enemy, instead of looking outwards.

[undergroundpanther]

67. If A dem

Does or supports something evil and wrong that harms people let him pay for it in shame like everyone else.If we want better Dem's who remember the ethical differences between democrats and republicans we need to keep them all on their toes and let them know when they fall short of the meaning of the word liberal.
Denial fixes nothing.

[adwon]

68. ?

Some of us don't believe in the 'no enemies to the left' theory. It's dishonest and fundamentally unsound. It ends up papering over real disputes with weak platitudes and pleas for party unity. Unity is for general elections and special events. Better to be honest and open than create a facade. It doesn't mean we're necessarily enemies (though some of us will be).

[wiley]

70. Not until one is a certified basher on at least ten RW blogs or boards.

Radio and print media count as well towards the requisite 1000 mandated post goal in Freeperville. We have to set standards.

[wyldwolf]

74. sure.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[MrBenchley]

105. This is SO cute....

Not only does the far left want to call Democrats "corporowhores," "cowards," "DINOs," "neocons" and all the rest of their pinhead jargon...they want to be immune from criticism by actual Democrats.

[MGD]

77. I think it's hard to be progressive when you only share ideas

with people who will agree with you. Discourse and dialectic is how we grow as citizens and people. Also, a previous poster recently had it very right when he asserted that, like it or not, we are more of a coalition than a party. I believe we are a colaition (as is the Republican party) and, as such, it doesn't pay to marginalize those who don't appear to be marching in lock step. They really only have one other place to go after all (the other coalition). Therefore, I think it is very important to make a distinction between disagreeing with certain beliefs/values and "bashing the left".

[union_maid]

79. Should bashing of Democrats be allowed on DU?

I'm a left/liberal. My main arguments within the Democratic party have been with the DLC agenda, not the left on the whole. In fact, in an ideal world, I prefer a social democracy to trying to resolve the contradictions of a mainly capitalist system. However, it's gotten to the point where everyone who isn't totally on board with whoever is doing the posting is not just not in agreement, but is considered in no way preferable to a Republican. That's just not true. If the last six years haven't demonstrated that, I don't know what could. So, I'd prefer a little less intra-party bashing on all sides, even as we work toward the goals we each regard as most important.

That, of course, is not to say I'm suggesting what policy should be on DU. Just saying there's plenty of bashing to go around.

[Juffo Wup]

82. Define "liberals" and "the left"

If you are liberal on social issues but a hawk in foreign ones, are you a liberal? Are you a member of the left? What if you oppose abortion? Or oppose any of the other litmus tests applied by certain groups around here? What constitutes being on "the Left"?

And for that matter, is it OK to bash moderate Democrats? It does happen around here, and frequently. If you spend all your time bashing moderate Democrats, are you not bashing the Democrats, using your reasoning?

[calico1]

86. I honestly don't care.

There are people who refer to "Liberals" just to distinguish between a liberal and a more Moderate person. And then there are those who use "Liberal" as some sort of insult when they want to make their argument stronger. Also lately is the "far-left" epitaph. Meant as an insult. I take these within the context of the post. When a person has to resort to using "liberal" or "far left" as a way to try and insult people then that tells me a lot about their own character and respect for others. In fairness some more Liberal people here also use "DLC" as an insult, and other terms. It would be nice if we all respected opinions and didn't resort to personal insults. But then we have a lot of political discussions so that is not likely.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

87. NOBODY Should Be Getting "Bashed"!

Ideally, NOBODY should be getting "bashed" here on this site. We should be bashing BUSH and the GOP not each other. We all can and do have legitimate differences of opinions, certainly, but I believe that we should try to keep a civil tone with each other. Remember: Every moment we spend fighting amongst ourselves is a moment NOT spent fighting Bush/GOP/MSM. Think about it.

[rman]

89. There seems to be some disagreement

about to what extent there is overlap between "democrat", "left", "liberal", "moderate" and "progressive".

These are just labels.

As the saying goes: "what's in a name?" - answer: not a thing.

In the end it is about the practical reality of policies.

[WildEyedLiberal]

92. Not unless you want to ban centrist/moderate/DLC bashing too

And more importantly, bashing of elected Democrats. If you truly can't make a coherent case against them with facts, then maybe you shouldn't be calling them "spineless," "weak," etc.

Since the "left" is the biggest perpetrator of Democrat bashing on DU, I can't possibly understand why they should be immune from ad hominem insults when they are so often the first to throw them out against whoever they deem to be impure.

[Placebo]

95. Bingo.

:applause:

[LincolnMcGrath]

103. You must have a whole bunch of your compadres on ignore then.

That is the only possible explanation for comments so completely divorced from reality as Since the "left" is the biggest perpetrator of Democrat bashing on DU.

[T_i_B]

93. How are we supposed to improve ourselves

if we cannot debate what is wrong with the left in the first place? Our election record alone suggests that we need to sort ourselves out as a matter of urgency and that inevitably will mean taking on the left where it is wrong. And ultimately that will inevitably be interpreted as "bashing" by whoever is on the receiving end.

The only thing we need to ensure with all this is that we keep it civil. I dread to think of the carnage that we will have on DU when the US primary season starts if the various camps are going to be as uncivil towards each other as last time on DU.

[Placebo]

94. Only if we ban the bashing of moderate Dems!

But then, we'd be no better than the other side, would we?

[CTLawGuy]

102. the point of the OP is

we are all liberal, some less or more liberal than others. I am concerned with people who seem to do nothing but bash liberals...

you know, people who'd fit right in at fox news.

[Mz Pip]

98. So if we are looking for a Big Tent

we should go to a Repug site? :sarcasm:

Who decides who or what opinions are liberal enough, progressive enough or left enough for this site?

I like reading different Democratic opinions on the issues. If I just wanted my own opinion, I'd talk to myself in the mirror.

I think the mods do a good job at keeping the trolls out, but banning Democrats because they don't march in sync to some progressive tune is a bit much.

IMHO


Mz Pip
:dem:

[Zhade]

99. Considering this is a site FOR progressives, and NOT conservatives...

...I say "of course not".

It would be nice if the mods stepped up and disallowed the bashing of the very kind of people for which this site was formed.

[CTLawGuy]

101. you're right

I'm concerned about some posters who never support a liberal idea ever, would never call themselves a "liberal," and spend the whole time bashing "the far left" or "the left".

[LincolnMcGrath]

104. Bingo! Let the dlcentrists play the victim card over at BullMoose's blog

:yourock:

[wyldwolf]

119. ..and Democrats!

Let the far left play the victim card over at the two message forums that cannot be named here anymore.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[alvarezadams]

108. YES

I'm probably as "progressive" as the most radical on this board. Yet I would never even consider the idea of non-progressives being banned.

If "progressives" have any democratic moral "superiority" to their conservative counterparts, it is the very diversity of liberal causes and the defense of divergent opinions.

[CTLawGuy]

115. would you allow freepers to openly post here and spout RW rhethoric

? If so, that's cool, but that's contrary to what the site is about.

[ChipsAhoy]

122. They are not allowed here - I don't agree, but it's a rule.

I think everyone should be allowed to speak/post. I'm sure we'd get a good laugh out of most of the Con's jargon. Free speech and all.

[goofticket]

110. Supporting the troops.. Rhetoric or in deeds

Support the troops.
We hear the phrase every day.
But we don't hear it as a request. It has become, thanks to the ranting of the conservative media divas, an insult to those who want the troops to come home. It's a cheerleading rally cry of the right. It has little to do with the actual troops in how it’s used today.
Support the troops. A great term, but highly abused. The disgusting conservative use of this phrase, is loud and clear. If you question the Bush plan, or anything to do with Iraq, terrorists or the military...you don't support the troops. Only conservatives are 'qualified' to support the troops. After all, the conservatives planned and designed the war, so they get to take credit for supporting the troops. Liberals have never supported war....well, maybe just this one in Iraq. Conservatives love war, it's profitable and thats were their support stops. Just like a four year old tank that can no longer be repaired.
No, liberals don't like war. In fact, only the fanatical far right likes war. If you'd ask Americans if they would prefer a war over peace talks, the talking part would win hands down. Americans know wars cost lives. Americans have enough experience with wars to know that supporting the troops is doing everything possible to avoid sending them into a war....any war.
If you don't support the troops....you hate America, you are a Bush hater.

If that isn't the most idiotic phrase, I don't know what is.

Supporting the troops means avoiding putting them in danger, at all costs. It means assuring they have, not adequate, but exceptional health care and family support before, during and after conflict. It means providing them with safe protective equipment. It means supporting the actual troops, and not using the troops; to promote a political agenda or discredit opposition to war.
It means making some effort, any effort, to guarantee that when a tour is done. the soldier comes home. He or she has done their part. It doesn't mean sending the soldier back into harm's way, rotation after rotation after rotation.
Supporting the troops means planning and executing a strategy that provides for the shortest tour of duty in combat.
Supporting the troops, as the pro-Bush phrase, by the insulting right wing are an affront to what all Americans know . Especially the troops themselves.
That the best war is the one avoided. Ask a vet about it.
The most noble causes for war are not based on the most questionable of evidences. Genocide, like that in WWII Europe are a noble cause for war. Attacks on our soil, like Pearl Harbor and 911 were noble causes for war.
Sending troops country hopping, willy-nilly, on ill-perceived threats is not a noble cause. Drawn out wars deplete troop efficiency and equipment, something the enemy watches very carefully. We certainly did that with Japan and Germany in WWII. When the enemy sees a force become weaker from depletion, this often results in further conflicts.
This week proved that point.
Iran, North Korea and most other perceived and known enemies of the US, are saber rattling for their own perceived 'noble' causes. They know the US cannot mount other offenses, it has it's hands full on two major fronts.
Fight the war on terror! Who is terror? Terror is a tactic, not an entity. Anything and everything can be terrifying at some point. Defining the enemy is a key in fighting any war. We fight the war on terror but really can't find the enemy.
We are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting an ideology with an army.
Ideological conflict is something no amount of bullets and bombs will change. Only dialogue, compromise and a certain level of respect for different ideologies can protect the world from ideological terrorism. It's not an all or nothing scenario, as the far right claims it to be. We haven't waged war with the Buddhists? or with the entirety of Islam itself. We are dealing with a very small, but dangerously, loud faction of a fringe religious philosophy. By at least making an attempt to understand why this faction; fractured from the main Islamic belief, and trying to see that point of view can we begin to provide a place for both ideologies to exist.
What is most dangerous is refusing to begin that understanding.
But they cut off heads!!! They don't wear uniforms!!! They torture!!!
Good grief! Humans have done that since the beginning of war and they are likely to continue to do so in the future. There is a fine line in arguing that vaporizing someone is far more humane that lopping off their head. Both people die. Both are killed in a horrific manner and someone is going to miss them after they are gone. That is why war is hell.
But to simply discount the enemy as barbaric, or somehow not capable of rational debate in coming to a peaceful conclusion to a conflict is not the sign of competent leadership, nor is it a very human mindset.
It does work well for the conservatives who somehow have come to the conclusion that it is a 100% all or nothing, right or wrong process.
And that is usually as far as they get in the debate. Once their mind is made up thats it. Any and all questions to the contrary are taken as supporting the enemy. It's called attacking the messenger. And that really supports the troops.
It doesn't make the HumVee stronger, it doesn't make the flak vest more bulletproof, it doesn't send the IED or mortar off target thats shot from an enemy bunker.
It just sounds really good.
Pro war cheerleading does not increase the performance of the American military. Troops are not 'inspired' by the likes of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, but rather, knowing that their families have enough food and their rent is paid while they serve. Lots of people, especially liberals, work in the social services and support agencies that the troops and their families rely on before, during and after conflict. Conservatives send money to their favorite PAC to make sure the 'agenda' stays the course.
The next time you hear some war-happy right winger make the accusation that someone doesn't 'support the troops'; ask them for money so you can send it to Fort Bragg for the kids of a infantry troop who is on their third tour of duty.

[TheFarseer]

112. real debate on issues and tactics should be allowed

"bashing" of the left, I would have to say no. That's counter-productive to the goals of this website.

[ruggerson]

116. I see far more bashing of center/left people here

than I do of the "lefter" left.

I don't see thread after thread after thread bashing Dennis Kucinich or Russ.

I do see thread after thread bashing Hillary, who by any rational yardstick measure, is a Democrat and a moderately progressive one.

The OP is off base, imho. The bashing here, by and large, doesn't come from the centrists on this board.

[Skittles]

117. if they deserve it, yes

we are not freepers here, we do not goose-step

[FujiZ1]

120. Nope.

nt

[DFLer4edu]

123. In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up...

In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.
-Martin Niemoller
This is a progressive website, which means no trolls, other than that, I don't really care what anyone has to say on hear as long as they're not telling anyone to shut up because they do not conform to what one person defines as "the liberal position" or "the progressive position" I'm glad you think that centrists should be allowed to stay. There are far to many people at the DU who would like to run them out of town. I'm a liberal, but I'm not an ideologue. I find myself personally criticized for not agreeing with the majority of the DU once in awhile. It's ok to disagree, but it's not ok when that turns into personal attacks and questions as to whether a person is a "real democrat" or a "true liberal" or a "true progressive". Dissent is important and it should be protected. Are there a few people on the DU who bash liberals who we could live without? Of course. Then again, there are a few people on the DU who bash moderate democrats who we could live without. If someone wants to go on a McCarthy-like witch hunt and draw up a list of people they feel aren't true liberals, but my name at the top of the list.

[CTLawGuy]

125. good post

I'm worried about people who seem to do nothing but trash liberals constantly, which is not but a few people.

[DFLer4edu]

126. What drives me nuts is it is often other liberals doing the trashing

[CTLawGuy]

129. or are they liberals? that's the thing

NT

[omega minimo]

128. That is an altered version (not the author's) of the original quote

Here is Martin Niemeyer's poem:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


It's a beautiful piece and VERY unfortunate that it has been altered and then ATTRIBUTED to the author erroneously.

This is the first I've seen of it on DU til today. Someone else mentioned that it was altered to have some additional appeal to the religious, but certainly the original version makes the point quite well. Any religious person would get the concept of "subgroups" without their particular subgroup being specified, right? (And please use the original quote or note the alteration-- wonder who changed it and passed it off as his work?)


"I don't really care what anyone has to say on hear as long as they're not telling anyone to shut up because they do not conform to what one person defines as "the liberal position" or "the progressive position" I'm glad you think that centrists should be allowed to stay."

I see a lot more posts ABOUT these skirmishes than the actual posts being referred to. We can figure out where we are as a Party if we get to listen to what each other has to say. "Bashing" tends to get in the way of that.


:hi:

[DFLer4edu]

130. thanks for the original

I googled quickly for it, I should have done some more looking to make sure it was the right one.
"We can figure out where we are as a Party if we get to listen to what each other has to say. "Bashing" tends to get in the way of that."
I agree that bashing gets in the way, but I just don't think we should start naming people who are "bashers." The DU mods once asked whether DUers would like to be able to rate their fellow DUers. The overwhelming majority said no because it would mean that people with dissenting opinions would be targeted. If people have an axe to grind, I suggest they do it some place other than the DU. However, I'm not going to advocate kicking them off.

"I see a lot more posts ABOUT these skirmishes than the actual posts being referred to."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1640880&mesg_id=1640880
Here is a link to the last thread I posted in. It isn't something I've saved from a long time ago, it's the last one I posted in. Check out the exchange starting with post #7 which turns nasty by post 15&16. By post 21 the person who said "How long did it take you to come up with that 'solution' of raising the SS to 70? Not long I suppose, because it's straight from the GOP playbook." (which really got them rolling) is claiming that he or she was just having a nice debate and can't understand why the other person took offense.

on edit: I can no longer edit the original post with the quote. Please consider this acknowledgement that what I posted was not the original and that I would change the original post if I could.

[DFLer4edu]

131. I just came across another example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1641865#1642074
There is tons of stuff like this on the DU. It isn't just being discussed, it is a problem.

[omega minimo]

124. If we want Status Quo SNAFU FUBAR & Electile Dysfunction from now on

...If we want to fight over buzzwords instead of work over ideas

...If we want to assume we know what someone is going to say before they say it

...If we want to underestimate the audience and the potential for discussion

...If we want to use DU for personal vendettas rather than our interpersonal purpose as Democrats who want to survive the Bushco. regime

...If we want to remain rigid in our belief system and protected from any new ways of looking at it

...If we want to ignore the fact that the whole range of ideas of what a Democrat or a (pick-a-label) represents could use a thorough reexamination and DU might be a good place to do it

...If we want to deny that many of the ideas considered "left" or "progressive" or "whateveryouwanttocallit" are not only important for Democrats to AT LEAST DISCUSS but that it is imperative we do so or Democrats will not succeed

...If we want to disbelieve how much the American people really understand and how they are waiting for plain-speaking and plain truth

...If we want visitors to GD:P with fresh ideas chased out by self-appointed GD:P Guard Dogs who wield snarky one-liners and never seem to have much else to say

...If we want attempts to reach for common ground across obsolete mental barricardes and kneejerk buzzwords to be locked because they MIGHT at some point turn into a flamewar because these meetings-of-minds-are-deemed-impossible-so-don't-even-try

...If we want GD:P to remain slow and insular

...If we want to remain manipulated and controlled by Rovian Big Lie techniques which we VOLUNTEER FOR when we fight over labels instead of ideas

...If we want people with a lot to contribute to leave DU or the Democratic Party

...If we want to treat Democrats with a lot to contribute as if they have nowhere else to go and have to put up with "bashing"

...If we want to ignore the problem of the enormous block of NON-VOTING Americans and instead bicker til Hell Freezes Over about "spoilers"

...If we want to bully like the repugnant "Authoritarians" that John Dean has illuminated in his new book

...if we want private corporations to infiltrate and control every aspect of our lives, including our government and its elections

...if, after that, we want to pretend we are "free" and indulge ourselves in pompously attacking the "far left" canaries in the coalmine.......................

...then, by all means, YES, YES AND YES

:hi: :patriot: