I Will Gladly Send A Check To Help Start Up GreenPartyUnderground

[ruggerson]

As I imagine many others will as well.

I will never patronize the website, but I will be at peace knowing that the people who loathe the Democratic party and the Democratic leadership and Democrats in general, finally have a place where they can congregrate and scream at each other.

Please let me know where to send the funds.

[havocmom]

1. Happy to give this splendid idea its first Recommendation!

They certainly need a place to call their own.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. The George Bush Democrats Need More Like You

Wouldn't it be lovely.

[havocmom]

19. Nader. GOP $$

Get it yet?

Disruptors and rabid greens helped bush lots. Me, I don't think the GOP likes me much at all.

So, ya got anything but snide, personal attacks to try and intimidate me with?

[pnwmom]

26. The real Bushies LOVE the Greens, and the Naderites, too.

Because they help the Rethugs so much.

[zonmoy]

103. by not doing anything to stop the re-thugs

the democratic leadership is doing more to help them than anything that the greens ever did.

[William769]

105. Why don't they use your website?

It seems to be just sitting there not doing nothing.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Will you send money too? If so, how much?

[havocmom]

12. I don't make much and send what I can to DEMOCRATIC candidates

The greens can ask Nader to get more cash from the GOP.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. You said you liked the idea so I thought you might be planning to invest

in it.

I guess you don't like the idea THAT much.

I was just wondering, because the OP offered to back it financially.

I think perhaps it was just hyprebole though.

[havocmom]

55. Lots of us invest more wisely than in fools who are more part of the problem

than part of the solution.

Anything but attacks on others?

Didn't think so

[TwilightZone]

2. It won't stop them.

There are already websites out there that are similar to what you describe. One (unmentionable on DU) even has a forum where they whine about DUers. Many of its members are rather vociferous DUers.

By the way, I certainly agree with you. If they want to hate Republicans and Democrats alike, I'd like to see them do it elsewhere. We have an election to win, at all levels of government.

[durrrty libby]

4. Yes they are so " progressive" and Skinner is their #1 Idiot

[MadHound]

5. Now that certainly isn't the way to win friends, be nice to your host, or influence people n/t

[TwilightZone]

6. They don't seem terribly interested in making friends.

The opposite may be true, however.

[Patchuli]

7. She's on a durrrty mission... nt

[havocmom]

13. And not very innovative

Rather boring in fact.

Does Nader pay people to post here? Still some GOP $$ in his war BORE chest?

[durrrty libby]

25. Do detail. Some of us don't get the drift

[Patchuli]

42. Nah, he probably needed that

to pay the rent on his rented room...odd bird, that Ralph. :crazy:

[durrrty libby]

22. How so? Don't squee and run

[Patchuli]

39. No one's running nor "squee"ing

I've simply observed your posting habits, dear.

*edited to spell your invented word 'correctly.'

[John Q. Citizen]

8. How much will you send?

[bonito]

11. First born to the volcano

To be sacrificed to the God of war?
I think not!

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Pluralism just SUCKS, doesn't it?

Those peasants; they're just revolting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. You Have A Point

But this isn't a pluralistic website...If it was folks from stormfront and free republic could post here...

[stuartrida]

24. I had never heard of stormfront and just checked it out

Holy freakin YIKES!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I Read It Some Times For Amusement

They have a thread pages and pages long about whether or whether or not American History X was edited to make it less favorable to Aryans...

[stuartrida]

44. They love Ron Paul over there.

I bet he's really delighted about that.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. Actually, it is, at least for those of the left

The rules of this website clearly state that this board is for discussion by Dems and other progressives. The only rule is that once the Dem party candidate for any position is chosen, people can not campaign against her/him. It really isn't as lockstep as many would have us believe.

[stuartrida]

16. Everyday I am bombarded with Democrat bashing on the TV, Radio and from co-workers

I like the idea of coming here to read discussions and criticisms, not pointless bashing. If I wanted that, I could go over the freeperland. I don't even want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee and I am so sick of all the threads bashing her. I am not sick of the threads criticizing her. Can you tell the difference? I can.

[PurityOfEssence]

51. It's subjective: one person's browbeating is another's debate

Yes, I can tell the difference, but my difference is probably different than yours. As for finding refuge here: it's here; you just have to know what to avoid. The problem with Democrats (as I've annoyingly said before) is that they're people.

Clinton has a particularly hard row to hoe here because of the dynamic of a partisan enclave like this: those who most resemble what we're fleeing by creating a place like this get the most heat.

This is a place for more left-leaning people where they can let their hair down and mingle. The frustration of living in a society that's considerably more conservative takes its toll, and those who would be considered moderates or even mildly left in the outside world are considerably to the right here. Thus, all the focused frustration at the right gets vented on the local right. She's the local right.

Whether the thread starter here wants to admit it or not, he's considerably to the right of center for this board, even though one would fairly call him a moderate. The same goes for Senator Clinton.

Some people rage that any passing insults at a politician are "bashing". I don't. Abuse based on physical appearance, age or things beyond one's control are juvenile and base to me and I don't engage in them or like those very much who do. I don't call Senator Clinton a "nazi" or a "reactionary" or even "a conservative", but I DO call her a corporatist and varying degrees of conservative, as well as deceptive, calculating, evasive, bought, dishonest and such. Those are probably "bashing" to some, but I have no illusions about being a pristine and delicate flower.

I, like many others who don't like her, disagree with the oft-cited preponderance of Clinton bashing going on here. Many of her supporters (some on a high-horse of sanctimonious retaliation) are absolutely brutal to Edwards and Obama, and many ugly things are said about their supporters.

There's plenty of blame to be spread around, but there's a reason why she gets a lot of crap: she's the most conservative of the candidates, CERTAINLY of the top three. Her supporters haven't been shrinking violets, nor have they been polite with the bandwidth. This very thread is one that was started by one of the more serious Clinton partisans who has an anti-social tendency to start MANY MANY MANY threads, often of the "you don't deserve to exist" sort. This thread is actually one of them: those of you who don't like Hillary Clinton should go elsewhere. They're out of step. They should toddle off with the other little greenies and eat little sandwiches with no crusts. He'll even pay for their nappies. There's conservatism for you: those who don't agree with me shouldn't be.

It's a logical dynamic: a haven for those sick of the crushing orthodoxy of conservatism are rebelling against the exhortations for conformity. Many of us don't want to fall in and get in lock-step; dislike of that is why we're here in the first place.

Hey, I'm merely a fairly far-left liberal, yet in the overall sweep of this board, I'M more or less in the middle. That's the nature of the place. It shouldn't be any surprise that there's so much resistance to the third-way appeasing horse shit of corporate lap-dogs.

Hopefully that didn't annoy you. I try to be fun. She's a disaster, and this is serious.

[ruggerson]

54. "Whether the thread starter here wants to admit it or not..."

"...he's considerably to the right of center for this board."

Really? Tell me where I stand on Iraq, health insurance, same sex marriage, the death penalty, abortion, federally funded stem cell research and the environment.

Apparently, you must know the answer, since you're able to pinpoint where I am ideologically in the larger context of DU.

on edit: and explain how I'm a "serious Clinton partisan" by showing just a couple of the "many" threads I've started that tell you that you "don't have a right to exist."

[ruggerson]

64. *****crickets******

[PurityOfEssence]

77. *****baying of slavering hounds*****

Some of us work, so if we don't respond to threads for awhile it doesn't mean we're ducking addressing flawless logic and gentle questions. For this to be lampooned as "proof" of unassailable wisdom is just silly.

Here are some threads to illustrate your habits of dismissing those to the left as effectively children and unworthy of our time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3625150

(No candidate would nominate a supreme who'd vote any more left than Clinton would; it's a pro-Clinton thread dismissing supporters of other candidates.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3610109&mesg_id=3610109

(This is a vulgar piece of sneering that specifically equates Hillary opponents to reactionaries.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3609131&mesg_id=3609131

(This is an ugly poll that's designed to smear anyone who can't stomach voting for Hillary as childish or peevish or just plain inferior.)

When reading these threads, many other posters make reference to your proclivity of the imperious dismissal of others who differ, so it's hardly just me.

As for the positions you state, those are merely mainstream here. That other thin-skinned thread you started that asks how people feel they fit in in the spectrum smacks of something induced by this little exchange here. There is a through-line of righteous indignation that anyone would mess up what you think the discourse should be here, and I submit that it's simply not justified: I've been a regular poster and a pretty good netizen here for over six years, and I'd say I'm pretty much smack in the middle of the graph, even though I'm considered quite left on the outside. I will ridicule and deride posters, but generally only for their bombastic, presumptuous attempts to crush opposition. I'm a liberal; other stripes of opinion deserve to be heard.

[ruggerson]

81. You didn't answer my question

How do you back up your assertion that I am "right of center" for this board, when you apparently don't know where I stand on any issues at all?

As for your three examples, none of them support your second assertion (that I think non Hillary supporters "don't have a right to exist.")

Maybe your words are just hyperbolic and I'm not understanding what you're really attempting to express.

In your first example, I am discussing an ISSUE, that being Supreme Court appointments. If you read the OP again, you will see that I actually quite clearly state that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Mrs. Clinton on policy, but that this is not one of them, imho. Are we not supposed to discuss the candidates positions on issues and our OPINIONS about them?

In your second example, I am voicing my disagreement with those that would vote against Mrs. Clinton, SHOULD SHE BE OUR NOMINEE. It's very clear in the title of the OP. Nothing to do with the primary. This site explicitly is for people who support DEMOCRATS, and should she win the nomination, she will be the Democratic standard bearer. I venture to say most DU'ers feel WHOMEVER wins the nomination should have the support of the DU community. Whether that person is Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

The third example was a reaction to the incessant "I will never vote for Hillary in the general election" bashing. I was curious, since it is against the rules to work against our eventual nominee here, what were people planning to do should she win the nomination? Change their minds? Leave?

I am not, as you mistakenly write in your post, a "serious" Clinton advocate. What I am, I guess, is a serious opponent of bashing the eventual nominee, should it happen to be her or anyone else.

Every single one of my posts on this subject have not taken to task people who oppose Mrs. Clinton for the nomination, but those who say they wouldn't vote for her in the general. In my state's primary, as it stands now, I'm voting for John Edwards, though I'll be surprised if he pulls it off. I am happy if he or Senator Clinton (who I think is running a brilliant campaign) or Senator Biden win the nomination. I am a little less happy if any of the others do, but I will work for them fervently nonetheless.

[PurityOfEssence]

87. Okay, here's the backup

In many threads, you take the defense of Senator Clinton. That's how I--apparently mistakenly--got the idea that you were a supporter. I'm talking about MANY threads, so this gave a distinct impression.

What I use to "back up" my assertion of you being more conservative than the hypothetical mean board member is constant tussling with the leftists and the repeated calls to run everyone off who doesn't stick with the crowd. There are a lot of people here who have SERIOUS misgivings about voting for Senator Clinton in the general election. They fall into many camps, but one common one is that if we're to endorse someone who's just going to do the same old thing and not head off the impending financial disasters or social crises brought on by corporate control, perhaps the party needs to make that mistake and learn from it. For many, they simply can't be a part of it, and if that's narcissistic, so be it. I've never considered not voting for the Democratic nominee before, and remember being pissed at my candidate in '92 (Brown) for not falling in behind Clinton. I understand the sentiment about this Clinton far too well, and it comes from a deep set of convictions: respect for the truth is one of the big ones, as is serious concern for the future if corporatocracy continues to reign supreme and unfettered.

You may not like the sentiment of being unable or unwilling to vote for her in the general election, but I would be very surprised if half of the regulars here would be so completely dismissive of people contemplating that as unfit. If I'm correct with this, I'm correct in my assessment of your place in the spectrum right there.

I don't know every one of your positions on everything, but based on what you present to us is what I base this estimation, and what you present is someone who is wildly offended by anyone who has problems with the corporate wing of this party. The cries to run these people off and derisive backlash at those of the left or far left pretty much define you as someone no farther left than the center.

From there, it's really just a question of whether you're dead-center or somewhat to the right, which would again substantiate my point.

One doesn't need to absolutely inspect every aspect of a person to determine much about them. In most cases, gender can be determined without seeing the genitals.

Not only that, but demanding that nobody has the right to make an observation on one's political persuasion without an exhaustive and complete analysis of all the details is extreme hypocrisy unless one is in the habit of doing that in return. You make incredible snap judgments of others, often prompting abrasive and aggressive derision and demands, yet recoil at being subject to similar labelling by others.

Beats me how you sort out on many traditional issues. Perhaps you could enlighten me. I'm quite shocked to find out that you're NOT a Senator Clinton supporter; from the many highly-charged posts I've read, that was the last thing I'd expect. As for presuming conservativeness, the very act of CONSTANTLY trying to cull the runts and run off the riff-raff smacks of it.

Perhaps a mission statement is in order, or is this just yet another of many attempts to dismiss and discredit your opponents? I don't think one needs to know every position on everything to make such a claim, it's just based on that which you choose to show us repeatedly: that the Kucinich people are simply off the scale of the norm and that those who have serious problems with Clinton are not fit to belong in the fold.

The derision of difference is a big marker for one's political tastes, and although there's quite a lot of intolerance and sniping, I have yet to ever read you take someone to task for being too conservative, whereas the overwhelming preponderance of your posts are rancorous at someone for his/her leftist twaddle. It's prima facie evidence: if you were smack in the middle, you'd be equally railing at the stodgy and the anarchic, and you're simply not.

This is like arguing with a christian who RAGES that one has no right to question his/her faith unless the person's read every last page of the scripture (which the believer generally hasn't either). Whether you can proudly wear the stripes of many progressive or liberal causes or not, your actions have been uniformly anti-leftist on this board. That's fine, but the intolerance crap is DECIDEDLY anti-social and anti-pluralist. Conformity is a thing of the right, even though it's often demanded in any organization, especially one that defines itself as a put-upon minority as this board does by its very name.

My assumption is simple: if virtually every hurled insult and fight engaged in is with leftists, then you're right of the center here. Whether true or not, it's simply based on many repeated examples of your comportment, which can be seen in the links you requested that I so obsequiously provided.

Maybe you're not a duck, but you walk like one and you talk like one so much, so repeatedly and so vehemently that it leads me to believe that you might think about staying away from the pond when the season opens.

[ruggerson]

89. I suppose

the reason there are "many threads" where I have defended Mrs. Clinton is simply because there have been "many threads" attacking her unfairly.

And by that, I do not mean policy disagreements. I mean sexist, Freeperish, personal attacks that are laced with illogic, untruth and anger. No other candidate here has endured a tenth of the bile that has been directed at this woman. She happens to be my second choice for the nomination, and I have surprised myself at times with my gut reaction to jump to defend her, but I find as the nomination season wears on, the attacks become more strident and more irrational, hence my outspokenness in her defense. As far as your contention that I don't attack conservatives, it may seem that way to you because these are the pre-primary months, hence much of the discussion here is about Dem candidates and our side of the aisle. I assure you that I have spent my time on DU arguing fervently against Republicans and conservatives in far greater quantity and ferocity than I have spent defending Hillary from attacks from her left flank.

I think you are utterly incorrect in estimating how people will feel here about her detractors, should she be the nominee. I don't think half of DU will be tolerant of posters writing garbage about a Democratic nominee, fighting to prevent a fascist Giuliani or Romney from gaining power.

But whether you're in the majority here or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that you think that people who voice their opinion against voting third party in the general election are somehow "conservatives." Even as you type it, you must know it to be drivel. As I've written you elsewhere, an argument can be made that the ones who place their "principles" above electing a progressive Democrat can be realistically accused of being self involved narcissists instead of communitarians. And which is the more Republican/conservative view of the world? Narcissistic individualism or progressive communitarianism?

I suspect that if we broke down individual issues, you and I would agree on 70 to 80% of them. So, why the hostility?

I suppose it's because those of us who plan on voting for the Democratic nominee want to actually win this election. And it seems that those of you who are considering voting thirdy party, or abstaining, are putting your own ideology above what you owe your fellow progressive human beings.

This particular OP was in response to the "Nancy Pelosi Is Public Enemy Number One" thread. You cannot make a sane argument to convince me that Nancy Pelosi is Public Enemy Number One, nor can you make a sane argument to convince me that a Hillary Clinton presidency would not be vastly superior to ANY of the Republican candidates running for President. A Hillary Clinton presidency might advance 40 or 50% of your goals. It might advance more of mine. But a Republican presidency would do neither of us any good and would provide much more misery for the American people.

The hyperbole and the hysterics, I'm afraid, are coming from your bench, not mine. I'm willing to vote for Dennis Kucinich, should he be the nominee. I have made very few, if any, inflammatory statements about Democratic candidates who are not in my top three. Can you say the same about Hillary Clinton?

We're on the same side. Remember?

[PurityOfEssence]

93. Some good points, but I've never even intimated anything bad about Pelosi

I've said MANY bad things about Senator Clinton, and I will say more; they need to be said and I feel that the ones I utter are justified.

There's a lot of very deep frustration with and disgust for Senator Clinton. For some to vote third-party or sit out the election in an instance where it might be close is not an honorable thing in my book, but I UNDERSTAND it. She's not just part of the problem, she's one of the figureheads of the problem.

The serious disgust with her maneuvering and calculation would be bad enough if she didn't constantly laud herself as the greatest fighter against the reactionaries the world has ever seen. This is not only not true, it's extremely not true. Triangulation of her sort is precisely why the primitives have been able to get away with so much over the years, and she simply is NOT the fighter she claims. She's also bought and paid for by the corporatists and even if she welches on the deal, she's not really going to turn on them.

She's a disaster. The fact that many say many ugly things about her is an understandable inducement to want to defend her; lefties are disposed to sympathy for the downtrodden. The fact also remains that just because some people use sexist epithets or characterize her as much more conservative than she is doesn't lessen the degree of conservatism or the deep, deep misrepresentation she embodies. It's tiresome. I don't trust her and she's given ample justification for it.

It's just more ammunition for the right that democrats are liars. If someone just cut together adamant statements of hers that are totally contradictory, it'd be devastating. This will come if she's nominated.

I truly dread the nine months from Super-duper Tuesday to the election if she's the nominee-apparent at that point. She's not just more hated because they've had more time to work on her, although that does help. There are other reasons.

More later; we have guests over.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[robinlynne]

83. If you are not angry at the democrats in congress right now, you are to the right of the

Democratic Party. 2/3 of democrats are furious.

[ruggerson]

85. I'm angry they haven't passed Webb's Iran legislation

how's that?

And I don't take issue with people rightfully disagreeing with things congressional Democrats do (or fail to do.)

I take issue with people who call Nancy Pelosi "Public Enemy Number One."

Surely you can see the difference.

[robinlynne]

86. well she singlehandedly gave us the fisa mess we are in now. There was no need

to put it up for a vote in august. She said "we can fix it later", but we can't. She is doing dome serious damage to our country. And there are so many great Dems who could take her place and do the right thing.

[DemBones DemBones]

63. Yes, she is a disaster and I'm tired of being told

she is inevitable, electable, respectable, delectable. It's pretty sad when Democrats are telling other Democrats what to think. I've been a Democrat for forty years, this will be the 11th presidential election since I started voting, and I don't like being told I'm too far left.

[PurityOfEssence]

94. "Inevitable, electable, respectable, delectable": priceless!

Sheer folly; I'll p.m. you later; we have guests over and I'm being a sociopath.

[DURHAM D]

14. I think it should be called the Wanker's Underground.

It should include the Green Party, the Fake Progressives and the Misogynist Party members.

[durrrty libby]

18. Awesome You nailed it.

:evilgrin:

[PurityOfEssence]

78. Whereas this place should be reserved for the misandrists.

All dismissal of Senator Clinton is obviously women-hating.

Those who created the board and those who sustain it were no doubt intending it to be only for mainstream moderates with the regal rectitude of robotic blowhards.

[BootinUp]

100. lol nt

[LoZoccolo]

17. If you can find the handful of splinter boards, they are worth a look for anthropological value.

The people who feel oppressed if they can't act more belligerent than is allowed on Democratic Underground congregate at these places, and as you've guessed, their personalities don't exactly jibe with each other and some gnarly drama and struggles for psychological dominance ensue. I liken it to watching a "women in prison" film.

[ruggerson]

20. How Susan Hayward of them

n/t

;-)

[Sparkly]

59. hah!!

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

Oh, and someone out there wants to send me to a "right-wing bantustan".

They were wishing this on me and I think wyldwolf, sangh0/sangha (R.I.P.), and Mr. Benchley (R.I.P.) amongst others if there was ever a revolution in this country.

[stuartrida]

27. What are the names of those websites? Just curious.

I forgot about Benchley. He didn't make it very pleasant around here, that is for sure.

[LoZoccolo]

29. We are not allowed to say their names here.

I sort-of agree with this rule (because people would be flinging rocks back and forth between the two boards) but sort of don't (it just makes it look stupid that we have to almost pretend they don't exist).

[desi]

32. You mean there's more than one forum

of disgruntled fringe left DU/Dem bashers? I only know of one where you have to meet some kind of color on a slide rule to post there yet they are very prolific posters here.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Oh yeah, there are at least four more. I know which one you're talking about though.

I wouldn't be surprised if the splinters started spintering.

[stuartrida]

45. I get it. PM me if you have the time.

[desi]

46. Check your PM...

I had already sent you one where you will see some familiar names...

[DURHAM D]

65. Sorry to bother but could you send me a PM as well?

Thanks in advance.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

106. It's Chimp World for the insecure testosterone-fueled who can't dominate others.

Makes them feel bad, so they compensate by bullying others. Especially if their targets are female and/or intelligent, and/or liberal and/or of non-WASP ethnicity. Anyone who has gotten past the Civil War and realizes that blacks are human beings, as well as brown people, and anyone else who is not really really white (pink actually) is a liberal, so they will attack and tear them down and call them names.

[sjdnb]

21. OK, just for a minute, let's get 'real'

Send those funds to the 'black hole' @
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

There are two parties with any, reality-based, possibility of holding any office of substance in this country, in this century - they are the Democrats or the Republicans.

And, while in a 'perfect' world, the 'best man' whether Dem, Ind, Green, or Rep would win, the fact is in our imperfect world, you have to line up behind the MUCH lesser of two evils.

And, while many Dems disappoint, some shine - Al Gore, Bill Clinton, JFK, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Kucinich, Feingold, etc.

So, unless you want to throw the country out with the bathwater, you will not repeat the mistakes of 2000 - when Nader's self-indulgent run cost Al Gore the Presidency.

[RebelSansCause]

52. it's called democracy

nader's "self indulgent run" did not cost the country the election. SCOTUS and the republican machine cost the election. people actually voted for what they believed in, their conscience. maybe gore should have used clinton to campaign for him or tried to appeal to the people who saw him as virtually the same thing as bush, you know, maybe separate from the DLC some. if you have a problem with democracy, or people wanting to participate, i am truly sorry.

[sufrommich]

60. Yes,"it" is called democracy,

DU,on the other hand, has rules. You're right to freedom of speech isn't silenced by a discussion forum on the internet.

[pnwmom]

23. Fantastic idea! Thanks, ruggerson. Strongly recommended. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

30. great idea

[LoZoccolo]

31. Let me interject a cynical comment.

This is a great thread, but part of me fears that certain of the 19 recommendations it has received are from people who are so knee-jerk that they clicked the button before realizing that this is not in fact an affront to the Democratic Party.

[sjdnb]

34. And just how is this NOT an affront to the Dem Party

When the poster clearly stated "but I will be at peace knowing that the people who loathe the Democratic party and the Democratic leadership and Democrats in general, finally have a place where they can congregrate and scream at each other."

[LoZoccolo]

35. !

:wow:

[jgraz]

72. "an affront to the Democratic Party"

Is there a better example of the authoritarian nature of the "no-dissent" crowd?

[LoZoccolo]

75. Lame. n/t

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

82. Don't be so hard on yourself.

You're a good guy.Cut yourself some slack. :P

[lastliberalintexas]

33. Ah yes, then the Blue Dogs could have this site

to themselves to whine and complain about eeeevil liberals without any real debate. Sounds like a grand idea. :eyes:


The fact that certain people on this site and in our government are considered "left" or "liberal" tells me our country is FUBAR. Harry S would be a freaking Commie these days, and most people on this board would be trashing him as some small, weasly man with no chance to win. Hmmm, that sounds a little familiar.

I hope you conservatives are happy when you drive all the moderates and liberals into another party, creating a permanent majority for the corporatists who control the republican party. And when you wonder why the "sheeple" are voting against their self-interest, remember that the DLC, neo-liberal, third way conservatives made damn sure they didn't have a reason to vote Dem. Screw the workers, screw the kitchen table issues of FDR and Harry S, screw the Great Society of LBJ. By golly, we MUST triangulate. Bleh.

[stuartrida]

47. I am close to Kucinich on the issues. I am tired of the bashing*

especially the Hillary bashing, and she is the LAST on my 08 list.

This has nothing to do with Blue Dogs or DLC, so open your eyes.

*bashing is different than criticism

[lastliberalintexas]

48. Yes, it does

The same posters on this site who criticize posters for criticizing elected Dems ignore that (often conservative) elected Dems are rather critical of liberal members. Pelosi has demanded that Stark apologize for his comments. Which is more harmful to our cause- Pelosi's capitulation to the "public" outcry or some irrelevant poster's comments on this board? If our elected Dem leaders don't follow the with us or against line and refrain from attacking other party members, why should an irrelevant, anonymous poster on a discussion board?

Also, bashing is in the eye of the beholder. Clinton supporters have to be the most sensitive people in the world, and must live in little bubbles where their opinions are rarely challenged if they are upset by most of what I've seen here- which is usually almost exclusively issue based criticism, as opposed to the comments about Kucinich. You think the stuff about Clinton is nasty? You should have seen the Dean-Kerry war in late 03 through 04.

[stuartrida]

50. Let me guess, you like Kucinich, not Clinton

Hence Clinton is only getting criticized here, while Dennis gets bashed, in your opinion.
*sigh*
As someone who would cast a primary vote for neither, and as someone who agrees much more with Kucinich, I can tell you DU has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more high on hyperbole/ low on facts Hillary bashing than Dennis bashing.

"If our elected Dem leaders don't follow the with us or against line and refrain from attacking other party members, why should an irrelevant, anonymous poster on a discussion board?"
Because you should expect more of yourself. And further, this has nothing to do with "with us or against us." I think this discussion is going to be useless because you will not be able to look at things from any other perspective than your own.

I absolutely don't want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee, but I think it would be miserable to be a genuine Clinton supporter (you know, 30-40% of Democrats), come to a place called "democratic underground" and read all the garbage here.

[lastliberalintexas]

53. Nope, I don't have a candidate

I personally think that there are times that all the candidates get bashed, when there is nothing at all constructive about the criticism being thrown around. I just personally think that the majority of the posts about Clinton are mostly legitimate, and I rarely see a Clinton defender actually discuss her record. Instead, they simply try to shout down the dirty liberals who have a problem with her votes and positions. Same with Pelosi and Reid- and I'm quite sure this thread was created in response to a post which was quite critical of Pelosi.

Hence my comment about being supportive of Dem elected officials. The post criticizing Pelosi was assailing her for her comments about Stark and that he should apologize. Again, if Pelosi is going to criticize party officials in a very public way, then what is so wrong about some irrelevant poster criticizing Pelosi? People can't have it both ways, it can't be ok for he liberal members to be dumped on while the rest of the party gets a pass.

And therein lies the issue with this thread- some are upset because the more liberal posters have been expressing their opinions. Some might be Greens, but the majority are not. I myself am not a Green, yet the OP and its supporters think I should be banished to greenunderground.com for daring to call out Dems when they undermine progressive policies or tow the line on the corporatist agenda. Perhaps it is the conservative Dems who should be banished to the message board at dlc.org instead?

Or better yet, we all act like adults and actually discuss the issues on an integrated board for Dems, liberals and other progressives?

[robinlynne]

84. or they could start their own site called dlc underground? or bluedem undergound?

[tandot]

40. I'll chip in. Let me know how much

I am tired of some DUers putting all the blame on Democrats and none on the obstructionist Republicans, Bush, and all the other Republican chicken-hawks.

[Bonobo]

41. Ewwww, I accidentally got this thread stuck on my shoe and it won't come off...!

[Patchuli]

43. Hahahahaaa!

:rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

49. You are cracking me up!

[rucky]

56. You would have nothing to talk about. n/t

[Californian Dreamer]

57. I firmly believe

That given an alternative party on the left (and a weakened/splintered republican party) that voters can choose over a candidate who is democratic in name only, can only help to strengthen our party and keep our leadership better behaved. I have no idea if the green party is the best for that, though.

My hope is that someday, we have democrats as the majority and are competing with a bunch of smaller parties and independents, and everyone is trying to out-liberal each other. :)

[ClassWarrior]

62. Then work on changing our system to a Parliamentary one.

Cuz your hope just ain't gonna happen in this system.

NGU.

[jmp]

58. If there WAS such a place, I would certainly visit ...

If not migrate altogether. Too many Republican-lite & DLC apologists on here for my liking.

[cobalt1999]

61. I'll chip in!

It would be nice to have intelligent debates without the all the illogical and emotional screamers around.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

67. heh. don't tell ...of J. Temperance.

He thinks it's the progressives that are trying to drive the DLCers off DU.

[jgraz]

68. Oh yay, another "love it or leave it" post

Apparently dissent toward your country is the height of patriotism but dissent toward your party is the height of treason. :crazy:

Happy Goose-stepping!

[LoZoccolo]

70. Lame. n/t

[jgraz]

71. And another content-free post by LoZoccolo

My morning is now complete.

[ruggerson]

73. hey btw

I couldn't post it on your thread, because when I got home from work it had already been locked, but I actually (*gasp*) agree with you re the dog thing. rescue agencies work long and hard to find appropriate homes for dogs and cats, they do not need people renegging on contracts and rehoming animals unilaterally. This is apropros of absolutely nothing, but I thought your OP was right on.

[jgraz]

74. Hey, thanks -- but you're still dead wrong here ;)

We actually spent an inordinate amount of time discussing this on mickaboo (see sig), because this kind of shit does end up hurting our fundraising and making it harder for us to convince negligent owners to surrender their birds. Animal rescue is extremely difficult and full of heartbreak and we don't need some stupid celebrity whining about her own mistakes and making our lives (and our animal's lives) harder.

:rant:

[colbertforpresident]

79. How about

Progressive underground? Keep it unafilliated with a political party and only support candidates that have a progressive record!

[RebelSansCause]

80. how is it wrong to loathe...

people who refuse to keep their promises. those who will not and shall not deliver. besides, dissent is a good thing, it encourages an evolution of thinking and pushes new ideas forth while throwing out the useless ones. there will always be fringe people, because we are people. no one can move in lockstep with one another, how do you expect a group to do it? ridiculous and slanderous and offensive. the only thing this post tells me is that you are not one of the persons who is angry. congratulations. keep it to yourself. i do not know why i even bother. from now i might just sit back and watch the show. :popcorn:

[ClassWarrior]

90. So how does dissent = loathing?

loathe – verb (used with object), loathed, loath·ing.
to feel disgust or intense aversion for; abhor...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loathe

dis·sent – verb (used without object)
...2. to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissent

Besides having totally different meanings, the first has emotional overtones while the second carries a more intellectual connotation.

The way I read the OP, ruggerson would rather not deal with the folks around here who have let their frustration manifest itself as hyper-emotional hating. I see nothing in the OP to indicate that he has anything against folks who channel their frustration into honest and constructive dissent.

Just sayin'...

NGU.

[ruggerson]

91. Exactly

the OP was written last night after a "Nancy Pelosi Is Public Enemy Number One" thread appeared in our midst.

While I may disagree with some of the things Mrs. Pelosi has done and am disappointed in some of what she has not accomplished, a post like that quite simply belongs at a Republican hate site. Irrational hyperbole does nothing but divide us. Anyone who wants to do something constructive, like getting Webb's Iran bill passed, count me in.

[jgraz]

97. Didn't see that post, but I can agree with one interpretation of the sentiment

In terms of really changing this country for the better, Democratic collaborators can actually do more harm than the GOP. By complying with Rethug insanity, they validate it and set the leftmost boundary of accepted political discourse just slightly to the right of center.

Everyone (save 24%) can see that the Repigs are vicious murdering assholes. Pelosi et al. are helping them to rehabilitate their image. They're also reinforcing the most negative, unamerican stereotypes of Democrats: that we're weak and that we don't really stand for anything.

So yes, from a certain perspective, Pelosi is more of a problem than the drooling mass of Rethugs in Congress.

[ClassWarrior]

107. Didn't think I'd get an answer.

:eyes:

NGU.

[DemBones DemBones]

88. Why not start NoDissentAllowed.com?

That's what you really want. There are some other vociferous folks here who'd like the same sort of homogeneous forum. I prefer a heterogeneous forum, not a FR-style echo chamber.

[Moochy]

92. Such flamebait

Send the funds to DLC.org. Just double your monthly contribution.

[sniffa]

96. ...

:rofl:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

95. check with Rick Santorum

he financed the Green Party petition drive in Pennsylvania.

You might also check with Free Republic.

[SlowDownFast]

98. Maybe Ralphie will cut you a check

after he gets one from the GOP!

[BootinUp]

99. I got my checkbook ready... :-)

[Gman]

101. Nevermind...

[stimbox]

102. DLCunderground.com is available...

:shrug:

[BootinUp]

104. This song seems appropriate

for this thread, I think everyone can sing along, just replace words like kiss with punch:

Leave Me Alone (I'm Lonely)
Artist: Pink

Go away
Give me a chance to miss you
Say goodbye
It'll make me want to kiss you
I love you so
Much more when you're not here
Watchin all the bad shows
Drinking all of my beer

I don't believe Adam and Eve
Spent every goddamn day together
If you give me some room there will be room enough for two

Tonight
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely
I'm tired
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely tonight

I don't wanna wake up with another
But I don't wanna always wake up with you either
No you can't hop into my shower
All I ask for is one ***kin' hour
You taste so sweet
But I can't eat the same thing every day
Cuttin off the phone
Leave me the ***k alone
Tomorrow I'll be beggin' you to come home

Tonight
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely
I'm tired
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely tonight

Go away
Come back
Go away
Come back
Why can't I just have it both ways
Go away
Come back
Go away
Come back
I wish you knew the difference
Go away
Come back

Go away
Give me a chance to miss you
Say goodbye
It'll make me want to kiss you
Go away
Give me a chance to miss you
Say goodbye
It'll make me want to kiss you
Go away
Give me a chance to miss you
Say goodbye
It'll make me want to kiss you

Tonight
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely
I'm tired
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely tonight

Tonight
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely
I'm tired
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely tonight

Tonight
Go away
Give me a chance to miss you
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely
Say goodbye
It'll make me want to kiss you
I'm tired
Go away
Give me a chance to miss you
Leave me alone I'm lonely
Alone I'm lonely
Say goodbye
It'll make me want to kiss you
Tonight
Go away
Give me a chance to miss you
Say goodbye