If Clinton is the most liberal candidate, then why

[Lerkfish]

do her supporters treat liberals with such contempt?

those two things do not add up.

[mike_c]

1. it is utterly delusional to regard Clinton as "the most liberal candidate..."

That must be a television MSM meme?

[Lerkfish]

2. delusional or intentionally calculating?

some might say triangulating.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Basileus Basileon]

9. So, which Hillbots have said it? nt

[Lerkfish]

34. see post # 30

now that I've addressed your concerns about the word "most", care to answer MY concerns?

[TwilightZone]

4. If the Clinton, Obama, and Edwards bashers are "true" Democrats, then why

do they treat those candidates with such contempt?

And why do they vote for Ron Paul in DU polls?

Speaking of things that don't add up....

[Skinner]

5. Who said Clinton is the most liberal candidate? (nt)

[wyldwolf]

6. you beat me to it

She ranks among the most socially liberal based on voting records, but overall she's somewhat centrist.

[PatSeg]

7. Her republican opponents

:shrug:

[Lerkfish]

21. in this thread, several

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3686927&mesg_id=3689680

[Skinner]

67. I'm going to need a little more help here.

I see posts that say she is liberal, and I also see posts that say she would be among the most liberal presidents. Could you point me to one that says she is the most liberal candidate? Thanks.

[Lerkfish]

78. if it pleases you

bypass the word "most" and then answer the question

also: would like to point out several personal attacks against me in this thread that have not been deleted.

just trying to help.

[Skinner]

89. If you would like to point out personal attacks, just click alert.

The mods will check it out.

As for the topic of this thread, if I bypass the word "most" then the meaning of your post is completely different.

[Lerkfish]

102. thanks for the tip

as far as the meaning, I would argue its not "completely" different, just a minor difference in degree. The question still remains: if her supporters wish her to be viewed as a liberal candidate, why do they treat liberals with contempt?

[TwilightZone]

103. Wrong place.

[Skinner]

107. In my opinion, the difference between "factually incorrect" and "factually correct"...

...is not a minor difference in degree.

You can have the last word if you like.

[Lerkfish]

108. "The last word"?

that sounds ominous.

I must say I've been honored to have you post in my thread, I think that's a first, actually for any of my threads. I don't know why you chose this one.

ok, my last word is we disagree on definition. This entire thread seems to be people disagreeing about definition of terms, instead of addressing the incongruity of the comparison in the question.

I suppose we just choose to argue about the definition of "is".

[Lerkfish]

31. see post # 30

now that we've established it, how about the core question: if her supporters consider her liberal, why do they treat liberals with contempt?

so far, no has answered that.

[Lerkfish]

37. or this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3686927&mesg_id=3689792

[Basileus Basileon]

41. Again, the word "most" does not appear in that post.

"Hillary Clinton is a liberal" is true. "Hillary Clinton is the most liberal candidate" is false, but nobody's really saying that.

[Lerkfish]

43. ahhh.. its the "withering repetition" strategy again.

LOL.

[Basileus Basileon]

45. All your evidence is invalid for the exact same reason.

I don't know how else to say "That post is does not support your assertion that people are calling Hillary the most liberal candidate, because it does not call her the most liberal candidate."

[Moochy]

57. "don't know how else to say "

Thats never stopped you from spamming the same thing over and over has it?

[Basileus Basileon]

61. I haven't spammed.

Spam is by definition off-topic. I've posted similar rebuttals to several examples of similar bogus arguments. Lurkfish's incorrect characterizations do not get more correct through his repetition, and I'm not sure why pointing that out counts as "spam" in your book. Perhaps, much like "fascist," you merely consider that a meaningless slur applicable to anyone you disagree with.

[uppityperson]

75. Wrong, here is DU's definition of spam

Do not spam the message board by posting the same message repeatedly, or by posting a flood of different messages. We have an automatic spam filter which blocks out members who post numerous messages in a short period of time.

[Basileus Basileon]

79. I haven't done that either.

I've responded to a repeated bogus argument with the same counterargument--which Lerkfish has not successfully responded to. It's like this:

"The sky is green today!"
"Evidence?"
"Here!"
"That shows a blue sky."
"How about this?"
"That also shows a blue sky."
"This will convince you."
"Again, that picture shows a blue sky, not a green one."

That isn't spam.

[uppityperson]

83. Agreed, just clarifying definitions of words since that seems to be what this topic is about.

[TwilightZone]

Repeated truth is still true.

Repeated falsehoods do not become the truth, regardless of the conventional wisdom to the contrary.

You asserted that that post was proof of your claim that Hillary was called the most liberal candidate. It is not.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Lerkfish]

50. spam, spam, spam ...wonderful spam! wonderful spam!

love that monty python skit

[Clintonista2]

66. Your "proof" doesn't prove anything.

You're just taking examples of people referring to her as being a liberal, and using that to claim that people are calling her "the MOST liberal"

[Basileus Basileon]

8. I am unaware of anyone calling her that. nt

[Lerkfish]

19. ironically, you yourself did...here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3686927&mesg_id=3686958

[TwilightZone]

20. The word "most" does not appear in that post.

Care to try again?

[Lerkfish]

27. care to address the core assertion?

if you remove the word "most" the essential question remains: if her supporters claim she is liberal, then why do they hold liberals in contempt?

[TwilightZone]

29. Removing the word "most" completely changes the meaning of your OP,

invalidating it completely.

As far as Hillary being liberal: http://ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[Lerkfish]

30. how about this link?

Once she's sworn in (if Obama doesn't overtake her, that is), I believe that Hillary Clinton will prove to be one of the most liberal presidents in history, totally putting to rest some of the false impressions that have been generated about her here on this forum.

Hillary Clinton, Goddess of Peace, liberal President who will thumb her nose at the rightwing idiots once in office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3686927&mesg_id=3689680

[Basileus Basileon]

33. That isn't saying she's the most liberal candidate either.

Just that she would be one of the most liberal presidents in history. That does not preclude any of her opponents from being even more liberal.

[Lerkfish]

35. still does not answer my question

[Basileus Basileon]

36. It does, however, demolish its foundation.

The next point I'm going to challenge is that Hillary Clinton's support base holds liberals in contempt.

[Lerkfish]

38. good luck with that one.

:cheers:

[Clintonista2]

70. So here's the progression of your argument:

#1) People are claiming Hillary is the most liberal candidate running
Becomes:

#2) People are claiming Hillary is a liberal
Becomes:

#3) Hillary supporters hate liberals!

Thanks for the laugh Lerkfish.

[TwilightZone]

71. As I said below....

The goalposts keep moving, and I don't know where to aim! :)

[Clintonista2]

72. Me neither

I think good ol' Lerky realized what a stupid topic he created, and has stopped posting for today :rofl::rofl:

[LanternWaste]

101. "Yes. I still beat my wife."

Alright. I'll answer.

"Yes. I still beat my wife."

[Moochy]

39. Its still fantasy

[TwilightZone]

42. That still doesn't validate your argument.

There is a difference between being the most liberal candidate and being a liberal president.

The assertion made by that poster is probably significantly closer to the truth than yours is. I have little doubt that Hillary will indeed govern more liberally than she is campaigning. That's pretty much the norm. Target the middle during the election, then govern the way you want.

[Lerkfish]

44. but why do her supporters treat liberals with contempt?

you can dance around that all you want. The question is still valid.

[Basileus Basileon]

46. Only if they actually are.

Where do you see her supporters treating people on the left half of the nation with contempt?

[TwilightZone]

53. The assertion is ridiculous.

Perhaps the reason you feel that you are being treated with contempt is that you post patently false, easily disprovable claims.

Disproving ridiculous assertions is not contempt.

[Lerkfish]

60. and your assertion is that clinton supporters do NOT treat liberals with contempt?

that is quite frankly patently false.

[Basileus Basileon]

62. Ah, good. If it is patently false, we should see some examples, no?

I do not doubt that some Clinton supporters can be assholes. Many are. But plenty of DK supporters are too (one of them has been following me around throwing pointless insults at me), and BO supporters, and JE supporters.

Where is your evidence that Clinton supporters as a group dislike liberals?

[TwilightZone]

65. That must be why 81% of "liberal Democrats" approve of Hillary.

Because they feel that they're being treated with contempt, right?

[Basileus Basileon]

26. I said she was "a liberal." I did not say she was the *most* liberal.

I stand by the first. The second is nonsense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. For the record, I'm sure many do not

But to speak to your point, to some extent there is a culture clash underlying real disgreements on priorities. Remember how there used to be the "Old Left" and the "New Left"? Actually in 1968 there were "Old Liberals" who grouped to HHH and "New Liberals" who grouped to McCarthy and RFK. I would bet that Hillary would do far far better in a poll of ACLU members than in a poll of Move On members for example. She certainly does better in polls of Union members than she does in polls of Move On members.

[cuke]

146. I agree (kind of)

I see it as not so much a question of ideology that divides us, but a question of tactics. One grouping wants impeachment yesterday, a stop to funding the occupation of Iraq, kick DINO's out of the party, etc while others prefer less confrontational tactics and working within the traditional institutions of power. I think my dichotomy is similar to yours.

[brazos121200]

11. I don't agree with everything she is doing, but I believe

that her husband knew how to get elected (the only Democrat to make it in the last 30 years), and that he is telling her what she needs to do to get elected, and she is doing it. It's not pretty, its downright ugly, but it is probably necessary. Once she gets eleted, I'm hoping that the libeal viewpoint will at least have more influence in policy decisions than they have right now, which is practically zero. I like Obama, I like Edwards and the others, but I don't know if they have what it takes to make it all the way against the White House against the Rove machine.

[Warpy]

12. Her rhetoric is corporatist

Her voting record is a whisker to the left of Kucinich. More people listen than read. That's why.

My problems with her are her position on the Middle East and her wretchedly bad health care plan that protects the corporations while leaving us out in the cold, paying to fatten them while allowing them to continue to delay or deny care.

Her voting record outside of the GOP war is good, though. It's good enough that I will vote for her if she is the party's nominee. Just don't expect me to be happy about it because she is so wrong on such major issues.

[Basileus Basileon]

13. "A whisker to the left of Kucinch?"

While I certainly find her a more-than-acceptable candidate, that's a distortion.

[durrrty libby]

15. That struck me as a tad odd too

[Warpy]

17. Try this site.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/ It's a database of all people currently in office, a record of their votes, and a rating of their votes on progressive issues.

Do your homework and prepare to be surprised. The difference isn't much, but it's there.

[Basileus Basileon]

18. That doesn't seem to be taking into account Rep. Kucinich's habit of

the protest vote or protest non-vote. To take a recent and memorable example, he voted against S-CHIP because it wasn't universal enough for him.

[iverglas]

25. to be scrupulously fair

The votes on which a senator and a representative are scored are somewhat different, I think. That probably shouldn't affect voting scores differently, but it might.

I did check Clinton's and Kucinich's scores on abortion, and his negatively-scored votes date from before his change of mind/heart on that issue, so his historical score on that issue doesn't accurately represent his present policy positions.

[Cameron27]

28. Interesting results:

ALL ISSUE CATEGORIES/Progressive Score (%) Rank

Hillary Clinton------------91.34 15/100

Barack Obama-----------89.02 24/100

Dennis Kucinich----------87.54 118/433T

Chris Dodd---------------86.64 27/100

Joe Biden----------------84.28 31/100

[Warpy]

32. All those numbers are perfectly acceptable, aren't they?

I will have no qualms about voting for the Democratic nominee.

They are all qualified.

[Cameron27]

40. They all got great numbers.

I'm surprised how they ranked though.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. What makes you beleive that Hillary is the most liberal candidate?

:shrug:

[Lerkfish]

23. I don't.

[IndianaJones]

16. where is it claimed that she is the most liberal? nt.

[Lerkfish]

24. in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3686927&mesg_id=3686927

[Clintonista2]

54. Wrong link.

There's no mention of Hillary as the "most liberal candidate" in that thread.

[zbdent]

22. I think it's hilarious that the conservatives try to get people to vote against her

because she "supported" Bush's actions ...

[Lerkfish]

47. well, if nothing else, this thread demonstrates the inability

to answer direct questions and instead get bogged down in the morass of semantics.

again, the core question: why do her supporters treat liberals with contempt, if they want us to think she's a liberal candidate?

honest question, simple, direct.

[Basileus Basileon]

51. Why do you beat your wife? nt

[TwilightZone]

Well, perhaps if your post didn't have an intentionally false assertion as its basis...

it might be taken more seriously.

There is little evidence that her supporters treat liberals with contempt. Obviously, "liberal Democrats" don't think so, because her approval rating among them is more than 80%.

[Clintonista2]

48. Another straw man topic. Brought to you by Lerkfish.

Find me one single post by a Clinton supporter that calls her the "most liberal candidate." Thanks in advance.

[Lerkfish]

52. LOL!

gee, why do you treat me personally with such contempt?
is it because I'm a liberal?

:)

[Basileus Basileon]

55. Oh, there's the problem.

You think that people pointing out your bogus arguments counts as "contempt."

[Clintonista2]

63. Notice he's afraid to respond to calls for proof?

He posted a link as "proof" of his claim. Go take a look at it and see if you can find me one single person claiming she is the "most liberal candidate": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3686927&mesg_id=3686927

[Basileus Basileon]

64. I could, but apparently pointing that out counts as "spam"

as per above.

[Clintonista2]

56. I treat you that way

Because your posts are the most annoying/whiny/hypocritical posts on all of DU.

[Lerkfish]

58. well, as long as you have nothing against me personally

LOL.

[Clintonista2]

59. Alrighty.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Clinton supporters claim she is the "most liberal candidate." Thanks in advance... again.

[cali]

68. This is a hilarious thread

thanks to all who participated. :rofl:

[TwilightZone]

69. Frankly, I have no idea why I bothered.

The goal posts keep moving, and I'm not sure where to aim.

[Lerkfish]

74. yeah, it was an excellent example of calling out the troops and piling on

bravo!

it certainly proved....something.

[TwilightZone]

95. If you can't handle being called on inaccurate assertions...

don't make them in the first place.

This place is not for the thin-skinned.

[Moochy]

99. DEFCON3

source

[cali]

106. I didn't comment on anything but how truly

amusing this thread is. I didn't pile on to anything. I didn't take a position. If you can't see the humor in this thread, which sums up so much of what is funny about DU, you need to lighten up.

[onenote]

73. if HRC supporters treat liberals with contempt, why do liberals support HRC?

Some of those who have endorsed Clinton:

Diane Watson
Sheila-Jackson Lee
Tammy Baldwin
Yvette Clarke
Edolphus Towns
Ron Dellums
John Lewis
Maya Angelou
Eliot Spitzer
Rob Reiner

I take it that the OP's position is that these folks (and the first five are all co-sponsors of Kucinich's cheney impeachment resolution) either are not really liberal or are self-loathing liberals who support a candidate who treats them with contempt.

[Sparkly]

81. Surely they are all fascist pro-corporate neo-con warmongering imperialists.

They might as well be Republicans. I always get Sheila Jackson-Lee and Dick Cheney mixed up. :sarcasm:

[Lerkfish]

84. yup, that is precisely exactly what I said, word for word, accurately rendered

bravo!

and you are hung up on the word "most".

[Sparkly]

87. No, you didn't say that.

At least not in this thread. I was pulling in accusations I've seen too often on DU in general. Didn't mean to imply you said such things here.

[Clintonista2]

94. We know how much you hate innaccuracy!

(After failing to prove that anybody claimed Hillary is "the most liberal candidate running"): "Just bypass the word most."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[onenote]

96. I'm sorry, but where did I say anything about "most"?

You started out talking about claims that HRC is the "most liberal" but you then backed away and demanded that someone address your revised "core" question, which was, as stated in post 27, "if her supporters claim she is liberal, then why do they hold liberals in contempt?"

I addressed this core question with my own question: if HRC's supporters hold liberals in contempt, why is it that she has liberal supporters?

Either you think the folks I listed who support HRC aren't "liberals" or you think that they support HRC even though they are "held in contempt" by other HRC supporters and/or themselves.

[TwilightZone]

97. I suspect that the OP believes that "Hillary supporter" and "liberal" are mutually exclusive.

That's about the only way that the rest of the assertions work.

[Lerkfish]

118. actually, that's the first reasonable point you're making.

and the answer is that the distinction arises from both ends. Clinton supporters USUALLY define Clinton as "centrist" and separate from the "looney left" and the left-leaning liberals define her as "centrist" and separate from themselves. In the thread I was referring to, there is a change in how clinton is represented by her supporters.


so in that regard, yes, that is my assumption and yes that is why the assertions "work".

[TwilightZone]

126. Oh, please.

That assertion is even more ridiculous than the one you made in the OP. Clinton isn't centrist, and her supporters on DU, with a few exceptions, do NOT define her as such. It's been pointed out countless times that organizations like Progressive Punch and ontheissues.org define her as a progressive or as a liberal. Her supporters have linked to those sites more times than I care to count.

If you really believe that everyone who supports Clinton is a centrist, you're in some seriously deep denial.

By the way, it took you four hours to come up with that?

[Lerkfish]

143. unlike some, I'm not constantly online, nor am I paid to post for a candidate as an operative

I have a real life.

[Sparkly]

76. Two Strawmen.

1. Anti-Liberals claim HRC is "the most liberal candidate"
2. HRC supporters who claim HRC is "the most liberal candidate" treat liberals with "contempt."

[uppityperson]

77. Sorry Lerk, I agree, leave out the "most" and it'd work.

Try again with the change. Not "the most liberal candidate" but "liberal candidate" or even "will be most liberal president".

[Lerkfish]

80. sure, do it again without the term "most"

too late for me to change the op to reflect that.

however, the distraction of that one word does not negate the thrust of the main question.

[Basileus Basileon]

82. It's still a bogus question.

Hillary supporters don't treat liberals with contempt. Perhaps individual Hillary supporters treat other individual liberals with contempt, but that is hardly incompatible with Hillary's liberalism. It might just be that one or both of the persons in question are assholes.

[uppityperson]

85. There are no bogus questions.

[Basileus Basileon]

88. Sure there are.

"Have you stopped beating your wife," asked of a man who has never abused anyone, is a bogus question.
"What color is the King of France's hair" is a bogus question.
"How did you orchestrate the Holocaust," asked to a 12-year-old in 2007, is a bogus question.
"Why do Hillary supporters treat liberals with contempt" is a bogus question for similar reasons.

[Lerkfish]

123. fallacious argument

because the other items in your list are false does not automatically make my assertion false.

you ordered the list, after all, and you chose obviously bogus questions.

you've posted a classic strawman fallacy.

[Basileus Basileon]

129. While I appreciate

that you are aware of basic logical fallacies, you are slightly too hasty to characterize things as strawmen. I was not suggesting you had said anything of the sort; I was simply arguing against the notion that there is "no such thing as a bogus question."

Moving on, all four questions are bogus, and all four are bogus for the same reason--they are requesting more information about a nonexistent phenomenon.

[uppityperson]

149. Nope, none are fraudulent or fake. All are qestions, all have answers.

Bogus is a fraudulent or fake. There are all questions, but not fake ones. Not fraudulent either. Not particularily leading to any sort of decent discussion, but they are all true questions.

I will try to answer them.
1. I don't have a wife.
2. Which King of France? (there have been kings)
3. Depends on the circumstances asked. For instance in schoolwork, to get the kids to think about how it might have happened, seems like a good question.
4. I don't know, since there are all sorts of Hillary supporters, I am not going to say they all do anything altogether.

See? (that "see?" is a question in my mind, since I asked for an answer and had a question mark ending, if spoken, would have said the "ee" part on an upswing to make sure you knew it was a question.

mmmmm, pie.

[Lerkfish]

86. so, you are not treating me with contempt in this thread?

just want to clarify.

[Basileus Basileon]

91. Nope. I'm pointing out flaws in your argument.

Your liberalism is not a shield that protects you from being told you are wrong.

Plus, I'm not a Hillary backer. I try to treat all candidates evenly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3689387&mesg_id=3689897
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3689422&mesg_id=3689865

On edit: I am perhaps beginning to view you with contempt. That has nothing to do with your liberalism.

[Sparkly]

92. How about this...

Let's say for the sake of argument that some (or most or all) HRC supporters consider her a liberal; that some (or most or all) of them treat some liberals with contempt.

Does it necessarily follow that they treat liberals with contempt BECAUSE those people are liberals?

Are they necessarily contemptuous of liberalism?

[Lerkfish]

120. what I think is happening, and why I ask the question

is that it seems to me that usually clinton supporters delineate themselves from liberals, and indentify themselves and their candidate as "centrist"
When that happens, they delineate themselves from the "looney left" with derision and contempt.

However, occasionally, as happened today and in a separate thread, they identify her as a liberal candidate.

My question goes to why are both these assertions being made about the same candidate, and further, how is being liberal a positive claim made by the same people who normally put down liberal causes.

that's why I asked the question and why I said it doesn't seem to add up.

[Basileus Basileon]

132. Okay, because that's not what I'm seeing at all.

Where are the Clinton supporters laughing at "liberals?" You still haven't even remotely proven that's happening.

[Lerkfish]

142. we disagree on that, obviously.

that doesn't make my opinion bullshit and yours golden.

The truth likely lies in the middle.

[Sparkly]

152. "Liberal" vs. "Centrist"

I haven't seen what you're describing, which isn't to say it hasn't happened.

I don't think Clinton is as rightwing or "centrist" as some DUers say she is, nor is she the "extreme liberal" the RNC portrays her to be. She's pretty much like the other major Democratic contenders.

So, I see different people saying different things about her, but if one person says she's liberal (meaning it as a positive) and then puts down liberalism, that's weird. (I hope you call them on it when it happens!)

I suggest some people may believe she's liberal (as a positive), but disagree with people who self-identify as "Proud Loony Left" (or some such description) and are hostile to Clinton, and/or who are obnoxious for reasons other than politics.

I don't know, because I haven't seen or picked up on the discussions you're referring to.

[MethuenProgressive]

90. If flame bait OPs are against DU rules, why do Mods allow them to stay up?

Unless there's a sub-clause regarding certain candidates in the fine print?

[TwilightZone]

93. Occasionally, they serve a purpose that is quite unintentional.

This may be one of those times.

[durrrty libby]

105. This thread is hilariously ironic. It is the OP and company who treat

Hillary supporters, DU and Skinner with contempt

Just go visit their "progressive" site and enjoy the funny


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Edit to add...Anyone who doesn't have the link, PM me . Their holier than thou righteous indignation
is a hoot and a testament to hypocrisy

[LanternWaste]

98. a number of supporters of all candidates acts disingenuously...

If it were only the supporters of Sen. Clinton doing that, I would give your statement credibility.

However, it seems to me that a number of supporters of all candidates (each one of whom considers themselves the "most" liberal) acts disingenuously, illustrates contempt for all other candidates, and engage in righteous (yet false) concern.

That only one candidate is the subject/target is a thing that adds up to an even greater and more porous inconsistency.


Yet as we get closer to the actual primary election, I suppose I will see an even greater amount of... righteous concern.

[Rowdyboy]

100. If she was running for president of DU, you might have a point....But she isn't....

And since you've already backtracked in earlier posts, the whole thread is a joke.

March 5th can't get here soon enough for me. When our nominee is chosen, trashy shit like this thread will stop.

[Lerkfish]

110. "trashy shit"

I'd have to disagree with you, respectfully.

[TwilightZone]

104. 81% of liberal Democrats approve of Hillary.

So, are those 81% treating themselves with contempt?

Quite a trick, that.

[Lerkfish]

119. link?

I'd like to investigate the source and methodology of those statistics. thanks.

[TwilightZone]

124. Link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3572005

[Lerkfish]

127. thank you very much! honestly.

I had not seen that previously.

I still stand by the validity of my question, however, and that poll doesn't address it.
My question, again, (and you can take out the word "most" if you prefer)

is if Clinton is a liberal candidate, why do her supporters treat liberals with contempt.

as you can see, your statistic has no bearing whatsoever on my question.

nice of you to provide the data, though, I appreciate it.

[TwilightZone]

128. That makes zero sense.

If many of her supporters are liberals (which they obviously are, based on that and other polls), the basis for your argument is invalidated.

Liberals aren't treating liberals with contempt because they're liberals.

Of course, what you apparently really mean is that Hillary supporters are treating you with contempt and that you believe that you represent all liberals. That seems to be a rather common theme around here. My personal experience must be indicative of everyone's.

[Lerkfish]

138. no, I'm referring to DU

not the poll you cited.

[Lerkfish]

109. thanks everyone for participating in the thread

I got no substantive answers, but I did get the fun of navigating a mine field.


I guess the point I really wanted to make is that if Clinton supporters want us to view her as a liberal candidate, they'd have more luck if they treated other liberals and liberal issues with a little more respect. Otherwise, it seems hypocritical.

[TwilightZone]

111. You received plenty of substantive answers.

You just chose to ignore them.

[Lerkfish]

121. ok, I will grant you I received answers but not to the question

I was most concerned about.
Its not ignoring answers when they don't address my question... its waiting for answers to my question.

[Basileus Basileon]

134. You have. The only appropriate answer is

"that is not actually happening."

[cali]

112. remember

only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocricy.

More to the point you made a lousy argument, with zero supporting evidence for your assertions, and you got called on it.

[durrrty libby]

113. You nailed it. Now pardon him while he runs home

to discuss with true "progressives":P

[Lerkfish]

117. I fail to see your point.

and I fail to see the purpose of flaming me personally.

I asked a valid and very direct question, which devolved into semantic minutiae which occluded the point, perhaps intentionally.

What I saw was a group of people, the usual suspects, who piled on and tried to drown out a message they are apparently uncomfortable with.

the original question remains valid, direct, and avoided by the same people piling on.

[durrrty libby]

137. "flaming " you? Do tell.........how so?

[cali]

157. you don't seem to be aware that you made an assertion

with no supporting evidence- unless you count "because I say so"- as evidence. You won't get serious answers with such an arrogant OP.

[Lerkfish]

116. I disagree

I posted several links illustrating my point and I continue to make the same assertions.
I fail to see anything in my posting that was hypocritical whatsoever.

I didn't get called on anything, in my view, I saw a lot of people avoiding a direct question by attacking me personally, against DU rules, I might add.

[Balbus]

122. Of course you disagree..

You've been thoroughly and irrefutably embarrassed in your own thread. That natural response for someone in your condition would be to keep shouting, "I disagree, I disagree, I disagree..." to give the impression that you still have some cognizant argument to support your original, albeit wrong, observation.

But you don't. You're done. You're finished. Gather what remains of your dignity and live to fight another day, maybe disguising your intent a tad bit differently. Until then, I'm sorry. I do pity you.

[Lerkfish]

125. I disagree because I have a different perception. Your post assumes

I agree with your perception and am embarrassed. Frankly, I am not embarrassed, and have nothing to be embarrassed about. therefor, I disagree with your perception.


I asked a valid question. I am not embarrassed to do so. I posted links demonstrating how I arrived at the question. A great many people went to great lengths to either avoid the question or make ad hominem attacks. If you will but reread the thread, you will see that is the case.

Who should be embarrassed are those who piled on and tried to drown out the question because they are afraid to answer it.

my integrity is intact, and so is my dignity.

you can keep your pity. Thanks for offering it, though, and doing so while disguising your intent.

[rinsd]

130. Ya know what else is against DU rules.

Plotting open disruption and attacking DUers from other websites.

[Basileus Basileon]

131. I'm rather surprised people from there are allowed to post here,

considering that they crow openly about how good they are at disrupting.
(I tried to register to ask where they got a number of specific beliefs about me. I was polite and respectful. I was banned in five minutes, with my posts deleted. Nice folks.)

[durrrty libby]

151. It's a wacky therapy group over there. Maybe it helps save a few pets from

getting kicked. I hope so, otherwise it is useless trash spewed onto our planet

[Lerkfish]

139. well, I should be ok, then, because I'm not doing that.

[rinsd]

141. Well that will be for the mods to decide.

[Lerkfish]

144. obviously.

no argument there.

where you are having problems is that I am not
"sowing discord".

I have been a member here for many years, with thousands of posts. I also post at other sites, where I have very few posts.

I think the problem you're having, is that unless someone promises undying fealty to your candidate, you consider it "discord", because in your view, you'd prefer to purge this site of anyone who is not a clinton supporter.

The concept of "discord" implies a certain fascist utopian view of only one point of view that is allowable.

This is a democratic board, and the primaries are not over. Therefore, the desire to have everyone follow in lockstep behind your candidate is antithetical to democratic thinking.

"discord" indeed.

[cali]

160. sure you're not. riigghht.

and you're being picked on by skinner and tag teamed, too. too funny. you run over there to start a thread about how evil DUers are picking on you, even as you proclaim that you don't post much there. that's not true. you post plenty over there. and unfortunately, just like here only even more so, you make up completely silly stuff.

[cali]

158. LOL!

you really are a hoot. You set up an attack in the form of a question, and you're shocked, shocked I tell you, when people see what you're up to. You need to improve your technique. Or not. As I said, this thread's funny as hell.

[Kingshakabobo]

114. I turned in to a mine field because you got called on bullshit - and you know it.

[Lerkfish]

115. actually, I disagree

there was no bullshit from me. honestly.
I posted links to illustrate what I was talking about and I asked a direct question.

the only bullshit was people arguing over exact terms and definitions. The core question is still valid: if people who support clinton tout her as liberal, why do those same people treat liberals with contempt?

No bullshit from me, my friend.

I'm being honest as a heart attack.

[Basileus Basileon]

133. And again, that question is bullshit.

Who are "those same people" who are treating liberals with contempt as they tout Clinton as a liberal?

[Lerkfish]

145. *looks around thread*

gee, I have no idea.

I'm shocked to learn there is gambling going on at this establishment.

[antiimperialist]

135. Only ignorant misinformed Americans (which are the majority) think that way

Barack Obama and John Edwards are more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

[JackORoses]

136. yeah, her and Joe Lieberman are both shining examples of Liberalism

[Lerkfish]

140. precisely. They are made from the same DLC cloth, so therefore

there is a logical disconnect in referring to her as a liberal candidate.

I'm fine with correctly calling her a centrist candidate, which she is.

I don't understand portraying her as liberal, or what is to be gained from doing so.

[ShortnFiery]

147. As long as the Corporate M$M runs our news, they will repeat this Big Lie until we all

believe it. :crazy:

[Sparkly]

150. Which other Democratic candidates do you see as not liberal? nt

[Lerkfish]

153. Obama, on the issue of war in Iraq, saber rattling against Iran.

I also don't like his recent flap with the homophobic minister.

Not completely wild about Edwards, though he's getting a lot better at coming around on the issues I care about.

I prefer Kucinich in terms of his stand on most of my important issues, and because he's standing up to the BFEE.

Biden has some good points as well.

[Sparkly]

154. But are they "centrists," too?

I just don't think they're very different from each other, with the exception of Kucinich. Biden is to the right of the top three. If one of the top three is "centrist," then it follows that the other two are, as well. That's how I see it, anyway.

[cuke]

159. DK is standing up to the BFEE?

How?

AFAICT, * is still there

[ClarkUSA]

148. Actually, Obama has the most liberal voting record in 2006 according to National Journal

"In fact, Obama's voting record is the most liberal of any candidate, according to a National Journal analysis.
Obama's score of 84.3% in the Journal's ratings formula, tops even that of Representative Dennis Kucinich,
who was considered the most liberal Democratic presidential candidate in 2004."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071106/us_time/obamasredstateappeal

As for why her supporters treat liberals with such contempt, I have a feeling that any such behavior will
chnage now that this poll came out suggesting liberal support for Clinton is on the rise:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3690083&mesg_id=3690083

[LWolf]

155. Good point.

Of course, I don't consider her a liberal, regardless of how anybody spins it.

[rucky]

156. A: Because they'll say anything that seems advantageous at the time. n/t

[Lerkfish]

162. you may be right.

[Perry Logan]

161. Why do Hillary-haters love to ask questions based on false premises?