You so called "moderates" keep spoiling our fun

[boolean]

I always see a "debate" around here about what it means to be moderate, about what the definition of liberal and moderate is. Here.

If you are against gay marriage, you are not a moderate, you are a bigot.

If you don't believe in free healthcare for all, regardless of one's income, you are not a moderate, you are uncaring and selfish.

If you support the war in Iraq ala Joe Lieberman "because it's the right thing to do", you are not a moderate, you are a chickenhawk warmonger.

If you don't think Bush, Cheney, and many others should be impeached because you would rather have everyone work together like in some fucking episode of Sesame Street, you are not a moderate, you are a coward.

If you think there should be no limits or checks or regulations on who can own a gun, where one can purchase a gun, what type of gun one can own, or how one can purchase a gun, you are not a moderate, you are a lunatic.

If you are against stem cell research because of some superstitious religious belief, you are not a moderate, you are uncompassionate, hypocritical, and ignorant.

If you are against taxing the rich because you think the market is perfect and capitalism works 100% for the benefit of everyone, you are not a moderate, you are an asshole.

Finally,

If you call yourself a moderate, but you voted for the GOP in this election, you are not a moderate, you are a lying freeper troll.

[msongs]

1. thanks for sharing : -) nt

[Dogmudgeon]

2. If you're not with us, you're a terrorist

Oh, wait a minute, that's Bush's particular form of fanaticism.

--p!

[The Count]

5. Any specific point you disagree with? A good debate lies within this post.

[Dogmudgeon]

173. That depends ...

If the OP was ironic satire, mine added to it. If it was written "straight", then it was to remind everyone (myself in particular) that fanaticism isn't just the other guys' problem.

There's a whole lot of ranting on political chat systems, and it's tough to tell where much of it comes from.

A lot of what fanatics believe is based on fear in some way. Hatred of gays, for example, is based on a lot of irrational fears. Raging at homophobes the same way homophobes rage at gays is a worthless gesture; it's much easier and more effective to educate them, even a little at a time.

And, incidentally, I'm a victim of anti-gay violence myself. I was nearly killed by a gay-basher 22 years ago, during the Reagan regime. It should be noted that I'm not gay. My own sexuality is of no consequence, but a lot of straights feel that they're somehow exempt from anti-gay violence -- I can tell them, unambiguously, that they're NOT.

The Radical Religious Right has cultivated a large number of hatreds and dreads, and having a whole cabal of them in power has been a most frightening thing. But we have to be vigilant, ourselves, to avoid the same "emotional plague".

This past week has been extremely fortunate and has led to healthy change. We have to keep that trend in place. Laughing at our own foibles is one of the best forms of political hygiene we have -- one that the Radical Religious Right lacks.

--p!

[Lucky Luciano]

10. I was thinking the same thing...

As for healthcare...impossible if we waste 576385628972534658927346 dollars on war.
Gun laws - I am indifferent...I doubt gun laws will change crime levels much. People will still get guns. I agree wityh Michael Moore in his Bowling for Columbine - his thesis was not so much that guns were the problem - his thesis was based more on a culture of fearmongering that we live in - that is the problem....and unfortunately, I cannot think of a law that would end the fearmongering.

[hfojvt]

197. given our homicide and violent crime rate - fear seems logical

I really doubt if all the drive-bys, homicides, and armed robberies and rapes are inspired by fear. More likely by revenge, hatred and greed. Not sure why we have more of this than Canada, but there is this thing called the "American Dream" - of becoming rich and powerful. What do Canadians dream about? Also our social safety net sucks as Moore showed when he looked for a poor Canadian neighborhood. I think alot of it falls more on our drug war than it does on fear-mongering. Does Canada have a similar drug war?

[The Count]

3. A first of what will be many - recommend

Nicely put. I can't wait to see a debate. Unfortunately, I agree with you on all, so, none from me.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[warrens]

6. Where'd you find THAT straw man?

Is there a store somewhere that sells them? Wanna point to a post where someone took those positions and claimed they were a moderate?

[The Count]

11. It's actually a good starting point for a discussion. So, you do agree with

the points in the OP, but consider yourself a moderate for other reasons. And they are?

[spoony]

120. I'm apparently a moderate because

I believe in the second amendment RKBA, I don't think tarring and feathering and/or revenge is a productive use of our time, I don't like all the laughing at Santorum's kids, oh and I have "superstitious" religious beliefs.

[warrens]

129. No, I'm a liberal

I just want us to keep the eye on the prize, which is keeping control of the government, not running off screeching about a guy we can castrate and hang on the wall. And the idea that moderates want unlimited gun sales is silly, along with all the rest. I am pro-gun, but anti-gun show. I want access to guns, but I don't want crack gangs to have unlimited access to automatic weapons, for instance.

You set up a straw man. That is not a basis for a discussion, it's flame bait.

[LittleClarkie]

180. I'm a moderate to some

Depends on who's lookin' at me.

[KyndCulture]

7. This commie pinko hippie liberal..

LOVED IT!

K and R.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. You called? -nt

[Lucky Luciano]

123. LOL

[javelina]

8. This is pretty hardcore here...

Thanks for sharing ;)

[GreenPartyVoter]

58. Welcome to DU

[Selatius]

9. Most DUers would be classified as liberal even by your standards

I am sure there are some people here who disagree, but that's the nature of people.

[TahitiNut]

100. That's the conundrum. When examined, the vast majority of DUers

... are truly Liberal, despite their OWN claims to the contrary. It's evidence of the success in making 'liberal' a bad word, imho, when people run from the word, ally themselves with autocrats whose attitudes are inimical with all of our interests and call themselves 'moderates' of 'centrists.'

Here's a survey I ran a couple of years ago. To whatever degree this has changed, it's not evident in the repeated threads where folks take the Political Compass survey and are honest enough to post their results. While I strongly suspect the "concern trolls" and other sleepers are far less than honest in portraying their allegiances, one whole slew of DUers seem to be far less attuned to what it means to be Liberal than they might think.





Perhaps it's time to briefly summarize. A liberal isn't after self-interest at the cost of ANYONE. A liberal is, first and foremost, opposed to the victimization of ANY minority (including the wealthy) as a result of the populism of majority rule. That's why liberals steadfastly support the ACLU and defense of the human rights and civil liberties of even the most reprehensible. A liberal strongly supports individual civil liberties and egalitarian participation in our political, social, and economic systems. It's a matter of Justice. Those who benefit the MOST should bear the greater burdens of paying for the very system that benefit them disproportionally. NOBODY should do without, least of all those whose labors and services are the foundation upon which our common wealth is built.

Conservatives, and neoconservatives in particular, are for privileges and entitlements for those already most advantaged! They seem indoctrinated into the ages-old mindset that their advantages are "God's will" and "God's way of saying" they're BETTER - claiming some supernatural "right" to more power, more money, more comfort, and more everything. That's why we see the divisions we're seeing.


Conservatives 'hate' liberals for one and only one ages-old reason: they think they have a (super)natural 'RIGHT" (entitlement, actually) to the sweeter fruits and greater powers - and they see liberals as a threat to their privileges. So, instead of being intellectually honest, they project upon liberals their own predatory worldview - might makes right.

[seabeyond]

12. sooo, if one doesnt agree with you, you call them a name?

wow.... you have your world view all mapped out for you and EVERYONE else.

not that i agree or disagree with any of your positions, it is how you wrote them, with no option for thining, or grey, .... just pure black and white,... and that is the END.

whatever

[The Count]

13. name calling aside, what do you disagree on?

[gatorboy]

14. You seem to be egging on a debate.

Why don't you start one for us. :)

[The Count]

117. OP started it. I agree with his points. Like Cali's too.

[seabeyond]

21. i disagree that there is only one way for a person to see something or they are a

whatever name you called them. as far as going thru each issue and discussing them, what my view may be.... i will leave it. no desire to. but i do know that a person may look at health care and think there are other ways of dealing with the issue without national health care, and doesnt mean they are uncaring. per kerry,.... his suggestion with healthcare made a lot of sense and something i looked forwaqrd to. but it is a HUGE issue with discussion back and forth, not a simple, universal health care or you are uncaring...... bullshit.

[seabeyond]

23. btw... per your title, us moderates are STILL spoiling your fun, huh?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. I completely agree. the word liberal has been misconstrued.

Liberals are compassionate, open minded, sensible folks.

Own the word!

[seabeyond]

22. and this post doesnt help the misconstrued at all. open?

this person says it must be one way or else you are an ass? and that is open? that is funny

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. its reframing a debate...if you are against gays getting married you are a bigot

not a moderate...

if you dont want every american to have access to healthcare you are cruel

i dont see how anyone can disagree with that

[seabeyond]

37. of course you dont see how anyone can disagree, ergo, you wont

ever listen, so then you will not understand HOW someone can disagree with you without them OBVIOUSLY being cruel. that is a closed mind

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. not really. i have heard the debate against both these things.

and i think one is based in bigotry the other in cruelty.

[seabeyond]

97. tell me the repercussions of universal health care. since you are

knowledgable and have listened should be easy for you. you took into consideration the down side of universal health care and still came on its side. now remember, i have not stated my belief, so i may agree with you. but, since a person in your words are cruel if they do not agree with you, i want to hear what the downside is in universal health care.

[ThomCat]

183. You just proved her point.

You're looking for the costs of healthcare so that you can argue that they're too expensive. She clearly believes that whatever those costs, they are less expensive that poor health and the early deaths of so many uninsured and underinsured people.

You want to do the math and decide which option you like more. We want people to have healthcare, whatever the cost.

Congratulations. That makes you the better politician, but it also makes you heartless. She wins this debate.

[seabeyond]

189. you are arguing something i was not discussing

downside of universal health care, repercussions of universal health care is not simply in cost. i wasnt even thinking of money. there is so much more to the subject, firstly

secondly you had a whole argument by yourself and concluded i was cruel without knowing the first thing about my personal beliefs.

and lastly, I doubt she has spent much time studying the subject to fully know if there are even downsides, hence her easy judgment call that if one doesnt believe in universal health care they must be cruel.

there are so many options we can do to make the healthcare work for all of us. and that isnt cruel. that is smart.

[Telly Savalas]

193. That's a false choice.

Every other Western industrialized nation has universal health care and every other Western industrialized nation spends less per capita on health care than the U.S.

[ThomCat]

195. True. I'm not arguing that.

I've never said or implied that the cost of healthcare would be too high, just that people who look for cost comparisons as a justification for not providing healthcare are being unethical.

And, even if the cost of healthcare was higher, it would still be worth it because people's heath and lives are worth it.

[ThomCat]

55. No, I think it's the "moderates" who don't listen.

They keep putting off any consideration of civil rights for GLBT people into the distant future, which never arrives and then call us inflexible.

They keep insisting that healthcare is too expensive and too cumbersome to reforme, but ignore all the places where it work, and it works more efficiently and inexpensively than here in the US. But then we're called closed minded.

I agree with the orignal post 100%. At some point you have to draw a line and say, if you won't finally support these causes now then you just don't support these causes.

And I think you owe Lioness an apology for the insulting tone of your response to her.

[alarimer]

68. Those who do not want civil rights for gays

are the same as those who thought black people also shouldn't have full rights. "It's too soon" "It will cost us the election". Bigots in other words.

I think the majority of Americans will wake up on this issue sooner or later. Hey, if Mexico City (not a notable bastion of liberalism) can offer civil unions, why the hell can't we?

The majority of Americans also are not moderate (by the definition of the original poster). When asked specific questions on health care, the environment, etc, their opinions reflect liberal or progressive positions, even if they don't call themselves liberals. That word has been so demonized that people call themselves "moderates" to avoid being labeled liberal, when, in fact, they are liberal.

[ThomCat]

77. Agreed.

The political scale has been pushed so far to the right that our "moderates" would either be considered far-right almost anywhere else in the world, or else they're just clueless people with no strong opinions.

[seabeyond]

90. many want all the same right as heterosexual and advocate it

they state that it be called civil union. respectfuly every gay i have spoken to rejects that idea. and i do mean respectfully. because i would not dare say, they need to think as i , a non gay. i will leave it to them to decide if it is acceptable or not. (does that make me a bigot, or wanting civil rights denied or all the people that purpose this as a solution, as wanting civil rights denied when it is absolutely about instilling civil rights that have been denied)

again, you do not know my position, but..... i am challenging if gay marriage is not sought after, then they are bigots

btw: i have no problem with getting a divorce, and suffering with gay brothers and sisters without rights, to advance the cause, and have told hubby that if a call went out we would do it. slap the religious right in the face in destruction of marriage giving them exactly what they bitch about, because of them.

but even with that, you still do not know my position.

[napi21]

95. You mentioned that national health care works well in so many

other places, but people in the US are always saying it's too expensive to do here.
I canonly speak to one place because my son lives there. He lives in Italy. Yes they have national health care, and also a livable retirement payment for every citizen, however there are quite a few differences in Italy compared to the US, and I'm really not surewe are prepared to accept THAT MUCH CHANGE.

First, across the board, their taxes are 65% of their income. The money to pay for all those benefits.

Second, as a population, they don't hold doctors in the high regard they are held here. A dr. in Italy will likely earn $35,000-$45,000 a year. Can you imagine the Drs in the US accepting that?

Ihave no idea when, Italy or any other Country, started their national health care systems, or what things were like prior to the establishment of those systems. I suspect there was NEVER a time when Drs, hospitals, etc. had the high lifestyle enjoyed by many here in the US, so they never had to be knocked down. I simply can't see how we in the US could ever do that.

[seabeyond]

99. how cruel. nap, you are just cruel. why do you hate people?

[napi21]

101. oh, I guess I'm just amean, crabby old lady! n/t

[seabeyond]

104. and certainly not a democrat. go vote repug, wink.......

you do know, i am so teasing, lovin the pragmatic (facts) you.......

[napi21]

133. Oh, I know you're kidding. I really am a crabby old lady sometimes

though! The Pubs do that to me!

[seabeyond]

135. i am a bitch sometimes

isnt it fun getting old. lol lol totally embrace who we are, the good bad and ugly

[hfojvt]

210. "I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it NOW!!!"

Sorry, just a Queen song I recently discovered.

But, "which never arrives"? Look at the last 30 years. Are you saying there has been no progress, none, on GLBT issues?

Don't support what causes? What about my causes? I am a Democrat because I fight for the working class. All of the working class, including GLBT's who are in the working class. Pragmatically, I think a candidate should put working class issues over GLBT issues because the working class is a larger group, and sure I must be an a$$hole for caring more about issues that affect me personally instead of caring about issues that affect you personally. Plus I would rather have a candidate who supports 70% of my issues and wins than one who supports 100% and gets trounced.

Was there a working class issue in the OP?

[ThomCat]

217. No, I'm not saying the time never arrives.

I'm saying that those of us who work and fight Make the time arrive. If we were left to the Moderates that time would never arrive.

The history of civil rights and all activist causes bears this out.

I agree that class issues need to be addressed. But if other issues aren't addressed too then mechanisms end up being built in that excude people, and guess who those groups are that always get excluded? It's no surprise that affirmative action benefited white women more than it benefited any people of color. It's no suprise that white men benefitted from the GI bill more than people of color.

Any attempt to address class without also addressing other issues ends up excluding people and helping to reinforce bigoted differences.

[seabeyond]

81. wrong place

[Occulus]

128. I read further down

nevermind

[rinsd]

149. "i dont see how anyone can disagree with that"

LOL...that's the point.

Taking into account differenbt views without assigning some evil agenda lurking behind every decision is what liberals do.

What the OP wants is blind partisanship.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

153. its not being partisan at all. its hardly like all dem leaders support these positions

[hfojvt]

200. what I disagree with

is the idea that name calling is either a) a strong argument or b) good at winning hearts and minds of opponents, or even allies who are not in 100% agreement with you. Not a good reframing, and what is the point - to have a pogrom to weed out the impure? Eventually it will be a party of one. You goto an election with the voters you have, not the voters you want. We need reframing that brings more people in, not one that says 'agree or you're an a$$hole.'

[cali]

16. Let's see:

I believe strongly in marriage for all.

I believe in affordable healthcare for all- not necessarily free healthcare.

I'm adamently against the Iraq war and have been since before the IRW.

I think investigations and actual evidence come before impeachment, and if you don't grasp that, you're a few cards short of a deck or so eaten up by revenge you can't think straight.

I think additional gun restrictions should be on a state basis. I live in Vermont which has one of the lowest murder rates in the country, and is one of the least restrictive regarding gun laws. Leave us the fuck alone. And yeah, the vast majority of Vermont liberals feel that way- including Bernie.

I'm staunchly pro stem cell research- including federal funding.

I believe the estate tax must stay and tax cuts and loop holes for the wealthy must go.

I don't like nasty polemics or name calling.

So what am I?

[seabeyond]

42. I believe in affordable healthcare for all- not necessarily free healthcare

then you are CRUEL. there can be no other way if you are liberal. period. dontcha know

[robbedvoter]

64. You are the best reply in the thread. Also proof that real Dems

are far less apart than we thought.

[cali]

67. I don't know about that, but thanks n/t

[OneBlueSky]

17. gee . . . name-calling is SO productive . . . not! . . . n/t

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. The OP is VERY specific about who gets name-called.

Basically, those deserving thereof.

[seabeyond]

45. bah hahaha.... lol repugs always feel they have a reason to name call

personally i just see it as a way to shut people up so one doesnt have to do any thinking. never been impressed with that type of arguing.... further, mama always taught me......name calling just was not nice. nor productive

glad our side (the liberals) are able to justify the behavior

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. nice one!!

:hi:

[originalpckelly]

18. I'm not a coward, I'm just aware that pesky thing called reality...

"If you don't think Bush, Cheney, and many others should be impeached because you would rather have everyone work together like in some fucking episode of Sesame Street, you are not a moderate, you are a coward."

In reality, we cannot convict him and get him out without 15 Republicans. In reality Speaker Pelosi promised the American people no impeachment. In reality, we did not have a mandate for liberals, but just for people whom were less corrupt and not unquestioning of the idiot, and a mandate for populism.

Come back to reality, and we'll talk. If you want to live in la la land, keep going with that train of thought.

You need to a cool dose of reality, because if you and my other friends around don't get it soon, you'll fuck this up for us, just like the Republicans did.

[Clark2008]

25. And, in reality, every state with gay marriage on the ballot,

except for Arizona, voted overwhelmingly against it.

Is that right? Probably not (and I voted, in my state, against the ban). But the fact remains that it's obviously something that shouldn't be pushed as hard.

I think we should strive toward equality based on civil unions first - baby steps. For example, it took a full hundred years after the Civil War before the Civil Rights Movement helped give black people more rights and that battle continues today.

And, just because I believe in baby steps, instead of forcing change at what is metophorically the barrel of a gun, doesn't make me less a liberal. It makes me pragmatic for the good of all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. yes but are you personally against gay marriage

not putting it as our first priority for pragmatic reasons maybe practical

but being personally against it says something about you

[Critters2]

75. He says he voted against the ban. Just trying to be fair. nt

[Clark2008]

115. She...

But, no... I am not personally for the ban. I voted against the ban in Tennessee - so did my husband and our families - we were one of the measely 18 percent who did.

My point is that the country seems not ready for it, probably for a variety of reasons, not just bigotry (some religious people who are otherwise NOT bigots, simply cannot separate what they've been taught from what is just and fair in politial terms, for example). My suggestion is baby steps - moving the American psyche forward so that it realizes that banning marriage for one minority could translate into banning marriage for other minorities; allowing for civil unions and continuing education.

We'll always, sadly, have bigots, but, as seen by this last election in which Democrats won, but support for gay marriage failed - miserably - we have a long way to go because, obviously, even left-leaning folks were voting for Democrats as they were voting against gay marriage (odd, isn't it?)

[readmoreoften]

155. The only reason why this country isn't "ready for it" is because of bigotry.

And almost ALL the Defense of Marriage Amendments ban civil unions. The marriage vs civil unions claptrap is a complete strawman argument. No one gives a shit what it's called. DOMAs are pretty much a referendum on how widely a population hates gay people.

I wonder if a referendum against interracial marriage would pass in some states. It doesn't mean that if 60% of people in Tennessee think interracial marriage should be banned that it should be banned either. If the majority is oppressing the liberty of a minority population than the majority is wrong.

The embarrassing true is that Mexico and South Africa have now surpassed the United States in protecting the rights of gays and lesbians.

[Solon]

163. If that was the attitude of the Supreme Court in the 1960s...

Then interracial marriages would have been illegal till at least the 1990s, when America finally had 51% of people approve of it.

[we can do it]

185. Sorry, But It Is Simply Bigotry, No Matter How You Package It

Imposing one's religion on another is un-american, and perpetuating lies is just wrong.

[alarimer]

74. Those margins are getting closer all the time

A lot of those marriage bans passed but with smaller margins than in 2004, for example. I think that means people are changing. Sooner or later we will be able to overturn those bans. It may take time but we can't stop trying. Our platform ought to be equal rights for all.

[Critters2]

76. Yep, these bans will be overturned as certainly as Plessy was overturned.

It's inevitable.

[Critters2]

73. An impeachment is a trial, with the opportunity to present evidence

There's good reason to think * has broken laws, and no reason no to try him on that. But now that the cowards have said we won't, he'll get away with it. That is NOT why I voted for Dems.

[crispini]

19. Flame. Bait.

[ERF]

20. I'll bite on two points:

If you are against gay marriage, you are not a moderate, you are a bigot.

I could honestly care less what two people do in the privacy of their own room, but I am incredibly disturbed by how Karl Rove has used this issue to trounce Democrats and probably cost us the 2004 election. Thus, since it obviously disturbs a large number of people, I would much prefer that the gay community focus on gaining the full rights of marriage without actually calling it "marriage". Have a ceremony, be married in the eyes of the state. Just avoid the term "marriage" which has religious connotations. I think that opinion makes me at least a realist if not a moderate.

If you don't believe in free healthcare for all, regardless of one's income, you are not a moderate, you are uncaring and selfish.


Here my disagreement is with Semantics. Healthcare is never "Free". Universal coverage I agree with. Actually to not want this you not only aren't a moderate, you either work for the pharmaceutical industry, an HMO or are out and out crazy. The US has the worst healthcare system in the rich-world in terms of cost/benefit. It covers fewer people for more money and their health is worse than any other industrialized country. It has nothing to do with the R&D and the scare-mongerers like to compare the system to relatively mediocre systems in English speaking countries when the truly best systems are in Germany, Japan and France (actually the smaller countries have even better, cheaper but I don't think the comparison is valid because of their size).

So in summary, healthcare is never going to be free, but it can be better, universal and cheaper by just doing what other countries have already figured out.

I will also comment on "taxing the rich". I am for having as broad a tax base as possible so everyone has a stake in the system. The rich should pay their fair share, which means payroll taxes beyond 95k and a progressive taxation that goes at least to 45%. But even just getting them to pay the taxes they actually owe would be a good start.

[helderheid]

24. On point one, yes, marriage has religious connotations - it shouldn't be a government issue at ALL.

The government should get out of the marriage business and leave that up to the churches. If two people, any two people, want to be legally joined, let them have a civil union. If they want to be married, have them go to their church to perform the religious ceremony of marriage. The goverment should have NOTHING to do with religious ceremonies.

[ERF]

30. I guess neither of us are moderate then.

[helderheid]

32. I guess not :) This is how they do it in the Netherlands.

No one has a legal marriage in Holland. Everyone has legal civil unions.

[liberal43110]

168. Thanks

Best post here. Peiod.

[eridani]

182. Health care can be free AT THE POINT OF SERVICE--

--just like streets and fire departments are free at the point of service. Of course they cost money to maintain, but the cost is shared. We don't try to stick only people who have fires with the entire cost of maintaining the fire department--neither should we stick only sick people with the cost of maintaining a health care system.

Heavier users might be charged slightly more with co-pays, just as gas taxes put somewhat more of the burden of support of roads on those who drive the most, but that's a different issue.

[sandnsea]

26. If you think you hold the monopoly on truth

you might be George Bush.

[seabeyond]

49. sounding like huh. i am amazed here. maybe it is just the act of gaining

power and control. maybe it had nothing to actually do with the republican party per se

[On the Road]

27. I Might Add:

"If you use the biggest Democratic victory in many years as a stage for excoriating other DUers and accusing them of a bizarre and unlikely set of beliefs, you are a bitter jackass."

[petronius]

152. Good point - too bad it's probably too late for the OP to edit

I'm sure he'd want to add your suggestion... ;)

[Rosemary2205]

28. ROFL

I hope that didn't keep you up all night. LOL.

[cali]

29. I need to add another comment. Or two.

I think your post has a nasty totalitarian tone too it. And I can't believe this vile OP has 11 recommends.

[ERF]

31. It was Flame bait. Why don't you just pick out a point or two

and rebut.

[AIJ Alom]

33. I'm going to give this poster benefit of the doubt. Seems like

an invitation and the hope to get freepers to respond, unfortunately it's going to attract real Democratic moderates who may take offense and hence lead to another dozen or so moderate vs. liberal threads. I consider myself a moderate and like a fly was drawn to this post.

[Akoto]

35. Sorry, but ...

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

If you're being serious, then I can't really be a party to blanket-labeling folks who have different opinions. That's more the GOP's style, as we've observed over the past several years.

[txindy]

38. LOL! Is that you, George?!

Because Junior's been throwing flamebait like this around for six years. He must've used 'the Googles' to find us.

[ShaneGR]

40. Guess I'm a bigot, lunatic, uncaring, selfish, and a coward.... lol

I'm not necessarily against gay marriage, I think they should be allowed civil unions. Some sort of legal status to allow for access to healthcare plans, lower tax rates, etc etc. But marriage goes over the top and loses us votes in the long run. I would be opposed to a federal ban though, I think its a States issues. Anyways, according to you I'm a bigot. Bummer.

I think the healthcare system needs a HUGE revamp, but universal healthcare for all? That's a tough ticket, and extremely expensive. Personally I think anyone who works 30+ hrs a week should get access to healthcare not just anyone including lazy people sitting on couches. So I'm uncaring and selfish. Sticks and stones!

I think there should be investigations into the leadup to the war in Iraq, if those happen to lead to impeachment then so be it. I don't support starting immediate impeachment proceedings that do nothing but make us look like we're out for revenge, and not trying to govern (like the Repubs did in the late 90s with clinton).

The gun thing is interesting. If you're a law abiding citizen. If you followed the proper channels and paperwork and licensing and background checks I think you should be able to own or collect guns. Any guns. It's called the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution. So I'm a lunatic.


But, I am pro-choice. I'm anti-death penalty. I didnt support Iraq. I am pro labor. I support taxing the rich more and taxing the middle/poor less. I'm white but affirmative action doesn't bother me. I could go on and on about what I agree with from a progressive perspective. You see, I look at the issues ONE BY ONE. I don't group them all together and vote the party line. I'm an open thinker. And by the way, I've voted straight ticket Democrat in every single election I've voted in. So there's your definition of a "moderate" Democrat. Part of what pissed me off about Republican rule for the last six years is that they took so many issues from the FAR RIGHT and shoved it down everyones throat like this was the United States of the Republican Party. I'll be upset if my side decides to govern that way from the FAR LEFT.

[helderheid]

47. Unless you support civil unions for straights too, then yes, you're a bigot.

Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government should have nothing to do with. That goes for straights too.

[ShaneGR]

52. Guess we're gonna need to purge out some of our new House/senate members

Let me see here:

Casey defeats Santorum: Casey is anti-gay marriage.

Web takes out Allen: Doesn't support gay marriage.

Jim Talent of Missouri over Conrad Burns: Guess what, same.

By my count no less than 20 of the new House members oppose it too.

The difference will be, they won't be shoving it down anyones throats. They'll leave it to the states to decide. No piece of anti-gay legislation will pass or even be submitted by the Democratic House or Senate. Or we could go back to Republican rule and start talking about constitutional ammendments. What's it gonna be?

[helderheid]

54. I never said purge them. I also didn't say yes on gay marriage. I said get the government out of

Church business. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Civil unions for ALL.

[ShaneGR]

56. Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand...

I mean, when someone gets married, they walk down to their county government and file their paperwork so they get government marriage rights... mostly specific to taxation and estate planning rights, etc. The same thing that gay people get when they form a civil union... kind of. I'm no expert on it to be honest.

[helderheid]

59. The government currently gives "marriage rights". It shouldn't. Marriage

is a religious ceremony. The government should stop giving "marriage rights". The Government should give civil union rights to ANY couple who wants to be joined legally. Now if that couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony (also gay or straight), they should go to their church and have that ceremony performed. That ceremony should have NOTHING to do with the government and should not award them any legal rights.

I hope this clarifies my position.

[ShaneGR]

65. That's a good point, kind of raises seperation of church and state issues...

But that would also feed the Repugs one hell of a gigantic piece of red meat to base their campaigns around and take back majorities.

Democrats attack marriage! blah blah blah. Same crap they've been hammering us on for 10 years. This cycle focused back on Bush and the war. Can't remember a real debate about gay marriage the last six months.

I think if you look at what I said about the new Dem House/Senate NOT presenting any legislation on the issue it sort of gets to what you're looking for in a small way.

Next two years, I want to see them go after issues that affect everyone and not just the few. The minimum wage, prescription drug reform, the war, education, etc. Stuff that can actually get passed into law. I'm sure we can get back to these hot button issues that divide everyone soon enough.

[helderheid]

69. Well just as you said the Rs might say Dems are against marriage, the response is a separation of

Church and State, also as you said. I am all for marriage. Go churches, go! I am against my government getting involved in marriage. I think the Rs would shit on themselves if we could allow civil unions for all and give marriage back to the churches because that would be one wedge issue gone for them.

[ShaneGR]

78. Well, let me ask you this question...

Do you think that's the kind of issue the Dems should be tackling over the next two years leading up to the 08 elections? They might be able to barely get it out of the House, it would probably die in the Senate. Keep in mind there are only 6-7 moderate Republicans left. So even if they got it out of the chamber and onto Bush's desk they still wouldn't have the #s to override a veto. Meanwhile the R's would twist it into the Ds are against marriage, against churches, etc. That type of stuff is their bread and butter. The good thing is they've lost their federal power to shove the issue down everyones throats.

I think, at least for the next two years, we focus on issues that help everyone and don't divide (Aside from the 40000000000000000524212 subpeonas we're about to issue :-)

[LostinVA]

71. Agreeing with "Separate but equal" doesn't make you a Dem

or a liberal or a Progressive. It didn't work for 100 years with African Americasn... and agreeing with it then was liberal or Progressive or liberal.

There is zero wiggle room regarding EQUAL AND BASIC RIGHTS for every single American.

Saying that doesn't make me like "George," or fascist. It makes me someone who believes in the rights and dignity of all Americans.

If you can't get that, then...

And, civil unions do NOT confer the same rights as "marriage." "Marriage" makes a non-relative a relative. Civil unions have no real legal backing of that. Zip.

[ShaneGR]

88. Welll

Read through my thread responses above. I think you'll get a better idea of where I'm coming from on that specific issue. Anyways, I'm not gonna participate in the circular firing squad that destroyed us in the early 90s. I figured it would only take a few days for some people to start throwing around insults and branding people as freepers if they didn't agree with people 150% and trying to define who was really on our side and who 's just pretending. It was always a big tent party. Not everyone lives in very "liberal" or "progressive" areas. Try living in rural north florida or montana or georgia, etc etc. Lots of differing opinions but common ground can be found within the party. That's why we Democrats controlled the Congress for almost 40 years.

[LostinVA]

102. Wellll......... I did read all your posts

And, the only circular firing squad is when you crowd all the marginalized people in the Democratic Party into the middle and open fire. That's what you want to do, unfortunately.

Zero wriggle room. Take away some of YOUR rights, like voting, etc., and then we'll have a discussion. But, until I have the same level of legal rights as all other American citizen -- no room for debate or discussion. ONly for unity for basic civil rights.

Yup, lots of common ground -- like basic rights. Anything else is the Republican party.

[ShaneGR]

130. Fair enough....

I understand where you're coming from. And I respect your right to fight for complete equality. I don't believe in limiting any of your rights as the Republicans do. I'm just not sure now is the time to push the issue. In my opinion, there are issues we should be focusing on over the next two years and gay marriage isn't one of them.

[specimenfred1984]

51. Yep

If you're anti-gay marriage and anti-universal healthcare, then...well you said it.

Hey guess what, gay are human beings, they fall in love for life just like you genetically superior ones (BARF)!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

giving them equal rights is over the top...dont you know?

:hi:

[helderheid]

I'm straight but not narrow

:hi:

[OzarkDem]

150. So you get to choose who gets health care?

Shouldn't caring for the sick regardless of their income or employment status be considered a basic human right?

Developing a comprehensive policy for access to affordable health care for all isn't just about deciding who gets health care and who doesn't. Its about making some changes before our entire system of health care collapses.

Fortunately, doctors don't make those distinctions - they treat everyone, regardless of income, health insurance or employment status. But that also means the health care system has to absorb the cost of caring for the uninsured, without help from the government. The present state of affairs isn't sustainable and we may all suffer if we don't fix it.

[readmoreoften]

157. You're either a bigot or you're ignorant of the issues.

Communism is "far left". Democrats are not "far left"-- ever. If you think that protection of a word "marriage" is more important than a gay man or lesbian's ability to visit their dying partner in a hospital-- and a civil union wouldn't help with that in MANY circumstances-- then you are a bigot.

The "civil-union-not-marriage" claptrap is nothing more than a canard. Civil unions aren't recognized by the federal government, that means once you leave your home state-- even on vacation-- you have zero rights.

If you're really "moderate" and "reasonable" you'll see that that is fundamentally wrong and instead of bitching about the "far left" you'll educate yourself and go out there and change the minds of your "moderate" buddies who are standing in the way of progress.

[slackmaster]

43. So much straw flying, so little time

:hi:

[elehhhhna]

46. Well said. K&R

[seabeyond]

50. but i thought you liked me. are you saying if i absolutely dont agree

exactly with wht this poster says, i am all these things the op called me.....

aaaaahhhhh.... my feelers could be hurt if i actually took this shit personally.

lol.

teasing you

hey, it sure has been fun in texas last three days, huh. i am feeling so much more balanced than the past and...... i am just spouting all my liberal... ooooops moderate shit all over the place and having a blast

[elehhhhna]

63. LMAO

[seabeyond]

93. wink

i am in a frisky mood

[ThomCat]

53. Agreed! On All Points!

:applause:

[William Bloode]

57. So i'm a coward aye?

If you don't think Bush, Cheney, and many others should be impeached because you would rather have everyone work together like in some fucking episode of Sesame Street, you are not a moderate, you are a coward.

I'm a coward to want to focus on repairing damage, and putting an end to as much of the suffering as possible? Then i guess i'm a coward. Maybe i should ask you if you would wanna come fight me, a former professional. If you refuse you must be a coward. It works both ways. To me putting a stop to the injustice, and crime to stop more suffering is more important than impeachment.

My point is we both have reasons why either of us would not want to perform said action. I wouldn't call you a coward for not wanting to fight me, i'd call it smart. Just like my reasons for not wanting to pursue impeachment has nothing to do with cowardice, it's compassion. I prefer to get right on the job of fixing things and stopping the suffering. We have been going to hell on a rocket for six years, gonna take a long time just to get back to normal, much less improve. No time to waste.

Coward indeed!:eyes:

[cali]

60. What do you call a cut and run flame bait poster

who flings about accusations and unpleasant names?

Certainly not courageous.

[Laelth]

61. Very nice.

I needed a chuckle today.

:rofl:

-Laelth

[Kansas Wyatt]

62. Amazing how many people enjoy and would scream bloody murder

If past and continuing LIBERAL ideals were removed from our government and society. They demand their LIBERAL benefits, but proudly declare that LIBERALS must be persecuted and banned from the country.

[ThomCat]

80. Very good point.

:)

[Kansas Wyatt]

124. Democratic politicians are fools for not firing back at

Blowhards who smear liberals and liberal ideals, with the truth of the matter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. You really do like the circular firing squad, don't you?

I can see why, when a party has lost an election, people have a tendency to blame each other, and attack the positions they hold; but this is the first time I've seen a winning party (though not by a huge margin) eager to insult and expel supporters the moment the legislative majorities have been confirmed (hell, they're still counted for some seats).

It's interesting you seem to have called the majority of the Democratic leadership 'cowards' too. Have you ever heard of the adjective 'constructive'? Have you ever tried to be it?

[earth mom]

70. Moderates are one thing. But DLCers & Dinos are another.

They are probably who you are talking about and I agree that they must be kicked to the curb because they don't belong in the dem party or on DU.

[cali]

79. Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Guess who won in PA? A conservative pro-life dem. And in N. Carolina, and Indiana. In my state, we elected the very liberal Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders. They all have to find a way to work together. Either we're a big tent, or we marginalize ourselves into a regional party.

[ShaneGR]

94. DING DING! RIGHT!

You sir, are a realist.

[earth mom]

111. Do you want to accomplish anything or not?

Because I don't see much being accomplished with DINOs or DLCers. Not only that, but I would not be surprised if some of the so called "dems" that were elected this week were rethugs passing as dems. Fat chance they will work with or try to get along with the REAL dems.

[cali]

118. Hmmm. Let's see.

In order to get anything done, you need a majority: The "DINO's" and "DLCers" elected this week will vote for Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. That in turn, means John Conyers and Pat Leahy as Judiciary Chairs in the House and Senate respectively. And as a Vermonter, I can tell you that Bernie Sanders has a habit of working with people that you deem as DINOs and DLCers. So did Howard when he was our guv.

Being in the minority isn't a viable option when it comes to getting things done. I, for one, am grateful to the Bob Caseys and Heath Shulers.

[LostinVA]

72. Good post -- all worthy progressive points

[skipos]

82. If you think you can win elections without the voters you call "cowards, lunatics

assholes" etc, you might want to go look at some exit polls. CNN.com has them. Notice I didn't call you any names?

[porphyrian]

86. I didn't see boolean on the ballot...where are they running?

Do you believe any one of us speaks for the entire Democratic party?

[porphyrian]

83. That's harsh, but really fucking funny! - n/t

[rman]

84. agreed.

Actually any definition is fine with, since any definition is better then no definition.
This one will do just fine as far as i am concerned.

[novalib]

85. TERRIFIC POST!!!!!

I would just add that if someone does NOT want impeachment, then they want the entire world to FORGET the CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rummy have committed.

WHAT'S THE POINT IN HAVING POWER IF YOU DO NOT USE IT FOR GOOD????!!!!!!!!

[cali]

126. Feel free to alert

and have my post deleted, but you can't really be this thick, can you?

[Laelth]

87. The party operatives disgust me at a time like this.

We've been getting either trounced or cheated in elections since 2000. Finally, we won. Now, of course, the party operatives come out and pompously try to tell us how to keep winning. They're here to tell us which of our "liberal ideas" will sell and which won't.

BAH! The American people vote for strength, not issues. Lots of people voted for *, not because they agreed with a single one of his policies, but because he was perceived as strong and capable of defending us from terrorism. If our Democratic politicians would just wise up and take principled stands on issues like these, as opposed to politically expedient stands, our party would be better off.

No thanks, party operatives. I'm not interested in which of these issues you think will win. All the policies advocated in the OP are based upon principle, not electability. Had we a candidate who was more willing to stand up for his principles, we might have better success in Presidential election years.

imho ...

-Laelth

[spoony]

122. It reminds me of a heist movie

where they pull off the job, then one guy decides he doesn't need/like the others and wants all the glory for himself. The OP was glad to have those evil moderate votes, but now...

[readmoreoften]

160. 100% in agreement. Americans like strength and character not "spinelessness"

I certainly don't think that we should rush towards impeachment without first building a case, but anyone who says that we should just be polite and move on is fundamentally delusionally. The reign of the neo-cons is not OVER. We're just beginning to fight them. You don't take off your glove and slap a man in the face during a gun battle.

Of course we should proceed cautiously. But--come on!--we need to proceed.

[Orsino]

89. Still waiting for a non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage. n/t

[kiahzero]

96. You'll be waiting until the end of the world. (n/t)

[Burma Jones]

108. The closest I can think of, and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, is Cost to Entitlement Programs

[Orsino]

113. Nope. That applies to straight marriage, as well.

[Burma Jones]

142. Well, then, I'm Stymied.....

not that I mind....

:hi:

[Orsino]

158. It's settled, then.

You tell Congress, and I'll break it to the Freepers. Gay marriage by Wednesday!

[DaveJ]

91. Agreed - Except for the impeachment part

And apparently the Democratic Party agrees with me.

I am not questioning impeachment because I "would rather have everyone work together like in some fucking episode of Sesame Street." It's because I think we should focus on weakening the Republican Party, and not spend all our time on two people. There are many more specific reasons not to get involved in this over the next two years.

[AntiFascist]

215. The problem is that its not just "two people"...

its the entire Executive Branch of government and its support structure, which runs very, very deep. There are two camps forming: the remaining neocons around Cheney, and now Bush I people around Bush II. Both camps should be dealt with once and for all.

[jonnyblitz]

92. !!!!

:thumbsup:

[Burma Jones]

98. I would probably be called Moderate.......Let me tell you what I think

Gay Marriage - Equal Rights for every pair of consenting adults. If you wanna be a bigot, choose a church that refuses to perform same-sex weddings, but the legal definition of Marriage MUST be extended to all pairs of consenting adults. To me, this is as much Libertarian, Constitutionalist as it is Liberal - Barry Goldwater would have supported this stance.

Free Healthcare for all - Single Payer all the way, allow the healthcare system to operate the way it has, but we need to change the way it is paid for. The Health Insurance Business is taking too much off the top, end their parasitical ways, they do not make the system more efficient, they just make Connecticut wealthier. I would also like to see advertisements for presciption drugs - aimed at the general public - disappear, but I don't think you can legislate that. If I want to pay for "enhanced" services myself, I think these should be available and tax deductable.

I agreed with attacking Afghanistan and punishing the Taliban. I think the neo-cons that lied to get us into Iraq should be imprisoned and the Legislators that gave the Chimp the power to go to war willy-nilly should be replaced.

As for impeachment, see my previous response. Practically speaking, we need to find out what happened first, and then, if it is warranted and provable, Impeach.

Of course there should be limits on Gun Ownership, in much the same way we regulate driving.

I find the stem cell debate stupid. There should be no debate, there should be research. If God meant us to fly we would have been given wings....If you sail west, you will fall off the world.....If you think the Sun is at the center of the heavens, we will burn you alive.....Jeez Louise

Taxing the Rich? What do you call Rich, someone making over $150K a year with a million or two socked away for retirement or Susan Sarandon or Bloomberg's kids? I have lived in very affluent parts of the USA and have seen many folks that think $100 million just isn't enough..... I don't think Pelosi, Rangel, Mikulski, Kennedy or any of the other so called loony left would consider me rich, but I'm pretty comfortable. I liked the old Inheritance Tax laws, unless you really screwed up, you could die, pass businesses and farms on to your heirs and not just keep folks like Paris Hilton in fresh Bentleys......

[The Count]

119. You're not so far off OP's positions. Tases are meant for the Cheneys &

the Carlysles - you are not in that category.

[Laelth]

136. You call that moderate?

I'd call that pretty darn liberal for the US of A.

The rest of the industrialized world would call you, simply, sane.

:patriot:

-Laelth

[Burma Jones]

139. That's the point

What most folks consider sane is what we call Liberal, but the Right Wing calls Socialist Loony Left.........My Republican Acquaintances call me a "Moderate".....

:hi:

[Laelth]

146. LOL

Yeah, it's funny how that works. They have to call you "moderate" because they can't stand the fact that you're really liberal. To them, liberal=insane. You, however, are clearly sane, so they can't think of you as a liberal. To do so would collapse their whole, demented worldview.

:toast:

-Laelth

[we can do it]

191. You Sound Pretty Liberal and Fair To Me

[Frank Nata]

103. Things better change soon

Chris Matthews is right. There is no reason one more American needs to die in Iraq. We should be pulling out now. Gov Dean blew that off in his election night interview with Chris, and Chris was po'd-rightfully so!

Nancy Pelosi has now said, no impeachment, it's not a war but a 'situation', and no plan to implement 911 Commission recommendations
Durbin refuses to give a timetable for withdrawl
Dean refuses to present a plan for another 2-6 months while 100 Americans die every month, 300 are wounded, and 500 Iraqis die every month

What in the world is happening?!!! These people had better get their act together, get a plan, get the troops out, and get things moving in a new direction soon-before it's too late.

It's time to start putting up or shutting up!

[LostinVA]

105. Oh boy

[seabeyond]

106. boy oh boy oh boy.... personally i still have the song

na na na na.... na na na na

hey hey eeey

gooo ood byeeee.

going thru my head

[txindy]

140. Well, c'mon, now. It's been three days since the election. What're they waiting for?!?!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[seabeyond]

147. ah haaa, you are cute. lets see, they already got rummy out

i dont care what bushco says, and gonna open committee hearings to media, i think that is soooo smart

more than other congress has accomplished in years, wink

[txindy]

151. Until the new Congress is sworn it, we're still officially the minority.

And they still managed to help oust Rummy in one day. Pretty darn good, I'd say. Certainly better than the last 12 years of Congress, you're right.

Plus, Rangel has given notice to DarthCheney to pack up his office and get out.

:toast:

[Laelth]

107. Welcome to DU

:patriot:

-Laelth

[novalib]

110. Enough People Have Died in Iraq!!!

Enough people have died in Iraq!!

No More Innocent Children should die in Iraq because of Haliburton or Bush's oil buddies!

OUT NOW -- and NOW MEANS NOW!!!!

[Frank Nata]

218. Exactly!

Every day another American dies is another death on Bushco's list of mission accomplishments

I'm glad yuckfeld's gone, but who knows about this Gates guy. He could be even worse given his Reagan Iran Contra background.

Hadn't heard about Rangel! THAT'S GREAT!!!!!

[ileus]

109. I'll get over it....I'm not bitter anylonger.

[ddbaj]

112. You only paint extremes.

You can be in favor in taxing the rich... just a bit less. You can favor impeachment, but after investigations. You can favor limited gun control, etc.

So yes, there is room for being a moderate.

Personally, I agree with you on everything, just saying, there IS such a thing as moderates. not just "PRO TAXING THE RICH" vs "ANTI TAXING THE RICH". No one advocates a 0% tax bracket, I think.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. This Seems Like Fun...

always see a "debate" around here about what it means to be moderate, about what the definition of liberal and moderate is. Here.

"If you are against gay marriage, you are not a moderate, you are a bigot."

I am in favor of gay marriage . No argument there. I don't know if I would call people who support other arrangements bigots. Hell, Ted Kennedy is for civil unions and I don't think he's a bigot.

"If you don't believe in free healthcare for all, regardless of one's income, you are not a moderate, you are uncaring and selfish."

I do not believe in free health care but I don't think anybody should be denied health care for lack of money.

"If you support the war in Iraq ala Joe Lieberman "because it's the right thing to do", you are not a moderate, you are a chickenhawk warmonger."

No argument for me but I do know many active and retired military who still support the war. Misguided yes... Chickenhawks... Makes no sense at all...

"If you don't think Bush, Cheney, and many others should be impeached because you would rather have everyone work together like in some fucking episode of Sesame Street, you are not a moderate, you are a coward."

That's a reductio ad absurdum

"If you think there should be no limits or checks or regulations on who can own a gun, where one can purchase a gun, what type of gun one can own, or how one can purchase a gun, you are not a moderate, you are a lunatic."

I don't like like guns but we must have a lot of loons in our party.

"If you are against stem cell research because of some superstitious religious belief, you are not a moderate, you are uncompassionate, hypocritical, and ignorant."

I'm for stem cell research but some of the arguments get a bit arcane.

"If you are against taxing the rich because you think the market is perfect and capitalism works 100% for the benefit of everyone, you are not a moderate, you are an asshole."

That's another reductio ad absurdum

Finally,

"If you call yourself a moderate, but you voted for the GOP in this election, you are not a moderate, you are a lying freeper troll"

I don't think they would be sincere members of DU .

[cobalt1999]

116. Lunatic for wanting all my rights?

I'd rephrase that to "If you think the government should infringe on any of the Bill of Rights, then you are not a liberal, you are a nazi."

There is NO difference between some liberals arguing that limiting the 2nd amendment so the population can feel safer and some neocons arguing for NSA eavesdropping so the population can feel safer.

Fuck both of those viewpoints. I want ALL of my rights and I don't care how you safe you feel about it.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

121. Great, you've shared your hot-button issues.

And you've warned us not to dare argue with you. Got it.

Just a question: how would you like for your nomenclature there to crawl across the screen as part of a campaign ad for your favorite Democrat in 2008?

Now then, back in the world that revolves around the Sun (rather than you), the agenda is pretty clear: minimum wage, prescription drugs, and so forth. But nothing can happen there without rewriting the way business is done in the House. The repubs have completely gutted the workflow to give the a-hole whatever he wants. It's going to take some effort to get the agenda on its feet, and in fact I would argue that it could take a couple of sessions to right a lot of the procedural wrongs that have been implemented.

Maybe we should quit splitting hairs over who gets called what names?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. I Didn't Know Moderates Oppose Any Of Those Things...

I'm not a big fan of dichotomous thinking.

[WI_DEM]

127. Stop spoiling his fun! you bad moderates!

[seabeyond]

131. is this a HIT and RUN thread to make liberals look.... oh ... like the

goose stepping none thinking, name calling, close minded repugs???? i gotta know

i passed

[T Town Jake]

159. That's EXACTLY what it is: the OP is well-versed in such tactics...

...and that kinda makes one wonder, doesn't it?

[boolean]

167. Wonder all you want...

But I'm just trying to make a point. It's about redefining the word "liberal" and "moderate" from what the corpomedia and the pukes have defined for us. It is THEY who have been using such tactics to shift the general population further and further to the right. We have to start using language to our advantage again. Witness all the people who responded to this thread that were offended by my use of "asshole", "lunatic", etc. They call themselves moderate when they are really far from it.

It is NOT moderate to not want free healthcare for all. I'm not giving any details about how to IMPLEMENT such a system, I'm simply stating a philosophical point of view that every human being deserves to have healthcare regardless of their income. If you disagree with such a world view, I don't call you "moderate". The same goes for all the other points. If you don't want impeachment NO MATTER WHAT, you are not moderate. Note again, I'm not talking about the details. First investigate, then find evidence, etc...I'm simply stating whether or not you would support impeachment, given any personal criteria you need to support it. If the answer is always NO, then you are NOT moderate.

Etc, etc, etc...

Edited to say: I admit it IS somewhat flame baity. Sometimes you have to step on a few toes to make a point. No flamebait = boring discussion. I'm pleased to see an intelligent and lively discussion has come out of this thread. I'm not trying to outright insult people. I'm just trying to make a point in a poignant way.

[Jamastiene]

132. Very good post.

That about sums it up. :thumbsup:

[stepnw1f]

134. Thank You..... KICK! (nt)

[mmonk]

137. The "moderate" side has been throwing all the stones.

We're just reacting to it. Go ahead and destroy this party if you like but this will be our last victory for awhile if you do.

[seabeyond]

144. have i been throwing stones at you? has dean?

kerry isnt purposing universal health care but i love his suggestions on it and not immediate withdrawal nor murtha, but kerry considered a liberal, is he throwing stones?

is it all moderate, or dlc? or is moderate ONLY dlc and i am not really a moderate.

i am sooooo confused. i really do not know if i am suppose to be throwing those stones or being hit by the stones

this is all i am saying

[Individualist]

138. Heh! You hit a lot of DLC cheerleaders' nerves.

Look at all the screaming in this thread. :rofl:

You're exactly right.

[readmoreoften]

162. Notice that they only come out after elections or when one of their DLC own

makes the news in a big way. I can set my clock to some of these people.

[Individualist]

169. They definitely seem to multiply in those instances

[cali]

164. Or could it be

that people don't like seeing shit flung? Chimps are more discerning.

I support everything in the OP's vile little post- albeit I think investigations come before impeachment and that further gun control should be left to individual states- and I think the OP is a totalitarian style "you're either with me or against me" screech. Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature on a cool day can see that the person who started this screaming match is <gasp> the OP. Do I need to spell out what I think of your critical thinking skills as demonstrated in your post?

Oh yeah, and the the OP is a bolter. He/she hasn't responded to one comment. Can you spell chicken?

[boolean]

171. Sorry, I had to go out for a while...

But I'm back now.

See this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2673522&mesg_id=2678479

[treestar]

141. Some people cannot handle disagreement

They show up on all sides, though it is more common for freepers to resort to personal attack when they disagree. ;-)

Here there appears to be some sort of idea that a "moderate" does not do enough campaign work and people who think they themselves may be "extremists" are perceiving the "extremists" to be the ones that do all the work.

Also face the fact that the sheeple are "moderate" and don't do much work and those who do work are stuck trying to appeal to them.

It's just a relief to find that the sheeple are moderate rather than the incipient right wing fascists terra appeared to turn them into.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Lurking Dem]

145. I'm starting to wonder

if some people are addicted to righteous indignation.

[rinsd]

148. The return of black and white thinking! So refreshing from a left perspective

:eyes:

[Ellis Wyatt]

154. If you discount the intelligence/sanity/compassion of everyone who disagrees with you

You are an irrational imbecile.

[Odin2005]

156. "If you are against gay marriage, you are not a moderate, you are a bigot."

I won't disagree with that, but the problem is that you can't legislate what people think. Opinions on social issues change slowly, based on the dying off and comming of age of generations. It probably wont be untill the Boomers and early GenXers (the later boomers and early GenXers are the most conservative age group in the US) are dead and my generation (people botn between 1982 and 2001) take the reigns of political power that gay marrige will be generally accepted.

[readmoreoften]

161. No you can't legislate what people think. But you can legislate laws that protect the minority.

Jim Crow didn't end because the majority changed their minds. It ended because progressives passed just laws and forced the conservatives to obey them, at times even declaring martial law to do so.

[GOTV]

165. I'm right and you're all a**holes! - Discuss....

[seabeyond]

166. lol lol lol. ya.... but you got to run away while all discuss n/t

[Autonomy]

170. I am a moderate

I believe in the right to create wealth and benefit from it. I believe in the right to obtain property and keep it. I believe in the right to defend our borders and determine who is legal and who is illegal.

"If you are against taxing the rich because you think the market is perfect and capitalism works 100% for the benefit of everyone, you are not a moderate, you are an asshole."

I don't believe capitalism works 100% for the benefit of everyone. To what percentage do you believe capitalism works for the benefit of everyone? Do you believe in lifelong membership to the welfare rolls?

[SwingVoter2006]

172. My take on "moderation"

If you are against gay marriage, you are not a moderate, you are a bigot.
Yeah. but what if we think the state has no business "marrying" anybody? I think the state needs to get OUT of the business of marrying people. Period. A state-issued marriage contract is just a legal device anyway. Take the "marriage" out of "marriage license" and you have a boilerplate document for all kinds of funky couplings: homo, poly, what have you. Let the churches do the MARRYING. That way, straights can't claim the state is "stealing" marriage, because the state will no longer be in the business of doling it out. Churches will not be obligated to honor marriages between different denominations, just as they currently do not honor baptisms between denominations. If Southern Baptists don't like gay marriage, they don't have to. If Universalist Unitarians embrace gay marriage, there is nothing stopping them. EVERYONE still has to follow the law, and gays will have TOTAL and EQUAL protection under the law, through this plan. Does that make me a bigot?

If you don't believe in free health care for all, regardless of one's income, you are not a moderate, you are uncaring and selfish.
Are we talking about nationalized medicine or a national form of health insurance? Because the problem is not that our mechanisms of health care are broken. It's just that too many poor Americans can't get work, or can't keep work, which insures them. I think we need to leave the actual hospitals, doctors offices, etc, in private or non-profit hands, and just set up a basic federal health insurance program for which everyone can qualify if they are truly in need. It wouldn't be the fanciest insurance program in the world, but it would allow poor folk to go to the doc when they need to (as opposed to the ER) and get meds and antibiotics and other basics from the local RX via copays and whatnot. I think most Americans would be willing to pay a little extra in taxes for this kind of thing; we already fund medicare and medicaid. But lord, please, let's not let the government take over the actual apparatus of health care! The government fucks up enough in our lives. Let's not have it fuck up that. I don't want to deal with shitty patient service and a diminishing talent pool and shitty facilities and vanishing choices because the goddamned government runs the whole show.

If you support the war in Iraq ala Joe Lieberman "because it's the right thing to do", you are not a moderate, you are a chickenhawk warmonger.
Yeah, but what if you happen to be a Sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve? Are you still a "chickenhawk" then? What if you never gave a fuck about Bush, but just thought the Iraqis had been screwed one too many times, by us and Saddam, and thought they deserved a chance at a different government, a different way of life? What if you still think this?

If you don't think Bush, Cheney, and many others should be impeached because you would rather have everyone work together like in some fucking episode of Sesame Street, you are not a moderate, you are a coward.
What if you think impeachment is doomed to failure, ala the Clinton impeachment, and that the public will sour so badly on this kind of beltway dodge-ball game that the Dem success in 2006 will be largely wasted for the sake of political revenge? Besides, who will care about Bush or his crimes if/when Dems run the White House, Senate, and Congress, and can roll back all the damage anyway? Just bide your time, and if the investigations pan out, then take Bush and Cheney and the rest to the woodshed once they are out of office. If true criminal acts have been carried out, and can be proven in court, there is nothing stopping us from prosecuting Bush and Co. once they're no longer in charge. Doing it now, in the form of a showy and needless impeachment, is a foolish and wasteful gambit IMHO.

If you think there should be no limits or checks or regulations on who can own a gun, where one can purchase a gun, what type of gun one can own, or how one can purchase a gun, you are not a moderate, you are a lunatic.
I believe in the basic right of firearms ownership. But there should be limitations, namely in terms of licensure and training. You can't drive a car without proving you know how to drive a car to a licensing official at the DMV. And just because you know how to drive a Cooper mini does not automatically mean you know how to drive an 18-wheeler tractor trailer. For those willing to get trained and prove to a state licensing official that they know how to handle a particular class of firearm, they should be able to own and operate that firearm as a licensed citizen. People licensed for a small-bore double-action revolver shouldn't be able to purchase an AR-15 or similar "assault" weapon until they have upgraded both their license and their level of training. In the military it takes weeks to train a Private how to fire his/her M16A2 safely and with proficiency. It should take at least that long, or longer, to train a civilian. How any honest citizen could balk at the idea of being properly trained and properly licensed to have a particular class of firearm, is beyond me. Also beyond me is how anyone can blame firearms themselves for the stupidity and ignorance of the people who improperly purchase and wield them. Guns are not the problem. PEOPLE are the problem.

If you are against stem cell research because of some superstitious religious belief, you are not a moderate, you are uncompassionate, hypocritical, and ignorant.
What if we're against harvesting any kind of biological tissue from the bodies of the unborn; bodies which are prematurely ripped from the womb because some arbitrary court order has deemed that they are not really human, and therefor undeserving of the same rights and dignity as everyone else lucky enough to have already survived a sail through the birth canal? But then we're debating abortion, and that's a whole other Oprah.

If you are against taxing the rich because you think the market is perfect and capitalism works 100% for the benefit of everyone, you are not a moderate, you are an asshole.
I think everyone should pay a FLAT TAX regardless of what they are worth or how much they make. Every year, a flat tax: 5% of whatever you happen to make, and another 5% of whatever you happen to be worth. 10% total. That way nobody can bitch about being taken to the cleaners because everybody is the same and everybody is bound to the same rules. No shelters for the ultra-wealthy who manage to "make nothing" every year while at the same time they seemingly HAVE EVERYTHING. No cop-outs for even poor folk who never pay taxes anyway, yet seem to soak up so much tax-funded social welfare in the process. And the middle class doesn't get stuck with the bag, like it always does, because the poor don't pay AND the rich don't pay. Everyone is the same, pays the same percentage, and it's a done deal. Why is this concept so hard? Why is our tax law thicker than a phone book and as abstract and obtuse as the most obscure legal document? FLAT TAX. Sounds like a solid plan to me.

If you call yourself a moderate, but you voted for the GOP in this election, you are not a moderate, you are a lying freeper troll.
Can't help you here, I voted Dem down the line in 2006. Though this has not always been the case. Especially in local races.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

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

[Kerrytravelers]

178. Yep. And you make no sense at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2676830

This is the writer of all the "name removed" posts, in essence supporting the idea of offing Michael Moore. He apparently still hasn't figured out that he's in the wrong spot, or he thinks he's clever. Either way, it points to someone not so bright.

[Kerrytravelers]

196. Oh look, my little friend has ordered his pizza!

[Kerrytravelers]

184. I question some of your response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2677414

Did you support the Invasion when we first went in?
Yes. Partially for the WMD reasoning, but mostly because I thought we screwed the Iraqis badly when we failed to invade in 1991, and I thought we owed it to them to try and make things right.

Do you still support the Invasion?
Yes. Saddam and the Baathists had to go. We can't rid the world of every bloodthirst dictator asshole, but where Iraq was concerned, we could at least take one of 'em out.

If you don't, when did your opinion change and why?
My opinion on the 2003 invasion has never wavered. It's my opinion on the occupation that has wavered. In hindsight, I think the President should have made a general call on 9/12/2001 for 500,000 to 750,000 volunteers to fill rapid-expansion brigades and divisions within the Army and Marine Corp; all prior servicemembers strongly encouraged to apply. This extra manpower should have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously, and a total force call-up of ALL Reserves and Guard should have come into effect until Osama and all the Taliban were killed or captured, Hussein and all the Baathists were killed or captured, and both nations had enjoyed at least a year or two of overwhelming American and Coalition manpower under which the roots of democracy and the apparatus of pluralist republicanism (please note the small r, would-be flamers) would have been firmly planted. Then, we withdraw all troops save for a couple of embassies with Marines for security, and tell Afghanistan and Iraq that what happens next, is up to them. Americans can lead the Islamic horse to democratic waters, but can't make them drink. Americans can show Iraqis and Afghanis the door to freedom. They can't make them walk through.

I don't have links to support the above scenario, it is largely based on conversations I have had with my senior officers and NCO's regarding the turmoil of the occupation, and what could have been done better.


________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2665838

WHile some fun is now gone with a deleted post, basically, all you gays need to just calm down and act "normal" and then maybe stright people will accept you into the mainstream. Sorry for paraphrasing, but you can imagine how horrific it must have been to be deleted.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657190

The sheer anger alone was very inflammatory.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

My intention is not to pick on Swingvoter2006, but when I click on two separate thread and see such inflammatory language, I become suspect. Are you trying to convince us of your beliefs, or do you want us to explain ours? Either way, discussion can happen, but the inflammatory language can not continue.

And, just so you know, you can't use the excuse that being in the military you have to support this invasion. There are multiple service people here, both active duty and retired, war vets and even Iraqi vets from the current invasion. Many of us are from military families, we're military brats, we have family overseas, friends overseas and still, we're against this invasion. And often than not, so are our friends and family.

[NuttyFluffers]

174. flaming liberal Republican here agrees with your general sentiment.

in fact, in my covert eavesdropping among "my party" you'd be surprised how many would give their support just to hear such strength of conviction from democrats.

but... triangulating is old politics of the fearful elite pandering to the fearful regressives. so expect more of the same around here and elsewhere. just don't be afraid to tell it how you see it. FDR was 100% right, only thing to fear is fear itself. also silence does equal death. and the truth will set you free.


(ps: for the 2nd amendment friends here, read that sentence again about guns. note, that if you disagree with it you are suggesting that ATF shouldn't exist and there should be zero laws and gov't observation, state or federal, involved in the commerce and ownership of all weapons available. it would be lunacy to agree to that, and all of us responsible gun owners know that perfectly well. some of us need to get some Bengay for knee-jerk reactions and try more reading comprehension.)

[NaturalHigh]

175. So anyone who agrees with your "progressive" ideals...

is a bigot, asshole, lunatic, troll, etc. I guess you can throw me into one of those categories because I disagree with you on several points.

[LetsGoMurphys]

176. while I agree with you on most of the issues you have posted

They are very intolerant of others view and that has been one reason that the Democratic party has been in trouble. Now that we have become smart and realized that we now again win elections and have once again become a national party. The GOP intolerance of other's views has now cost them two houses of congress. You can call people all the names you want, but it will get you no where. You can thank us "Moderates" for both houses of congress (I used to call myself a liberal because I am liberal on many issues, but I guess I am now a moderate because I am open to debate and dont instantly jump to name calling.) You can thank the GOPs intolerance and the moderates open to new ideas for both houses of congress, not because people two years after a GOP president won people who dont agree with their views are bigots, lunatics, freepers, ignorant, selfish, chickenhawks. Sheesh.

[bigtree]

179. the dividers

you're doing it too

[Blu Dahlia]

181. free health care regardless of income?

So I should pay taxes for Bill Gate's health coverage? LOL... No, I think there should be a limit. The top 10% of income earners certainly do not need (nor should they want) the government's help.

[Kerrytravelers]

186. Really is all of this really necessary?

If you are against gay marriage, you are not a moderate, you are a bigot.
Ok, can't argue there. Equality or not, that is pretty simple.

If you don't believe in free healthcare for all, regardless of one's income, you are not a moderate, you are uncaring and selfish.
Well, I don't think the super wealthy should be taking services away from the super poor. But, I don't know why George Lucas would want free healthcare when he can afford the best all on his own.

If you support the war in Iraq ala Joe Lieberman "because it's the right thing to do", you are not a moderate, you are a chickenhawk warmonger.
At this point, support for the war is pure delusion. You can't possibly support this and be a thinking, questioning, socially responsible voter.

If you don't think Bush, Cheney, and many others should be impeached because you would rather have everyone work together like in some fucking episode of Sesame Street, you are not a moderate, you are a coward.
How about investigations first? And how about taking care of the needs of the American people and those innocent that we still have in prison at Gitmo and other secret prisons.

If you think there should be no limits or checks or regulations on who can own a gun, where one can purchase a gun, what type of gun one can own, or how one can purchase a gun, you are not a moderate, you are a lunatic.
While not a fan of guns, and certainly one who sees the need for strict limits on who has them and what kind of weapons they have, I don't care if law abiding, responsible citizens have guns- not automatic weapons with cop-killer bullets and deadly silencers, but guns are ok by me.

If you are against stem cell research because of some superstitious religious belief, you are not a moderate, you are uncompassionate, hypocritical, and ignorant.
Ok, Ill go with this one.


If you are against taxing the rich because you think the market is perfect and capitalism works 100% for the benefit of everyone, you are not a moderate, you are an asshole.
I say taxing fairly and not giving corporate welfare.

Finally,

If you call yourself a moderate, but you voted for the GOP in this election, you are not a moderate, you are a lying freeper troll.
Well, partly. Although I believe there are some who are really questioning and maybe we should consider more honey and less flies- unless their an idiot, then feel free to cut loose!



And listen, I'm just about as liberal as it gets. However, perhaps your wording is a bit harsh and angry. Should we really stand in a circle and shoot ourselves and those who supported us this election?

[everythingsxen]

187. I call myself a moderate, a centrist and an independant...

and I am for the record:

• Pro-gay marriage/gay rights. (I am hetero, so why should gay people being, well, gay bother me?) If you are against gay marriage, you are a member of the RNC or DLC.
  
• Pro-Socialized Medicine.
  
• Do not support the War in Iraq, though I do support other point of view that it was the right thing to do. Saddam was an asshole afterall. A case could be made either way, though I believe the Iraqi people should have rebelled if they wanted Saddam gone. I also don't think that it necessarily makes you a chickenhawk warmonger to think the Iraq war was right.
  
• I'd like Cheney and BushCo. to be impeached, but it won't happen. The Democrats say they won't. And it would in fact be a waste of time. Instead they will use the threat of impeachment as a baseball bat to press Bush into obeying their agenda. Plus it would take several years to complete the impeachment and Bush would be out of office by then. By playing nice with Bush, they avoid pushing him into a corner where he might declare martial law.
  
• There should be plenty of regulation for guns, but make no mistake, I am pro-Gun. I think children should be trained in firearm use as part of school, so they do not accidentally shoot each other.
  
• I am pro-Stem Cell research.
  
• I am actually in favor of revamping the tax code entirely and going more socialist. something on the order of 75% taxes for the rich at the top, graduated down to nothing for those at the bottom. I would also regulate the market so that food and critical items would be guaranteed to be cheap, but luxury items would be more expensive. Your tax dollars would pay for education of all levels, as well as I would nationalize power, water and telecom (TV, Radio and communications) and your taxes would give you all that too. I would set up an independant commission with plenty of oversight by the citizenry as well as a UN panel to monitor our telecom industry to make sure the government was not using it for evil.
  
• I did not vote for a single GOP candidate. I voted for Democrats in all races that were going to be narrow enough that the Republican might win (In this case it was Darcy Burner vs. Dave "I serve the 3rd" Reichart) in races that the Republican had no shot in, I voted Independant. (In this case, I voted for Robin Adair over Maria Cantwell. I had no idea who she was other than she seemed a little crazy and ran on $5000US. She is a field geologist and had some interesting ideas about reforming money in this country.) However, I will say this: If there was a GOP'er who was running that wasn't a douchebag, I would vote for him. Like, say Arlen Spectre. It would depend on the issues. I unlike you apparently, try to vote for the best candidate, not party affiliation.
  

My own addendum to your list:
If you vote for your party, blindly because that is what the party tells you to do, you are not a moderate, you are a sheep.

[LoZoccolo]

188. If you criticize capitalism you are a commie blah blah blah blah.

If you have radical opinions, you are a COINTELPRO disruptor blah blah blah blah.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

190. I have a problem with ANYONE dictating to us how we should think.

Not that I really disagree with any of the issues you're talking about - I just don't subscribe to being a "follower" and being dicatated to - especially in a demeaning manner.

I find your post rather annoying - to be honest.

[moodforaday]

192. New rules! New rules!

These should be on the next installment of Bill Maher's New Rules. Spot-on essential. K&R! :yourock:

[Cleita]

194. Excellent!

:applause: :bounce: :thumbsup: :toast:

K&R

[many a good man]

198. Moderates are really progressives but don't know it

because they accept the right wing's definition.

[Rebellious Republican]

199. Here is a good one..............

If you start a flame bait thread and never reply to any of the posts, you are a freeper troll!

:eyes:

It is with great pleasure, that I retire my distress flag gif


And with great pride, hoist my new flag in honor of our new direction

[boolean]

201. Haven't had time to read it all!

I didn't think I'd get this many replies to my humble thread, to tell you the truth. But I DID reply here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2673522&mesg_id=2678479

Some of you, a LOT of you, really, really, REALLY have to grow a thicker skin.

[Rebellious Republican]

202. Well..............

I can see that with your longevity (July 2006) here at DU combined with your self described "humble" thread, and the fact that you disappeared, to who knows, maybe another website, to possibly have a good laugh. When you take into account that freepers just got their ass's handed to them in a midterm election, and deleted threads from troll activity has gone up in recent days. It would seem to some, that maybe you just might be "innocently" flame baiting, but what would I know, I have only been posting here for a few years. Talk about growing some thick skin, if you are not a troll, then you may want to revise your technique. Otherwise, accept that you are going to get flamed for your innocent and newby mistakes.

:popcorn:

It is with great pleasure, that I retire my distress flag gif


And with great pride, hoist my new flag in honor of our new direction

[boolean]

204. hehe....

You will only have to believe me when I say I'm nowhere close to a freeper. I hate their guts more than you can possibly imagine. A survey of my posts so far would assuredly convince you of that, but I won't bore you by listing them and I'm too lazy to copy and paste all the links, anyway.

As for the thickness of my skin, I'm a fookin whale. You guys can flame me all you want. I am bothered by NOTHING. In fact, I'm always disappointed when I see "message deleted" where someone responded to me before I get a chance to read it. The curiosity bugs the hell out of me.

[seabeyond]

203. i love it when people call others names, insult them, tease them

tell a joke at their expense and are called on it.... tell them they should grow thicker skins?

nah... just think your posts of insults is assinine. maybe you should suck it up and grow thicker skin

[boolean]

205. Maybe you....

Maybe you should try to get the point of my post. I'm just sayin'.

[seabeyond]

206. but i do

you have limited all discussion on some really big and complicated issue eliminating all ways of resolving. limiting all options. the world is not black and white, and that is how you have created your vision of life nad if one doesnt agree, you respond with disdain.

i dont approach life in that manner, i dont think it is effective nor productive so what a waste of time, not to mention it is ugly behavior and meant to shut anyone up, that i always fight against.

everything about your post contradicts the democratic beliefs.... and reinforces that repug mentality i just abhor and am so tired of.

[Tigress DEM]

207. BUSHIT. (Warning agreeable debate ahead.)

I AM A HARDCORE MODERATE, LIBERAL HAWK who believes in common sense solutions and pursuit of TRUTH AND LIBERTY by the most efficient means available.


1) I am for Civil Unions and all the legal privilages that implies. But I think we need to push the word marriage over to the right and say, fine, keep it. You have done your job. NOW, keep your opinions and prejudices off other people's lives and work on your own marriage, because the biggest threat to marriage these days isn't gays, it's people not knowing how to treat each other with respect even when they say they love each other.

2) It isn't "free" healthcare for all even if we cover everybody with medical insurance. We have to be realistic and thoughtful and re-engineer this system so that everyone can afford reasonably priced healthcare. I am not uncaring or selfish.

3) I am FOR Impeachment, BUT I think the DIY Impeachment movement is the way to go at this point because our DEM leaders won't be in position until January and what needs to be done before that is to dig up and expose ALL the facts, uncover ALL the slimy things under every stone and make it a MANDATE of the people and to make it clear in everyone's mind that there is no VINDICTIVE behavior here, just rule of law. They broke the rules. You do the crime you pay the time needs to go uptown and not just be the law of the ghetto.

4) Responsible gun ownership includes everything you mentioned. Checks and balances are my friend.

5) I understand that the bioplasts that are being requested would possibly help find a cure for diseases are not going to be anyone's child anyway. However, I do not believe in mocking people's beliefs in this matter. Many people are deeply concerned about life and children without malice. They need to be educated, not thrown under a political bus.

6) I AM NOT AN ASSHOLE. Even I know that robbing from the poor to make sure the rich have enough solid gold toilet seats to sink their yacht fleet is just pure D wrong.


I was dumb enough as an 18 year old to vote for Reagan because I thought we needed to get fiscally responsible. BUT I never, ever claimed that was a bright move AND I have never voted GOP again. Fool me once... shame on the GOP... fool me twice would have been shame on me. COULD NOT Go there... already a recovering Catholic, with my shame quota completely full. So I educated myself, went back to my DEM roots and have never been more proud to be an American. NOW I truly know how easily our liberties can be taken away when WE THE PEOPLE don't do our part each and every day.



oops - Forgot to address the Iraq piece. NOT for it, but I would like to get the most intelligent military and diplomatic minds to focus on the issue and give us some realistic options before we go demanding solutions that may have unintended consequences that will be impossible to live with.

[Kerrytravelers]

209. I consider my self extremely liberal and left and I agree with your post.

Very well said. You did far better than I did.

[Tigress DEM]

211. Blushing. thanks.

[Mythsaje]

208. I'm a "moderate" or, rather part of the "radical middle."

I'd like to see government out of the marriage business, and religion out of the domestic partnership business.

I believe in Universal Healthcare because a healthy society is a strong society.

The war was stupid to begin with. The handling has been even worse.

I believe that Bush, Cheney, their enablers in Congress, should be investigated and prosecuted. I don't really give a shit if they're impeached, as long as they're punished and the Neo-cons permanently thrown into the trashbin of history.

There should be restrictions on gun ownership. Waiting periods make sense. But guns shouldn't be restricted because of what they LOOK like.

I believe in science, not superstition.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, until there are no poor no more."

[yurbud]

212. if someone supports the war, I call them a lobbyist, major shareholder...

or corporate officer in a rebuilding, defense, or oil corporation, or an elected official who hopes to be one of those.

and any democrat who makes excuses for staying longer doesn't give a shit about us or the Iraqis, like the Bushies, they just want to figure out how to keep their thumb on that oil spigot.

[rucky]

213. These issues are no-brainers to me.

the debate should not be "if", but "how".

[Skittles]

214. I am with you, boolean, absolutely

like me you call it like you see it - yes INDEED

[benEzra]

216. Straw man on the gun issue...

If you think there should be no limits or checks or regulations on who can own a gun, where one can purchase a gun, what type of gun one can own, or how one can purchase a gun, you are not a moderate, you are a lunatic.

Even the NRA doesn't support that.

If you think the gun issue in 2006 is about "no limits or checks or regulations on who can own a gun, where one can purchase a gun, what type of gun one can own, or how one can purchase a gun," then YOU are the one that is clueless.

The gun issue in 2006 is about whether or not to outlaw protruding handgrips on non-automatic civilian rifles, whether civilian guns should be restricted to pre-1861 magazine capacities, and whether private sales should be subject to background checks (as they already are in many states). Pro- and anti-gun people can probably find common ground on #3, as we did on background checks for all sales from a gun dealer. #1 and #2 should DEFINITELY not be a Federal issue, and IMHO should be off the table completely.

[davidinalameda]

219. I agree but

I don't think that impeachment should be priority number one

we have other things to do-like getting our troops home, raising the minimum wage, etc

[T_i_B]

220. I take it that you'll be running for election on that platform.

:sarcasm: