In case there is any confusion: You cannot use DU to support Cindy Sheehan's third-party candidacy.

[Skinner]

As you know, Cindy Sheehan announced that she is going to run for Congress against Nancy Pelosi as an independent candidate. This post is to remind everyone that supporting Cindy Sheehan's independent candidacy is not permitted on this website. If Cindy had chosen to run as a Democrat in the Democratic primary then you would have been permitted to support her campaign here, but instead she chose to run as an independent.

The DU rules are clear on this:

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

To clarify: You are still permitted to discuss Cindy Sheehan, but you may not advocate for or promote her candidacy against Nancy Pelosi.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone. This has been DU policy for years. It is the policy we enforced during the 2004 presidential election, and it is the policy we will enforce during the 2008 presidential election, no matter who the Democratic nominee is. (It is also the exact same policy we enforced during the Lamont/Lieberman race, so please don't try to claim otherwise.)

We know that the vast majority of people here respect this community, and we want to thank you in advance for respecting our rules.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

Oh, and, while I have your attention: Everyone calm down, please.

[rainy]

1. But she is a real democrat not a DINO.

[Bluebear]

3. But she has 'left the Democratic Party", no?

Just sayin'.

[GreenTea]

310. Just as Lieberman left the Democratic Party - Asshole Lieberman has always been a Republican.

Just as Sheehan probably believes she is more liberal & progressive than the Democrats...and she may be right!

[file83]

373. Cindy Lieberman.

That's what I'm calling her from now on.

[Alexander]

7. Yes, such a real Democrat that she quit the party...

And is running against the Democratic Speaker of the House, who was against the war from the very beginning.

And then blamed every 20th century war on the Democrats, including World War II.

Cindy's a real Democrat, all right. :eyes:

[moodforaday]

141. You have it the wrong way

If "Republicans" all worked for the good of the republic, there wouldn't be much of a problem with them, would there? Likewise, it seems being a democrat is not a requirement for membership of the Democratic party.

[barb162]

149. Yep, that's what she's doing!

I forgot about that second line you have there. She's going "Independent" and I don't know nor care where she gets her money, if she gets any. Pelosi will win. I don't know what is unclear to some around here about that letter Sheehan wrote or her actions in running as an Independent against a Democrat, namely Pelosi.

[maggiegault]

186. And what has Pelosi done to STOP THE WAR she is supposedly so against?

She was part of the crew who refused to give * a deadline, a mere day before my baby brother was murdered in Iraq.

He would have liked to have seen the Democrats stand up to *. Pelosi let him and his fellow troops and their families down.

Sheehan is beloved among us Gold Star folk, Skinner. These are very different times and I don't think the old rules should be applied so readily. It tends to make some of us feel...unwelcome. Believe me, nothing makes you question your party membership like burying your little brother. I'd be careful about what you decide, if I were you. That's not a threat...just an observation.

[Nunyabiz]

269. totally agree nt

[NavyDavy]

401. wrong agai....dems only....period...if you don't like the rules

start your own Cindy Sheham site...and may peace go with you....

[MADem]

568. And she's reviled, too. There are two sides to her coin, even if you don't want to acknowledge that

truth. There are plenty of Gold Star families who found what she did offensive. They've spoken out about how much her actions have caused them pain. That's politics, I guess. Those people had baby brothers, sons, mothers, daughters, spouses too. Your loss is profound, but you can't tell us all to suspend rational thought about Cindy's statements, goals and efficacy because of that profound loss.


I'm not going to comment on the issue of the fallen beyond that.

I felt she had credibility when she stuck to her war issue. I think now, blaming WW2 on FDR, spouting rightwing batshit nutty economic policies, and saying that we are--not were, are--the party of slavery suggests that she's in need of counselling and medication in a big fucking way.

YMMV, and probably does.

[DiverDave]

578. I'd be careful?

Not a threat?

Yeah right.

[CreekDog]

588. Pelosi tried the following

She voted against the war herself. She whipped votes against the war back in 2002 and in the process, a majority of House Democrats also voted against it.

She has consistently supported and tried to enable leglislation that will bring the troops home, but fund those that are stuck in Iraq until they come home. (you may disagree, but that doesn't mean she isn't against the war)

By this standard, Pelosi has done more to stop the war and when that failed to end it than Sheehan.

[Ahpook]

635. Yes....

People are sick and tired of waiting on an ineffectual bunch.

Let's sit back and wait for Fitzmas! Remember that one? Let's just sit back and wait a bit more shall we?

Troops are dying every fucking day while everyone says "Let's Wait"

Our rights are getting stripped daily, but let's wait.

Either the Dem's are in on the scam of scams or deserve the name they have been called for years... wimps.

[knowledgeispwr]

11. Then why isn't she running in the Dem primary? n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. she cant be a real democrat and not run as a democrat.

you might consider her more real.

plus calling pelosi a dino is just stupid.

[Danger Mouse]

294. pri, have i ever told you that

i love you? :hug: :D

[Virginia Dare]

45. Wow, the list of real Democrats gets smaller and smaller..

I'm starting to think I'm not a "real Democrat" anymore..:sarcasm:

[polmaven]

600. Me either!

And all this time I was under the mistaken impression that working for Democratic principles, as a registered Democrat, made me a real Democrat. Well, live and learn!

My questions for those who would support Sheehan's candidacy.......Once this mis-administration is out of office, and the Iraq occupation is finished, what then? Do they even know if Sheehan has the qualification to do the job past calling for impeachment and ending the occupation?

There really are a whole host of issues other than those two that face Congress every day. Do they know what she will do with any of them?

[Marrah_G]

51. No. She is not a Democrat and never really was

[puebloknot]

160. What's a "real Democrat"?

[Marrah_G]

181. Certainly not this:

Her own words:

"I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats."

So no, she is not and was not really a Democrat.

[George II]

229. Unbelievable!

I can't believe anyone with any common sense and calling herself a "life-long Democrat" would say things like that. As you say, if that's the way she feels, she was never truly a Democrat. To blame all those things on Democrats (huh, "unconstitutional income tax"???) is totally ludicrous. I wonder how she would have felt back in 1945 if her son Casey was stationed in the Pacific and Truman had NOT decided to drop the atomic bombs? What if he were killed AFTER a decision to not drop those bombs? She's clearly being played by some radical group now. She forgets that without the Democrats who supported her two years ago she'd just be an unknown.

[Vincardog]

247. PSST the income tax is unconstitutional. There is no law requiring you to file or pay the Income tax

The income tax is Voluntary. It says so in the code.
ASK to see the LAW that requires you to file or pay.
There isn't one.

[truebrit71]

250. Had much success with that line with the IRS?

Let me know how it goes...

[Vincardog]

252. How about not providing evidence against yourself? Or innocent till proven guilty?

Does it bother you that the income tax is unconstitutional?

[FedUp_Queer]

258. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I may not LIKE the income tax. To say it's unconstitutional is just, well, stupid. The income tax is IN THE CONSTITUTION! You may not believe it was passed as an amendment to the Constitution correctly in the manner prescribed by the constitution, but that's a whole other ball of wax. If that is your argument, then make it...show why it was not validly and procedurally correctly passed, but don't say it's unconstitutional when the 16th Amendment states as follows:

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Finally, that whole "it's voluntary" pablum is just that...pablum. The speed limit is "voluntary," but if you drive over it, and are caught you are required to pay a fine.

My God, people, I would hope that this silliness would just cease.

[PurpleChez]

265. THANK YOU!!!!!

[Nunyabiz]

272. Amendment 16 was never ratified

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

[FedUp_Queer]

286. Well, first of all, here is a list of the ratification dates by state

The 16th Amendment, which specifically authorizes the income tax, was proposed on July 12, 1909.

# State Date *
1 Alabama Aug 10, 1909
2 Kentucky Feb 8, 1910
3 South Carolina Feb 19, 1910
4 Illinois Mar 1, 1910
5 Mississippi Mar 7, 1910
6 Oklahoma Mar 10, 1910
7 Maryland Apr 8, 1910
8 Georgia Aug 3, 1910
9 Texas Aug 16, 1910
10 Ohio Jan 19, 1911
11 Idaho Jan 20, 1911
12 Oregon Jan 23, 1911
13 Washington Jan 26, 1911
14 Montana Jan 30, 1911
15 Indiana Jan 30, 1911
16 California Jan 31, 1911
17 Nevada Jan 31, 1911
18 South Dakota Feb 3, 1911
19 Nebraska Feb 9, 1911
20 North Carolina Feb 11, 1911
21 Colorado Feb 15, 1911
22 North Dakota Feb 17, 1911
23 Kansas Feb 18, 1911
24 Michigan Feb 23, 1911
25 Iowa Feb 24, 1911
26 Missouri Mar 16, 1911
27 Maine Mar 31, 1911
28 Tennessee Apr 7, 1911
29 Arkansas Apr 22, 1911
30 Wisconsin May 26, 1911
31 New York Jul 12, 1911
32 Arizona Apr 6, 1912
33 Minnesota Jun 11, 1912
34 Louisiana Jun 28, 1912
35 West Virginia Jan 31, 1913
36 New Mexico Feb 3, 1913 *
37 Massachusetts Mar 4, 1913
38 New Hampshire Mar 7, 1913

Second, here is the case Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1:

That website you give cites two quotations that come from the opinion. However, neither quotation is in the opinion. Moreover, if you read the opinion, the court finds the arguments of the petitioner (the one seeking Supreme Court review without merit). Don't believe me, here is the opinion (absent the syllabus and headnotes, which are not a part of the opinion anyway).

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company the
appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying
with the Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of October 3,
1913, (§ II, ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166). Because of constitutional
questions duly arising the case is here on direct appeal from a
decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for
relief was stated.

The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying
the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the
statute to the Constitution of the United States, of the peculiar
relation of the corporation to the stockholders and their
particular interests resulting from many of the administrative
provisions of the assailed act, of the confusion, wrong and
multiplicity
Page 10
of suits and the absence of all means of redress which would
result if the corporation paid the tax and complied with the act
in other respects without protest, as it was alleged it was its
intention to do. To put out of the way a question of jurisdiction
we at once say that in view of these averments and the ruling in
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429,
sustaining the right of a stockholder to sue to restrain a
corporation under proper averments from voluntarily paying a tax
charged to be unconstitutional on the ground that to permit such
a suit did not violate the prohibitions of § 3224, Rev. Stat.,
against enjoining the enforcement of taxes, we are of opinion
that the contention here made that there was no jurisdiction of
the cause since to entertain it would violate the provisions of
the Revised Statutes referred to is without merit. Before coming
to dispose of the case on the merits, however, we observe that
the defendant corporation having called the attention of the
Government to the pendency of the cause and the nature of the
controversy and its unwillingness to voluntarily refuse to comply
with the act assailed, the United States as amicus curiae has
at bar been heard both orally and by brief for the purpose of
sustaining the decree.

Aside from averments as to citizenship and residence, recitals
as to the provisions of the statute and statements as to the
business of the corporation contained in the first ten paragraphs
of the bill advanced to sustain jurisdiction, the bill alleged
twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of
paragraphs or subdivisions. As all the grounds assert a violation
of the Constitution, it follows that in a wide sense they all
charge a repugnancy of the statute to the Sixteenth Amendment
under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was
adopted.

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to
be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however,
Page 11
that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the
conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto
unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax
which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of
apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the
far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made
clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument
to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a
particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and
therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which
does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment,
it is outside of the Amendment and is void as a direct tax in the
general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the
Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes "from whatever
source derived," the exclusion from taxation of some income of
designated persons and classes is not authorized and hence the
constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general
provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the
tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax
"incomes from whatever source derived" for which the Amendment
provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity,
therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not
conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the
assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the
general and preexisting provisions of the Constitution, causing
the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d)
As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective,
the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively
apply is void because so far as the retroactive period is
concerned, it is governed by the preexisting constitutional
requirement as to apportionment.

But it clearly results that the proposition and the
contentions
Page 12
under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the
Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in
bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax
from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general
requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the
tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come
under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to
other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the
result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct
tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of
geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different
tax in one State or States than was levied in another State or
States. This result instead of simplifying the situation and
making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously
the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create
radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and
multiply confusion.

But let us by a demonstration of the error of the fundamental
proposition as to the significance of the Amendment dispel the
confusion necessarily arising from the arguments deduced from it.
Before coming, however, to the text of the Amendment, to the end
that its significance may be determined in the light of the
previous legislative and judicial history of the subject with
which the Amendment is concerned and with a knowledge of the
conditions which presumptively led up to its adoption and hence
of the purpose it was intended to accomplish, we make a brief
statement on those subjects.

That the authority conferred upon Congress by § 8 of Article I
"to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" is
exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has
never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often
authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state
the doctrine. And it has also never
Page 13
been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently
to determine under which of the separate headings the power was
properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the
part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes.
Again it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded
complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as
they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from
the requirements of Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, that "all duties, imposts
and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States," and
to the limitations of Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, that "direct taxes
shall be apportioned among the several States" and of Art. I, §
9, cl. 4, that "no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be
laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration
hereinbefore directed to be taken." In fact the two great
subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the
power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power
were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock
v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, supra, at page 557: "In the
matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great
classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by
which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of
apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as
to duties, imposts and excises." It is to be observed, however,
as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533,
541, that the requirement of apportionment as to one of the great
classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much
a limitation upon the complete and all embracing authority to
tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the
mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted. In the whole
history of the Government down to the time of the adoption of the
Sixteenth Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of
the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great
classes and embraced
Page 14
by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the
correctness of these propositions. At the very beginning,
however, there arose differences of opinion concerning the
criteria to be applied in determining in which of the two great
subdivisions a tax would fall. Without pausing to state at length
the basis of these differences and the consequences which arose
from them, as the whole subject was elaborately reviewed in
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429;
158 U.S. 601, we make a condensed statement which is in substance
taken from what was said in that case. Early the differences were
manifested in pressing on the one hand and opposing on the other,
the passage of an act levying a tax without apportionment on
carriages "for the conveyance of persons," and when such a tax
was enacted the question of its repugnancy to the Constitution
soon came to this court for determination. (Hylton v. United
States, 3 Dall. 171.) It was held that the tax came within the
class of excises, duties and imposts and therefore did not
require apportionment, and while this conclusion was agreed to by
all the members of the court who took part in the decision of the
case, there was not an exact coincidence in the reasoning by
which the conclusion was sustained. Without stating the minor
differences, it may be said with substantial accuracy that the
divergent reasoning was this: On the one hand, that the tax was
not in the class of direct taxes requiring apportionment because
it was not levied directly on property because of its ownership
but rather on its use and was therefore an excise, duty or
impost; and on the other, that in any event the class of direct
taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because
of its ownership. Putting out of view the difference of reasoning
which led to the concurrent conclusion in the Hylton Case, it
is undoubted that it came to pass in legislative practice that
the line of demarcation between the two great classes of direct
taxes on the one hand and excises, duties and
Page 15
imposts on the other which was exemplified by the ruling in that
case, was accepted and acted upon. In the first place this is
shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases
of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves
because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct
class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of
apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the
situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes
derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted
beginning in 1861 and lasting during what may be termed the Civil
War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws
were classed under the head of excises, duties and imposts
because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch
as although putting a tax burden on income of every kind,
including that derived from property real or personal, they were
not taxes directly on property because of its ownership. And this
practical construction came in theory to be the accepted one
since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of the
textwriters. 1 Kent Com. 254, 256; 1 Story Const., § 955; Cooley
Const. Lim. (5th ed.) <*>480; Miller on the Constitution, 237;
Pomeroy's Constitutional Law, § 281; Hare Const. Law, Vol. 1,
249, 250; Burroughs on Taxation, 502; Ordronaux, Constitutional
Legislation, 225.

Upon the lapsing of a considerable period after the repeal of
the income tax laws referred to, in 1894 an act was passed laying
a tax on incomes from all classes of property and other sources
of revenue which was not apportioned, and which therefore was of
course assumed to come within the classification of excises,
duties and imposts which were subject to the rule of uniformity
but not to the rule of apportionment. The constitutional validity
of this law was challenged on the ground that it did not fall
within the class of excises, duties and imposts,
Page 16
but was direct in the constitutional sense and was therefore void
for want of apportionment, and that question came to this court
and was passed upon in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,
157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601. The court, fully recognizing in the
passage which we have previously quoted the all-embracing
character of the two great classifications including, on the one
hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other,
excises, duties and imposts subject to uniformity, held the law
to be unconstitutional in substance for these reasons: Concluding
that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of
rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of
property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of
apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was
a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this
purpose contemplated by the Constitution. (157 U.S. 581.) Coming
to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view,
while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was
direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was
held that considering the substance of things it was direct on
property in a constitutional sense since to burden an income by a
tax was from the point of substance to burden the property from
which the income was derived and thus accomplish the very thing
which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was
adopted to prevent. As this conclusion but enforced a regulation
as to the mode of exercising power under particular
circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing
taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily
therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed
to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them.
Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case
did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes
generically and necessarily came within the class
Page 17
of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the
fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled
to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to
enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the
requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to
prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and
consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the
regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would
not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to
recall that in the Pollock Case in so far as the law taxed
incomes from other classes of property than real estate and
invested personal property, that is, income from "professions,
trades, employments, or vocations" (158 U.S. 637), its validity
was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute
was made upon that subject and attention was called to the fact
that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in
the past. Id., p. 635. The whole law was however declared
unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate
would relieve real estate and invested personal property from
taxation and "would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by
professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way
what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance,
a tax on occupations and labor," (Id., p. 637) a result which
it was held could not have been contemplated by Congress.

This is the text of the Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration."

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport
to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an
authority already possessed and never questioned
Page 18
— or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes
and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to
relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a
consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed
in the light of the history which we have given and of the
decision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the
ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the
conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing
away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock
Case was decided, that is, of determining whether a tax on
income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on
the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking
into view the burden which resulted on the property from which
the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment
provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may
be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of
apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises,
first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed
concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the
language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the
income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and
are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the
Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention
that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax
although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily
therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only
applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two
great classifications which have been recognized and enforced
from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the
command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be
subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from
which the taxed income may be derived,
Page 19
forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the
Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the
great class of excises, duties and imposts subject to the rule of
uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class. This
must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution as a
result of the Amendment in express terms excludes the criterion
of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose
of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking
an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring
it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the
requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of
view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was
intended and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the
object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and
harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be
observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case because
of statements made in the opinions in that case it had come to be
accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were
confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its
ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiating or
challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct
had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied
directly on personal property because of its ownership, and
therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider
significance a part of the Constitution — a condition which
clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the
existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to
accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the
resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in
order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on
the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the
class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of
direct taxes.
Page 20

We come then to ascertain the merits of the many contentions
made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands, that is
to say, including within its terms the provisions of the
Sixteenth Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of
two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one
hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other
respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized
by the Sixteenth Amendment.

The statute was enacted October 3, 1913, and provided for a
general yearly income tax from December to December of each year.
Exceptionally, however, it fixed a first period embracing only
the time from March 1, to December 31, 1913, and this limited
retroactivity is assailed as repugnant to the due process clause
of the Fifth Amendment and as inconsistent with the Sixteenth
Amendment itself. But the date of the retroactivity did not
extend beyond the time when the Amendment was operative, and
there can be no dispute that there was power by virtue of the
Amendment during that period to levy the tax, without
apportionment, and so far as the limitations of the Constitution
in other respects are concerned, the contention is not open,
since in Stockdale v. Insurance Companies, 20 Wall. 323, 331,
in sustaining a provision in a prior income tax law which was
assailed because of its retroactive character, it was said:

"The right of Congress to have imposed this tax by a new
statute, although the measure of it was governed by the income of
the past year, cannot be doubted; much less can it be doubted
that it could impose such a tax on the income of the current
year, though part of that year had elapsed when the statute was
passed. The joint resolution of July 4th, 1864, imposed a tax of
five per cent. upon all income of the previous year, although one
tax on it had already been paid, and no one doubted the validity
of the tax or attempted to resist it."
Page 21

The statute provides that the tax should not apply to
enumerated organizations or corporations, such as labor,
agricultural or horticultural organizations, mutual savings
banks, etc., and the argument is that as the Amendment authorized
a tax on incomes "from whatever source derived," by implication
it excluded the power to make these exemptions. But this is only
a form of expressing the erroneous contention as to the meaning
of the Amendment, which we have already disposed of. And so far
as this alleged illegality is based on other provisions of the
Constitution, the contention is also not open, since it was
expressly considered and disposed of in Flint v. Stone Tracy
Co., 220 U.S. 108, 173.

Without expressly stating all the other contentions, we
summarize them to a degree adequate to enable us to typify and
dispose of all of them.

1. The statute levies one tax called a normal tax on all
incomes of individuals up to $20,000 and from that amount up by
gradations, a progressively increasing tax called an additional
tax, is imposed. No tax, however, is levied upon incomes of
unmarried individuals amounting to $3,000 or less nor upon
incomes of married persons amounting to $4,000 or less. The
progressive tax and the exempted amounts, it is said, are based
on wealth alone and the tax is therefore repugnant to the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

2. The act provides for collecting the tax at the source, that
is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay
the sum of the tax on interest due on bonds and mortgages, unless
the owner to whom the interest is payable gives a notice that he
claims an exemption. This duty cast upon corporations, because of
the cost to which they are subjected, is asserted to be repugnant
to due process of law as a taking of their property without
compensation, and we recapitulate various contentions as to
discrimination against corporations and against individuals
Page 22
predicated on provisions of the act dealing with the subject:

(a) Corporations indebted upon coupon and registered bonds are
discriminated against, since corporations not so indebted are
relieved of any labor or expense involved in deducting and paying
the taxes of individuals on the income derived from bonds.

(b) Of the class of corporations indebted as above stated, the
law further discriminates against those which have assumed the
payment of taxes on their bonds, since although some or all of
their bondholders may be exempt from taxation, the corporations
have no means of ascertaining such fact, and it would therefore
result that taxes would often be paid by such corporations when
no taxes were owing by the individuals to the Government.

(c) The law discriminates against owners of corporate bonds in
favor of individuals none of whose income is derived from such
property, since bondholders are, during the interval between the
deducting and the paying of the tax on their bonds, deprived of
the use of the money so withheld.

(d) Again corporate bondholders are discriminated against
because the law does not release them from payment of taxes on
their bonds even after the taxes have been deducted by the
corporation, and therefore if after deduction the corporation
should fail, the bondholders would be compelled to pay the tax a
second time.

(e) Owners of bonds the taxes on which have been assumed by
the corporation are discriminated against because the payment of
the taxes by the corporation does not relieve the bondholders of
their duty to include the income from such bonds in making a
return of all income, the result being a double payment of the
taxes, labor and expense in applying for a refund, and a
deprivation of the use of the sum of the taxes during the
interval which elapses before they are refunded.
Page 23

3. The provision limiting the amount of interest paid which
may be deducted from gross income of corporations for the purpose
of fixing the taxable income to interest on indebtedness not
exceeding one-half the sum of bonded indebtedness and paid-up
capital stock, is also charged to be wanting in due process
because discriminating between different classes of corporations
and individuals.

4. It is urged that want of due process results from the
provision allowing individuals to deduct from their gross income
dividends paid them by corporations whose incomes are taxed and
not giving such right of deduction to corporations.

5. Want of due process is also asserted to result from the
fact that the act allows a deduction of $3,000 or $4,000 to those
who pay the normal tax, that is, whose incomes are $20,000 or
less, and does not allow the deduction to those whose incomes are
greater than $20,000; that is, such persons are not allowed for
the purpose of the additional or progressive tax a second right
to deduct the $3,000 or $4,000 which they have already enjoyed.
And a further violation of due process is based on the fact that
for the purpose of the additional tax no second right to deduct
dividends received from corporations is permitted.

6. In various forms of statement, want of due process, it is
moreover insisted, arises from the provisions of the act allowing
a deduction for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable income of
stated amounts on the ground that the provisions discriminate
between married and single people and discriminate between
husbands and wives who are living together and those who are not.

7. Discrimination and want of due process results, it is said,
from the fact that the owners of houses in which they live are
not compelled to estimate the rental value in making up their
incomes, while those who are living in rented houses and pay rent
are not allowed, in making up their taxable income, to deduct
rent which they have
Page 24
paid, and that want of due process also results from the fact
that although family expenses are not as a rule permitted to be
deducted from gross, to arrive at taxable, income, farmers are
permitted to omit from their income return, certain products of
the farm which are susceptible of use by them for sustaining
their families during the year.

So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many
respects hypercritical, contentions are based upon an assumed
violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is
at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts
only a geographical uniformity and there is not a semblance of
ground in any of the propositions for assuming that a violation
of such uniformity is complained of. Knowlton v. Moore,
178 U.S. 41; Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608, 622; Flint v.
Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 158; Billings v. United
States, 232 U.S. 608, 622.

So far as the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is
relied upon, it suffices to say that there is no basis for such
reliance since it is equally well settled that such clause is not
a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the
Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not
conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing
power and taking the same power away on the other by the
limitations of the due process clause. Treat v. White,
181 U.S. 264; Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608; McCray v. United
States, 195 U.S. 27, 61; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra;
Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282. And no change in
the situation here would arise even if it be conceded, as we
think it must be, that this doctrine would have no application in
a case where although there was a seeming exercise of the taxing
power, the act complained of was so arbitrary as to constrain to
the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation but a
confiscation of property, that is, a taking
Page 25
of the same in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or, what is
equivalent thereto, was so wanting in basis for classification as
to produce such a gross and patent inequality as to inevitably
lead to the same conclusion. We say this because none of the
propositions relied upon in the remotest degree present such
questions. It is true that it is elaborately insisted that
although there be no express constitutional provision prohibiting
it, the progressive feature of the tax causes it to transcend the
conception of all taxation and to be a mere arbitrary abuse of
power which must be treated as wanting in due process. But the
proposition disregards the fact that in the very early history of
the Government a progressive tax was imposed by Congress and that
such authority was exerted in some if not all of the various
income taxes enacted prior to 1894 to which we have previously
adverted. And over and above all this the contention but
disregards the further fact that its absolute want of foundation
in reason was plainly pointed out in Knowlton v. Moore,
supra, and the right to urge it was necessarily foreclosed by
the ruling in that case made. In this situation it is of course
superfluous to say that arguments as to the expediency of levying
such taxes or of the economic mistake or wrong involved in their
imposition are beyond judicial cognizance. Besides this
demonstration of the want of merit in the contention based upon
the progressive feature of the tax, the error in the others is
equally well established either by prior decisions or by the
adequate bases for classification which are apparent on the face
of the assailed provisions, that is, the distinction between
individuals and corporations, the difference between various
kinds of corporations, etc., etc. Knowlton v. Moore, supra;
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra; Billings v. United States,
supra; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; National
Safe Deposit Co. v. Illinois, 232 U.S. 58, 70. In fact,
comprehensively surveying all the contentions
Page 26
relied upon, aside from the erroneous construction of the
Amendment which we have previously disposed of, we cannot escape
the conclusion that they all rest upon the mistaken theory that
although there be differences between the subjects taxed, to
differently tax them transcends the limit of taxation and amounts
to a want of due process, and that where a tax levied is believed
by one who resists its enforcement to be wanting in wisdom and to
operate injustice, from that fact in the nature of things there
arises a want of due process of law and a resulting authority in
the judiciary to exceed its powers and correct what is assumed to
be mistaken or unwise exertions by the legislative authority of
its lawful powers, even although there be no semblance of warrant
in the Constitution for so doing.

We have not referred to a contention that because certain
administrative powers to enforce the act were conferred by the
statute upon the Secretary of the Treasury, therefore it was void
as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we
think to state the proposition is to answer it. Field v.
Clark, 143 U.S. 649; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470,
496; Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320.

Affirmed.

[Nunyabiz]

290. I will ignore your link as you did mine

which explained why your link is BS

[FedUp_Queer]

298. Now THAT'S funny...

I read what that idiot you cited said. I even read the Supreme Court Opinion he cited. As I stated, his "citations" to the opinion are not even in the opinion. The Court did NOT write what he "cited." Either he just lied about what the Court said OR he didn't read what the Court said...in either case, he either made it up himself or cited somebody else who made it up, not very credible. Read the opinion...if you can. Sounds like Bush and al Qaeda's connection to Iraq..."If the facts don't fit, I'll just make my own facts." I'm still laughing.

[PurpleChez]

551. I think FedUp Queer's documentation

which of course included the state-by-state ratification and extensive court opinion, somehow trumps a little chart from Bill Holmes Consulting. By your logic there is no such thing as judicial review (it's not in the Constitution at all), so let's forget about Roe v Wade and go back to criminalized abortion, or forget Brown v Board of Ed and resegregate all the schools.

[MADem]

570. How delightfully and plainly articulated!!!

Yeah, we may as well get rid of all those pesky amendments so long as we're cleaning house--go back to the Founding Father Days. All you womenfolk, no property ownership for YOU!! And voting? Fuggedaboutit--no one wants to HEAR your opinions!!! Get to the well and get some water for doing the wash, now!! And you dusky folk, start learning those spirituals, it makes the field work go so much quicker!!

But to be serious--that "unconstitutional" argument is just what this poor nutty, Hugo hugging woman is shopping. The bit about the Japanese "Concentration Camps" (were the ovens microwaves?) was incredibly Over The Top as well.

Who are her "handlers" and "advisors" I wonder? Are they on Rove's payroll, too? She sure as hell doesn't know shit about US history.

[Nunyabiz]

271. I have, I haven't paid "income" taxes since 1988

[IronLionZion]

453. how did you accomplish that?

I'm curious.

[PurpleChez]

264. I have a good friend who insisted that the income tax was unconstitutional

in spite of the fact that the 16th Amendment to the constitution allows for income taxes.

[ellisonz]

393. Umm...

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

[IronLionZion]

452. So the 16th amendment is just a figment of our imagination?

Who are we to believe? You or our own lying eyes?:

16th amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am16.html

Maybe our constitution is unconstitutional?

[rinsd]

486. The 16th amendment and Supreme Court case law says otherwise (nt)

[whopis01]

553. US Code, Title 26

That's the law that you seem to have a hard time finding.

Here is a link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

In further detail:
Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart B, Section 6012

Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount

It then goes on to list exceptions to this, for people who haven't made enough money to pay taxes.


and Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 62, Subchapter A, Section 6151

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

[LanternWaste]

575. Maybe you could point me to the section

Maybe you could point me to the section that states the tax is voluntary?

How is it unconstitutional? (If you're reply is: "Because it's not in the Constitution!", then please try again...)

[Truth2Tell]

363. Do I have to support the nuclear bombing

of Japan to be a real Democrat? Just wondering.

[obiwan]

376. Common Sense?

You don't need to hide behind a party mantra. You do what you think is right.

There's Democrat, there's Republican, and then there's what's right, which knows NO party.

Cindy wants to do what she thinks is right, and that takes coureage. She can say what she wants, according to the First Amendment of the Constitution.For this I support her. Neither Cindy or I need the Democratic Underground to do what's right. I have known Cindy's family for close to five years. With a naive attitude like yours, you have guaranteed your own anonymity. Cindy would be where she is now with or without the Democratic Party.

All that being said, Skinner's right. This is his site, and he makes the rules. I will still come here because I generally agree with what is said here.

However, I do not need any party to prop me up. I am comfortable with my own convictions and am not scared of anybody.

BTW, the income tax and the IRS ARE unconstitutional. There is no specific Federal statute that allows the IRS to take money from your paycheck.

I would wager that you weren't around when Truman decided to drop the bombs on Japan. (Neither was I.)

[NavyDavy]

405. leave we at DU don't need you guys trying to tell us what to think...

[puebloknot]

295. She can hold those views (not all of which I agree with, BTW)...

... and still be a Democrat. Since when does membership in the Democratic Party required slavish holding to the party line?

My father might have perished in the Pacific Theater (he was in training to go to the Pacific when the war ended in Europe) but for the dropping of the two A bombs. But I've always been troubled by the fact that a civilian population was in the area where the bombs were dropped. And the second bomb, only three days after the first, has always bothered me. Reasoned arguments have long been made to suggest the bombs were the lesser of evils, and that ground combat and conventional bombing would have yielded greater numbers of casualties. That all this occurred under Democrats is, I think, a false argument. So I don't agree with Cindy on that.

There are legitimate questions about the legality of the income tax. Most people don't realize that the Federal Reserve is not a government agency, but a private corporation. Enough said about that!

The American concentration camps for Japanese-Americans were a reality, and their lingering effects on the people rounded up and put in them continue to be a reality. There is a very desirable residential area here in Santa Fe that was built on the land where one of those camps was situated in World War II. Dems did it, it's true, but so might the Repubs have done so.

I think that Cindy represents the spirit of the Democratic Party, as we have cherished it for years.

[Danger Mouse]

296. Yeah, we sure did done started World War 2 and World War 1!!!

:crazy: She's made her position clear. She's hostile to both parties. She won't get jackshit accomplished that way.

[obiwan]

380. Huh?

You won't get anything useful done by kissing someone's ass, either. Don't be a sheep.

[DutchLiberal]

413. She IS right about this part:

Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats.

[MADem]

574. Right fucking nuts, you mean. Where were the OVENS, pray tell?:

That was her most LUNATIC statement. Internment camps were no picnic, and certainly not nice, but they were NOT concentration camps. No one was starved, no one was beaten, no one had the gold pulled out of their teeth, no one was "experimented on" and no one was gassed and burnt in ovens in the Japanese internment camps.

See--that's why she is a fucking IDIOT. She slept through history class, apparently. Yet her ignorance bothers her not a whit.

She thinks holding people illegally and denying them freedom temporarily because of their ethnicity in a wartime environment is the SAME as killing off a massive percentage of populations because of races, ethnicities, orientations and religions (the plurals were intentional, though the Jews took the brunt of the punishment in terms of total percentages).

And as for those bombs, why, they weren't great, but a lot of us probably wouldn't be here today if they hadn't been dropped. It was an Us or Them scenario, even though some people like to put on their modern-day glasses and wag that finger when they look back on that era. And if Japan had surrendered after the first one was dropped, there would not have BEEN a second one. But no, their government bears NO burden, even though they started the game with Pearl Harbor...!

[DutchLiberal]

608. If Gitmo was initiated by a Democrat, would you be so blindly partisan about that as well??

Would you defend Gitmo if Bill Clinton had set it up? Do you defend or condone the program of extraordinary renditions (=kidnappings) of terror suspects to countries where torture is legal, which was initiated by Bill Clinton?

And as for those bombs, why, they weren't great, but a lot of us probably wouldn't be here today if they hadn't been dropped. It was an Us or Them scenario

Dead wrong, my friend. It was certainly not the only way to end the conflict, plus many historians today believe (and I agree with them) that Truman only dropped the bomb to show the Soviets to stay away from Japan.

Wake up, snap out of the blind defending of party. Yes, FDR was dead wrong when he put up those Japanese camps. Yes, I consider Truman a war criminal for throwing two atom bombs. Yes, I am still a liberal who wants the Democrats in office in the US because, for all their faults, they're still 10 times better than the Republicans. But that does not mean that I will condone or defend wrong things done by Democrats.

[MADem]

611. If pigs could fly, would you stop eating bacon? WTF was your pathetic hypothetical supposed to mean

really?

Clinton didn't initiate Gitmo. That's not his way. If he had those views, he would have been a REPUBLICAN. So there wouldn't be any conflict, then, would there?

That's an idiotic "What If?" argument, frankly. Lame. Pointless.

I asked you "Where are the OVENS?" And you give me that crap.

Unable to distinguish between a CONCENTRATION camp, and unauthorized internment, is it? Or glossing that business over? Now THERE's a distinction with a difference. But then, if you're weak on the history skills, it's all of a piece, I suppose. :eyes:

And I am NOT "Dead wrong, friend." I wouldn't BE here if it weren't for those bombs, and nor would half of my family, whose ancesters were about to invade Japan. Maybe you didn't have direct ancestors off the coast of Japan ready to wade ashore if those bombs hadn't gone off--I did. And plenty of others I know did, too. And many, many more who I don't know as well. You still haven't explained why Japan didn't ameliorate their lot by surrendering before the second one flew. But no, it's OUR fault because their fleet attacked Pearl Harbor, eh? Good grief...

But here's my return salvo to your exhortation: Why don't YOU wake up, and snap out of hectoring DEMOCRATS on a DEMOCRATIC site about your stupidass bullshit flake independent candidate. Why don't you understand that this isn't OPTIONAL. You were supposed to READ the rules when you signed up, and now you're pissed because you didn't do that and you now can't follow them. Well, boo hoo.

There's no rule that you can't criticize Democrats here, and you can even do it STUPIDLY, as many do. Intellect in argument isn't even a prerequisite. That's not the point, though you are trying to make it seem as though THAT's the issue--it isn't. The candidacy of a flake independent, touted by her followers and a bunch of trolls, IS the issue. So if you can't live with NOT touting her candidacy, you're in the wrong place.

Bottom line: It's Skinner's site, and if he wants us all to have screen names that start with FuckYou or Heckuvajob, that's HIS perogative--NOT yours. You might "get with the program" and either live by the rules, like the rest of us seem able to do, or move along smartly. You don't advance any debate, you simply are bullying others who read those pesky rules when they joined this site to support Democratic candidates, a view that apparently you do not share. And that's fine, but we don't have to put up with you if that's your viewpoint, just as you don't HAVE to post your diatribes here--this isn't the only website on earth that discusses politics, doncha know. So if that's the case, that you can't abide by the rules, leave it at that, and go somewhere where you'll be happy.

[DutchLiberal]

671. Can't you do anything but rave, rant, insult, call names and lie? Apparently not.

I will not even respond to your name-calling, which got so ridiculous I might've mistaken you for Bill O'Reilly. But what's up with that crap about trolling, reading rules, and "flake independent candidate"?

I support Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic candidate for president. Yes, I agree with Cindy Sheehan on most points, but not all. I haven't read in the rules that it's forbidden to agree with a progressive activist. So why are you giving me two paragraphs of uncontrolled rave and anger, when it doesn't even apply to me? Your post is nothing but blind hatred for somebody who simply doesn't agree with everything Democrats do. Yes, I'm not kow-towing to *everything* The Party does. Apparently, I have the independent mind and the critical thinking you say I have not.

My "what if?"-question was there for a reason. It's perfectly normal to ask such a question, when you blindly support other criminal activities from Democrats. So I wanted to test you. But instead of answering a simple question, you chose to start a flame.

And I will continue to correct you on the atom bomb thing: it is a war crime. It was mass-murder. It was the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. And to this days, hundreds of thousands of people still suffer from the effects the nuclear radiation had. Japan was about to surrender anyway. The bomb was dropped to sand a warning to the Soviets. Maybe you should read up.

[MADem]

677. For someone who "will not even respond" you sure do a lot of it.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't own it. Do you take everything so personally?

And you can "correct" me until the cows come home, but you'd still be wrong. If they were "about to surrender" why didn't they? And why did Number Two finally get their attention? They didn't dither around after that, did they? "Sanding" warnings to the Soviets aside....

Get over yourself. And don't make the naive mistake of interpreting history with present day eyes. It always makes for bad history.

[DutchLiberal]

681. Is that the way you're going to spin this? You started flaming, and now *I* have to get over it?

Well, whatever works for you. I hope you enjoy many more celebrations of destroying innocent people with atom bombs... :crazy:

[MADem]

685. You're the one flaming, and refusing to accept the determination of the site owners.

Get over it. Nothing you do is gonna change reality. You can either live with it, or move on.

And way to toss bullshit as though it's fact. Because I don't see our nation's actions during war as "destroying innocent people," you extrapolate that to suggest that I will somehow, in the future, "celebrate" similar events in years to come? That's fucked up reasoning...if you can even CALL it reasoning. More like inaccurate bomb tossing, or firing without any effect.

So long, "pal." In case you're unclear, because you do seem to have problems in that regard, I'm not being sincere when I call you "pal."

[DutchLiberal]

690. Hey, you don't have to explain sarcasm to me, old flamer!

I see you're still O'Reilly-ing about me breaking site rules? How cute. Have reading problems? I just stated which Democrat I support.

Oh, and for the record: yes, dropping an atom bomb on ten thousands of citizens is mass murder and yes, that's a war crime. And saying your own life, just your own, is worth the price of millions of people dying IS the most disgusting thing I've ever read. And it came from YOUR mouth.

Also, let me enlighten you about the rightfulness of Sheehan's remark: a 'concentration camp' need not to have ovens or gas chambers. The Soviets had concentration camps, the North-Koreans have concentration camps. It's about *concentrating* people (= to hold them together). It's kinda in the name, don;t ya think, hm?

[MADem]

697. Keep showing us how much you don't know, why don't you.

A "gulag"--which the Soviets had, was a prison camp. The charges may have been trumped up, but that was the stated goal and purpose of the camp. The North Koreans have forced labor, prison and reeducation camps.

You don't know jackshit about history. Try going to Israel, or speaking to anyone with a tattoo of numbers on their arm, and you tell them that those other entities are concentration camps. Hope like hell there aren't any sharp objects nearby. That is the assertion of a woefully uneducated individual.

And that "O'Reilly" name you're calling me? Repeatedly, childishly, like a third grader stuck on a single taunt? THAT's against the rules, too.

But then, you never bothered them, did you? I see you STILL haven't taken the trouble.

[DutchLiberal]

723. Your numerous errors show you are totally ignorant when it comes to history

AND to language. 'Concentration camp' is a WORD, stupid. It means: 'a camp where large amounts of people are concentrated'. It doesn't matter whether the prisoners are their to do forced labor, or that the charges against them were trumped up, or that there were gas chambers and ovens. A concentration camp can serve many purposes and can be designed for whatever reasons for whatever persons.

You make yourself look ridiculous by O'Reilly-ing that I don't know what happened in concentration camps in WW II. Maybe you need that to make yourself look good or to mask your disability to understand anything about linguïstics. What part of 'concentrating people' don't you understand with your limited brain capacity?

Way to go to insult people and call them names and THEN cry when somebody else calls you on it. THAT'S why you remind me of Billo.

[mondo joe]

640. If the Democrats did some I found reprehensible, I'd leave the party. I wouldn't ask a site

with the stated purpose of supporting the Democratic party to subsidize my politics.

[DutchLiberal]

672. I'm not asking this site to support Sheehan. I support Kucinich.

We were just discussing (at least, I tried, but all I got were insults) whether or not one should blindly support *any* party (in this case, the Democratic party).

[mondo joe]

691. Simple answer: No, no one should *blindly* follow any party. But the purpose

of this *site* is to support a party. If that works for you, great. If not, there are many other choices.

Supporting the Democratic party doesn't mean doing so *blindly*.

[DutchLiberal]

724. I support the Democratic party, just not at all costs under all circumstances

Why do you all try so hard to blacken me?

[MADem]

686. Cogently said.

:thumbsup:

[MODemocrat]

191. I'm a real Democrat

I Always support the Democratic Party; wouldn't even think of voting for any other party. It's not that I feel the democrats are perfect and right about everything;the worst democrat is still a cut
above any republican, especially this Neo-con bunch we have now. :thumbsup: :dem:

[puebloknot]

280. So you'll vote for the lesser evil, no matter how evil?

[George II]

223. For one....

Someone who supports the Democratic Party and it's ideals. And, if one doesn't like the policies of the Democratic Party, work WITHIN the Party to change it, not quit and try to destroy it from outside the Party.

[NavyDavy]

402. not her!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

200. ...

:thumbsup:

[orleans]

276. how the hell do you know what she was? how long have you known

her? how personal are you with her? give me a break. why don't you just come out and say you don't like her instead of making random accusations like that?

[Marrah_G]

334. by reading her own words

"I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats."

Note the first sentence.

[orleans]

391. gee marrah, so everyone who doesn't march in lockstep with the dems sucks?

that line of thinking sounds a lot like the behavior of republicans these days, don't ya think? face it: cindy was right; choices *were* limited.

why don't you read her in context instead of pulling a couple lines from her blog so you can hang her by them.

she also said:
"I have nothing personally against Nancy and have found our previous interactions very pleasant — but being “against” the occupation of Iraq means ending it by ending the funding and preventing future illegal wars of aggression by holding BushCo accountable. Words have to be backed up by action and if they aren’t, they are as empty as Cheney’s conscience."

DON'T YOU BELIEVE WORDS SHOULD BE BACKED UP BY ACTION?
no matter who is speaking them? including a democrat?

who do you think is going to hold the republican party accountable if our democratic leaders won't do it?

you've got three kids--if one of your children were killed in this fucking war wouldn't you demand someone be held accountable?? and who would you be dealing with? bush & cheney? they gonna let YOU hold them accountable? or would you expect your democratic leaders to do that job? and what if they wouldn't do it? then what would *you* do?

why is it okay to only hold the republican party accountable? why shouldn't the democrats be held to the same standard at least?

[NavyDavy]

403. shes not a dem so get over it....she doesn't belong on this site

she is whacked out....I feel for her lost I too have lost a son....but i am still sane...

[orleans]

512. "so get over it"? sounds like republican talking points.

she was a dem

a lifelong dem


did i say she belonged on this site? no.

so what are you talking about?

or are you just replying to my post so you can put up a cheap shot on how "sane" she is?

and as for the comparison on the loss of your children. i don't know how your son died, or when, but i would think that you would realize that grief effects people differently--not everyone grieves like YOU!

[puebloknot]

282. On what do you possibly base that assertion? Never?????

[Marrah_G]

336. I base it on her own words

"I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats."

Note the first sentence and her obvious dislike of the party as a whole.

[puebloknot]

388. There are huge numbers of people who are Democrats, rather than...

... Republicans because the Democratic Party is less repugnant than the other party. There are things I love about the Democratic Party. But I'll never hesitate to criticize when the party is not living up to its ideals. There's a great deal to criticize right now. Does doing so make me, or Cindy Sheehan, "not a real Democrat"?

Who are the thought police who make that decision?

All this has overtones of good Germans following the Nazi Party line. Indeed, Hitler gave the Germans hope after the trauma of WWI, but his plan was a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

[Name removed]

406. Deleted message

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

[Unca Jim]

446. Oooh! Invoked Hitler

...and lost the argument completely!

Seriously. Skinner can do whatever he wants with his site and people who don't like it will just vote with their feet.

This is not the Government, it's a message board. No one's real life will be affected if someone can't advocate a particular candidate, and the right to post on this board has far less Constitutional authority than paying your income taxes.

[puebloknot]

548. Oooh! You went off the rails and failed entirely to comprehend my intent.

I was not "advocating a particular candidate." I was saying we're in serious trouble AS DEMOCRATS if we start crucifying those who don't follow the party line -- if we can even figure out what the "party line" in these days of massive confusion for *OUR* party.

This is a perfect example of how crowds get out of control. One person makes an off-topic accusation, and then another poster takes up the cry: "This is not government."

I never said it was.

[mondo joe]

449. Aren't you confusing DU with a government with the full power of law?

DU is just a message board with a stated purpose - like boards about gardening, reproductive rights, movies, Macs, etc.

There are plenty of boards to advocate Cindy Sheehan - and you can easily start your own.

[puebloknot]

547. I am NOT *ADVOCATING* Cindy Sheehan for political office.

I am simply pointing out that deciding who is a *real* Democrat is problematical.

These divisions of Dem/Repub, Conservative/Liberal are sometimes used to beat other people about the head and shoulders when they are trying to follow their own conscience.

DU is a message board for discussing progressive political ideas, not a place to demean the character of someone who may not see things in the same way you do. I don't know where this crack-brained idea that I'm confusing DU with government got started! My post was to an individual who is taking it on herself to declare Cindy Sheehan "not a real Democrat, and clearly never was" and to spread that idea to anyone who disagrees with her idea of what a Democrat is.

Isn't the Democratic Party supposed to be the Big Tent when it comes to diversity in thinking?

I have not yet seen a prohibition against mentioning Cindy Sheehan's name by Skinner -- in fact, I've seen the opposite. I have not yet seen a definition from the mods of what a "real Democrat" is -- thereby conferring a right to post here.

[mondo joe]

602. No. Democrats determine who is a Democrat through the nominating

process. If they select someone to represent them, that's their choice.

You can opin on it as you like, but that's what a Democrat is.

[puebloknot]

605. If the Democrats nominate someone who does not stand up...

... for long-held Democratic Party principles, is that what a Democratic is?

From a purely political stance, you're right. No one will be able to say Hillary or Obama aren't Democrats, even if they sell us down the river, because, by golly, they're Democrats.

Opining is the most elemental, the most defining of Democratic characteristics, BTW!

[mondo joe]

607. There are plenty of Democrats, and a diversity of principles - though one

hopes there is enough common ground at the foundation to make a cogent party.

There is no fixed definition of what a Democrat is. The only people who can decide who a Democrat is are the voters in the party.

Isn't that the very basis of what any political party is?

I don't know how else you think it should be decided.

[puebloknot]

609. Cutting to the chase...

... where did you get the idea that I think anything different than what you've posted? With the proviso that a person can be a Democrat in spirit, but not have any fear of criticizing the very party they helped to build -- whether hardliners like it, or not.

My original post was in response to someone who was taking it on herself to say that Cindy Sheehan is not a "real Democrat, and never was."

End of conversation.

[Quantess]

696. ppfff.

OOOH! We're "Nazi's" for not supporting Cindy Sheehan. Such hyperbole.
HOTSY TOTSY! I'm a NAZI!
HOTSY TOTSY! I'm a NAZI!

I will act my own age, when you do. Please stop with the histrionics.

(edit spelling).

[Madspirit]

59. I Support What Cindy Does but...

Skinner is right. This IS the Democratic Underground and it exists to support Democratic candidates.

Lee

[ChrisdemW]

284. Democratic underground exists to support candidates?

Thats the purpose of this site?

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. Real Democrats don't call the Democratic Party "the party of slavery"

[philosophie_en_rose]

180. or rant against public funding through taxation.

:thumbsup:

[ikojo]

184. Well the Democratic party WAS the party of

slavery, Jim Crow and the Klan. It is a historical fact, no denying it will change the facts.

[Marrah_G]

195. She did not say WAS, she said ARE, there is a big difference

[Kajsa]

212. Thank you, Marrah!

Many people miss that she's using
PRESENT TENSE in that sentence.

That tirade against the Dems. full of
historical inaccuracies ( we did NOT start
every 20th Century war except Bush Sr!)
was the last straw for me.

I can't support her now.

[FedUp_Queer]

273. This is why I'm neither...

I've never seen such "lock step thinking" until this. Here is what Cindy said...allegedly:

"I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats."

First, let me say, most of that seems true. Second, I think I'd take Ms. Sheehan's comments in the context of a Mother who has lost a son in an ill-conceived war that many, many Democrats voted to authorize when, if they had just done their homework, would have seen that the President was lying. Third, her comments strike me as hyperbole coming from a person who looks at the Democrats as too easily backing down to der Fuehrer when they were elected to end the war. Fourth, Democrats need to be self-critical and realize that people calling themselves Democrats have done some dreadfully awful things (Andrew Jackson and the genocide Native Americans; Roosevelt and the Japanese internment; etc.). Democrats need to own up. I think the "that's not the same party" is just not credible. For me, the key difference between Democrats and Republicans is that one has gotten better, generally, and the other has gotten worse. But just as I am the same person who has done wrong things, I'm the same one who has done right things (and hopefully atoned for my wrong things).

But, please, Democrats, I look at this and see this "how dare you criticize" the party as just silly. Neither party infallible and just needs to own up. That being said, I'll not vote for a Republican again, EVER. That means, until there's a real alternative to the Democrats, that's who gets my vote.

[Marrah_G]

300. It is not allegedy

It is on her web-site. If you want to support her, go for it. Just don't expect everyone else to share in your love for someone who makes nasty comments about our party and out leadership. For me this isn't about never criticizing the party, it's about standing up when people make offensive remarks about some good Dems on a regular basis. You can take her comments any way you want. I will take them in the way she clearly meant them, as a vicious slam against the Democratic Party.

[FedUp_Queer]

316. Did you even read what I said?

Your comments are just ridiculous. Was she wrong? Either way, so what if it's a "vicious slam?" I think it happens to be right. All Democrats need to deal with that and need to own up to the Party's history, both negative and positive. To be that upset over something said about a political party...when it seems pretty accurate to me strikes me as just weird. This "don't criticize" Democrats strikes me as something I'd expect from Republicans. It makes me realize more than ever how glad I am to be a truth-seeking, progressive devoid of merely partisan loyalties.

[Kajsa]

442. Did you read what Cindy said?

" Democrats ARE the party of slavery" ( not- 'were')
" Democrats have started every war in the 20th Century
except the first Bush war"

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

It's like she's spouting things off without thinking, first.

Oh, then there's the " Democrats are not our saviors".
I don't believe Dems ever put themselves in that category, she did.

My question is,

Then who are our best hope?
The Republicans?!?

I don't think so.

[FedUp_Queer]

476. So limited...

I stand corrected where I was wrong. But this comment shows the limited thinking of partisans:

Then who are our best hope?
The Republicans?!?


My best hope is find the truth. I guess I just think outside the box and see something greater than the two parties. Moreover, on issues that I hold dear, LGBT issues, and particular on issues of immigration rights for same-sex couples (I've been in a relationship for nearly 7 years with a Brazilian national), I see the a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, signed DOMA, which made immigration rights for us, insofar as sponsoring my partner for a green card based upon our relationship....even if we could marry, impossible. I just think truth should trump party loyalty, generally, and criticism should be welcome...and that way I see it, perhaps I'm wrong, criticism just doesn't seem like anything partisans take in stride.

[MADem]

579. It's in her KOS diary. An insanely innacurate rant, it is. The diary

--at least the more recent posts--reads like the ramblings of an angry, frustrated and disordered mind.

I don't think her "fans" are really helping her or care about her. She needs help--she doesn't need to be persuaded to tilt at windmills and embark on foolish adventures designed to further marginalize her.

Rove must be gleeful at her behavior, is all I can say.

Wonder if they'll stick with her, those "handlers" and "advisers" when the cash from the TX land sale runs out? Why do I think....NOT?

[diamidue]

481. amen to that!

"It makes me realize more than ever how glad I am to be a truth-seeking, progressive devoid of merely partisan loyalties".

You said it far more diplomatically than I could. Which is why my last comments on this board were deleted, I guess. LOL

[Freddie Stubbs]

400. So, losing a son in the war give one a license to slander?

Criticizing the Party for actual faults is one thing. Making stuff up is something different.

[FedUp_Queer]

477. Slander?

Really now...let's stop with this slander talk...unless you actually know what slander is, which based upon this ridiculous assertion, you don't.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

539. What's her obsession with the income tax?

She even puts it in the same paragraph as internment camps and slavery, for some reason.

[mentalsolstice]

237. ...and Lincoln was a Republican

...so based on that fact, do you support present-day Pukes?

[FedUp_Queer]

599. The point is this...

For me, it does not boil down to a party. It boils down to the truth. Tell the truth, it's that simple. I'm just not that partisan. The issue is not whether I support the GOP...I don't. The issue is that I don't blindly support the Democrats. In fact, on LGBT issues, and marriage and immigration rights (which are the two most important things to me), the fact is that the Democrats are really no better. I don't give 1/2 a rip about rhetoric. I care about results, and I recall that a Democratic President signed DOMA (which screwed my partner and my ability to sponsor him), and then this Democratic President campaigned on his "I saved traditional marriage" street cred. Do I expect the GOP to repeal that law...no. However, I at least know where they stand...they just hate me for being gay (and likely for being a in relationship of 7 years which is longer than any of theirs). And I cannot forget it was a Republican Governor who was the only Republican Governor to sign into law civil unions without court direction to grant equal rights to LGBT people. See if you can guess who that was. The bottom line...my point is that I support the truth. If you don't support the truth, you're no better than those you actually are supposed to be better than.

[Pab Sungenis]

455. Well, we were.

We were a pro-slavery party, and the Republicans were born as an abolitionist party.

We changed and grew, and most of the pro-slavery Democrats wound up with the Republicans after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

[Freddie Stubbs]

484. Yet Ms. Sheehan used the present tense

The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle.

[WI_DEM]

70. and your implying that Nancy Pelosi is a DINO??!!

[rainy]

126. No, I'm just saying Cindy agrees with us more times than other Dems do

and she fights way harder for what is right and doesn't worry about her "political career" like most other Dems. Being Democratic is a way of life and beliefs not just a loyalty to a party that does not represent the people most of the time but represents the monied elites most of the time.

[Marrah_G]

196. She agrees with YOU more times then other Dems

[polmaven]

603. Thank you, Marrah....

She certainly does not agree with ME more times than "other dems". I actually agree with Speaker Pelosi more than I agree with Cindy.

Has she stated any qualifications other than IMPEACH?

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. She's a NADINE. (not a democrat in name either). n/t

[adamuu]

121. LOL good one n/t

[nadine_mn]

209. As a Nadine I find this post offensive

pfft...

:P

[barb162]

142. No, she is clearly not a Democrat and she has put that in writing. She's Independent

[puebloknot]

288. She's independent, in the same way that Jeffords became...

... an independent when he could no longer, in good conscience, work within the Republican Party.

Cindy has chosen to work for democratic/Democratic (as they used to be) ideals outside the strict framework of the Democratic Party, as it now exists.

Who holds the higher moral position, the duly-elected Democratic who enables the war by supporting funding for it, or the "stray" Democrat who follows her own conscience to try to effect change?

[w13rd0]

328. Strict Framework?

You do realize that the Democratic Party, just in elected officials alone, demonstrates FAR more variety and bredth of opinion than the GOP, don't you? I mean, this is the party that includes Reid, Kucinich, Frank, Kennedy, Nelson, and until they'd completely flown off the rails, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

Ah yes, but its the Democrats that have a strict framework and march in lockstep... <eyeroll>

Same reality-denying crap I hear from GOP talking point spouters...

[puebloknot]

335. back atcha. Of course, I realize that historically We the Dems...

... have been a far more diverse and humane party than the GOP.

*Reality," my good sir, as it exists TODAY, is that our party of diversity is stuck in the mud. Nothing meaningful is happening. Democratic ideals are being sold down the river.

I'd rather see the Dems marching in lockstep than not marching at all!

Crap is in the eye of the beholder, Brother Dem!

[tomp]

438. i'd like to see them marching in lockstep...

....for progressive causes all the time, and especially when the chips are down, like the patriot act, aumf's, supreme court aappointment fillibusters, etc. this diversity issue is crap. it allows democrats off the hook on crucial issues. what i want to know is when will "diversity" swing us leftward, away from the republicans?

[puebloknot]

562. Yes, let's get Thom Hartmann, who is an expert on ADD...

... to get them focused on what Dems claim to stand for.

Repubs have a diversity of opinions about how best to undermine the Constitution and install permanent Republican reign.

We need to get down and dirty and be as judgmental as all hell. We need to realize that when a bulldog has hold of your pantsleg, you have to remove the bulldog before you understand the traumatic factors that caused said bulldog to turn out as it has.

The "Oh, dear" factor has to go if we're going to survive as a democratic republic.

[barb162]

660. "...democratic/Democratic (as they used to be) ideals..."

Do you know where Sheehan stands on any issues other than Iraq? I don't. I don't know where the plural part of "ideals" comes from in that sentence. I have no idea of what her platform will be. I'm not in that congressional district and I doubt I will be paying much attention because I think Pelosi will be the winner. It is interesting that she's going after a Democrat and not a Republican in some other district, don't you think?

[mondo joe]

144. If she ran as a Democrat she'd be a Democrat. She has decided she's not.

[WinkyDink]

225. Is that the "Joe Lieberman" argument?

[bowens43]

549. She's not a Democrat

[Ress1]

571. All Democrats are not liberal,

all liberals are not Democrats. I have no doubts Cindy is a good liberal, she's just no longer, by her own choice, a Democrat. This is Democratic Underground, not Liberal Underground.

[Zandor]

732. ****WAY TO GO SKINNER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!****

When Sheehan took on the Dems she lost me.

She can get fucked.

[Zandor]

734. NANCY! NANCY! NANCY! NANCY! NANCY!

Sorry Cindy, no support for your pathetic campaign here. :)

NANCY! NANCY! NANCY! NANCY! NANCY!

[ORDagnabbit]

2. honest question. Does ethics and morality count or we support Dems just like Rep support their

people.... blindly?

[Blue_In_AK]

9. I'm thinking anyone can support Cindy's candidacy that wants to,

just not here. That's probably fair.

[ryanus]

10. That's what he said. It's very clear.

[stranger81]

503. wow . . . . that's sad.

party before logic, reason or country has never been a stellar idea, no matter who's pushing it. Doesn't make me any less of a Democrat just because I happen to like my critical thinking skills.

Maybe we need a Progressive Underground board, where real ideas and conflicts can be discussed.

[MADem]

581. No, it isn't SAD at all. Read the rules. It's plain as day.

Go start up a Progressive or Liberal or Cindy Underground if you'd like. No one is stopping you. Have fun, maybe others will join you.

But it's just childish to get angry, or suggest that it is "SAD"-- because you didn't bother to read the rules, as you are asked to do, before you posted here.

That's what's really SAD--that you didn't care enough about the community goals here to read and understand them before you made assumptions about what this place was about. A few minutes perusing the rules clears that up in about a minute.

[stranger81]

584. no assumptions made up, and I did read the rules . . . .

I took seriously the site's mission statement as a place for discussion of democratic and progressive values. And hence the disappointment.

Why do you assume everyone who disagrees with your point of view is ignorant, or stupid, or hasn't read the rules? There should be plenty of room for honest, well-intentioned disagreement on this board without all the ad hominems.

[MADem]

601. I don't assume that--but you didn't read them, did you?

The "mission statement" isn't the rules. They're very specific. And the only way anyone could be "sad" or even surprised, is if they HADN'T read the rules.

See, this isn't "my" house--it's Skinner's. And when I came a-calling, I took the time to read what was expected for the privilege of posting here. The reason I did that is because that is what was ASKED of me when I signed up to join this private party.

I don't get pissed at him -- or "sad"--it's his playground. He runs it, he fixes the equipment, he makes sure that people play nice on the slide. Anyone who doesn't like his swingset and monkey bars can go down the street and play in the vacant lot with the glass shards in it...whatever. That's the way a "MODERATED site with RULES" usually works.

But way to move the goalposts, there--putting "ignorant" and "stupid" on ME, when those are words out of YOUR head, not mine. Not nice, that. Didn't bolster your wanting argument, either.

The rules here AREN'T "There should be plenty of room for honest, well-intentioned disagreement" where a bunch of rabid and nasty CindyBots are free to shit on two of the premiere progressive leaders of our party with impunity. And no one is denying you the joy of doing that, because this is NOT the only political website on the planet. You CAN do that--just not HERE. You want "should be plenty of room?" Go stake some room out on these here internets.

I took the time to find out what was expected before I started "assuming" how things "should be." And I, for one, have had more than enough of the slinging of shit at Pelosi and others. This admonition was needed, because people weren't taking the hint when others politely gave it. And I just don't feel "sad" for the people who continuously bashed hard working Democrats while touting the lunatic-fringe candidacy of a disordered woman who clearly is unwell, for their own possibly selfish purposes. They didn't want any "honest, well-intentioned disagreement." They wanted to -- and did--tell those of us who disagreed with them that we were Fascist Nazis and Bush Enablers.

And really, fuck that shit. Enough, already. They shouldn't let the door hit them. I want a safe majority in both chambers come 08, and a Democrat in the White House. I don't have time for some pathetic woman who doesn't know essential American History and who loves to rant from ignorance, OR her followers bashing our leadership while we try to accomplish those goals.

[Bonobo]

12. I think you need to answer that quetion yourself in light of this pronouncement.

It seems the answer has been made clear to me.

[nini]

13. Honest answer

We disagree with methods on how to get things done - this does NOT mean we are unethical and immoral as you may think.

We do not agree on methods but we usually agree on the end result.

[DeepModem Mom]

23. None of us here supports any candidate blindly. We are thinking people, all of us.

Some of us even have ethics and morality -- and still support Nancy Pelosi.

[DawgHouse]

214. Exactly!

[Pab Sungenis]

457. And those of us who don't

who see her as having betrayed the principles that put her in that chair, we're not true Democrats now?

I'm sorry, Nancy's seat is overwhelmingly Democratic, and if Cindy should somehow win I have no doubt she'd caucus with the Democrats instead of the Republicans, so it wouldn't change the balance of power. We'd just be rid of a DBA (Democrat By Assumption) and have a real progressive in the seat.

I wouldn't weep if Nancy Pelosi lost her seat in 2008, any more than when Tom Foley lost his in 1994.

[Rabrrrrrr]

37. Honest answer - your question is ignorant. Very ignorant.

Skinner never said we can't criticize Dems - we do it all the time.

He said we can't support Sheehan - who is NOT a Dem - on this site, which is DEMOCRATIC Underground, a place to discuss - not blindly follow - Democrats.

Stupid, stupid question.

[Madspirit]

103. ...and

He did not say we cannot support Cindy or her efforts to end the war. He said we cannot support her campaign to useat a Democrat.
Lee

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. where is the morality in allowing the republican to win by splintering the liberal votes?

i want an answer to that first.

[DeepModem Mom]

58. Thank you. nt

[creeksneakers2]

218. Exactly

An action isn't moral if it needlessly produces a horrifying result, like 8 more years of GOP rule.

[martymar64]

106. Repugs wouldn't have a chance in San Francisco

Not even with a split vote. Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi get around 70% to 80% of the vote. If Cindy runs, she may get 10-15% tops. That still leaves Nancy with a majority.

This wouldn't even be an issue if Nancy would remove her lips from Bush's disease-ridden butt cheeks and do what her constituents elected her to do. But noooo, she'd rather quiver in fear of all things Republican and keep impeachment off the table.

Nancy's cowardice is disgusting.

[creeksneakers2]

219. Cindy is working against Democrats nationally

Its not just Pelosi.

[moodforaday]

143. A better question would be

Where is the morality of allowing anyone to win who will not alter the course of war?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

167. war is not the one and only problem this country has, and no one candidate be it pelosi or sheehan

will be able to change it.

[Diane R]

169. Bingo. Cindy targets the wrong people.

[Virginia Dare]

53. You can support whomever you damn well please..

you can't campaign for third party or Repukes against Democrats here, not hard to understand.

[martymar64]

109. As long as we can excoriate Nancy for her cowardice, that's fine.

As long as she keeps impeachment "off the table" she will deserve every single bit of derision that comes her way.
Her new name is now Nancy the Bush Lovin' Chicken Lady!

[Virginia Dare]

441. You can do that, if you want but you're on my ignore list now..n/t

[Marrah_G]

60. If you want to support her or anyone else make your own website

You have no "right" to post here. We are all guests of Skinner here.

[WilliamPitt]

65. www.ORDagnabbitUnderground.com

Go to it. And pay for it.

Or maybe support someone elsewhere rather than online.

It. Just. Might. Work.

[aaronbees]

190. That's an honest question?

With either/or flamebait like that?

[nadine_mn]

211. 2 words...Ralph Nader

My political view is very liberal (or as the kids are calling it now Progressive) and I really wanted to vote for Nader, because if I was honest with my views...his views represented mine more accurately...but I didn't, I voted for Gore. Until we can be a fair multi-party system, sometimes blind support is the only way to prevent another Bushco

[PurpleChez]

268. That's not the point

The issue isn't that we must support all Dems the way that the thugs do in fact support all thugs. Rather, the issue is that this forum should not be used (taken advantage of) to support candidates who oppose Democrats. Like Skinner said, if someone want to support a non-Dem they are welcome to do so, just on another site.

[NotGivingUp]

348. obviously, the game here is to support the democratic party no matter what! remind you of anything?

[WonderGrunion]

398. No games

You are not required to support any Democrat or any Democratic organization or even the Democratic party.

What you cannot do is actively oppose any Democrat in any general election. It's in the mission statement of this site. You'll probably find the most extreme denunciation of specific Democrats on this site over many right wing sites.

The only thing this reminds me of is the Nader candidacy, because he was running against a Democrat (Gore and Kerry specifically) his candidacy only served to elect a republican. If you think that Sheehan's candidacy can't elect a republican, you're wrong. If she and Pelosi each pull 33% of the vote, it allows a repug to get elected with only 34% support. At no point does getting a republican elected help to stop this war.

And finally, this IS Democratic Underground. Not Liberal Underground. Not Anti-War Underground. Not even Impeach Bush Underground. Though many of us share and support those views as well.

[NotGivingUp]

404. and when does our system get cleaned up and begin to work properly? answer: NEVER.

You can't keep playing the same game and expect a different outcome.

[mondo joe]

433. Did you think DU was the only message board on the internet?

Is DU somehow limiting you from supporting anyone you like?

[LanternWaste]

580. Loyalty? Honor?

Loyalty? Honor?

But seriously, how do infer "support the democratic party no matter what"? You believe there are no other interpretations other than that one?

[IronLionZion]

456. There are other websites out there. While on DU, you ought to follow DU's rules or leave. eom

[nini]

4. Thanks for the clarification

hopefully it will keep the drama to a minimum

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Thank you Skinner...

gonna be a rough ride.

[Guaranteed]

6. LOL I don't envy you Skinner.

This should be a "popular" thread.

And I think I've come to the point where I have to recommend this thing, as well.

[EFerrari]

28. (This is why he makes the big money.

:) )

[helderheid]

8. K & R

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Bluzmann57]

15. Well, since I'm not a Californian

I don't really give a damn about that race out there. Pelosi will smoke Sheehan, if it truly goes that far, anyway. Will it cost Pelosi her Speaker of the House position? We shall see. Somehow, I doubt it though.

[JudyM]

26. Challenging Pelosi is going to distract Pelosi from what is already an extraordinarily difficult job

She may not be perfect but she is, I believe, trying. Her hands are already full without having to try to fend off an attack from someone else left of center. We need Pelosi's attention on legislation, not an upcoming election, diammit.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[TreasonousBastard]

127. Oh, bull-fucking-shit...

you go try and be Speaker and see just how easy the job is.

Impeachment is the single most difficult thing the Housse can possibly do, and because she isn't doing it NOW you want to crucify her?

[martymar64]

131. If it's so hard, maybe she needs to let someone else be Speaker

By REFUSING to bring up impeachment, she is undermining her own party and the will of the American People. As long as Nancy is Speaker, Bushco has nothing to fear, she's got their back.

ON EDIT: When a president openly defies the law of the land and commits impeachable offenses (without doubt he has committed these offenses), then Congress is compelled to impeach. That's why the option is in the Constitution. By taking away the one option that can defeat the fascist regime, she only leaves one method for remedy . . . revolution or civil war. Is that preferable to impeachment, or would you rather she just continue to sit meekly and let our country finish the slide into fascism?

[TreasonousBastard]

135. She's underming the will of the American People by...

not getting gas back down to a buck a gallon, too, but so what?

No Speaker in history was able to get everything, or even most things, done during his tenure. That's just not how it works.

Waste time now on impeachment when the Senate is undoubtedly going to let the little shit walk? What is the point of that?

Reread what it took to impeach Nixon.

[martymar64]

139. The gas issue is a red herring and not worthy of comment.

However, by not even considering impeachment, Congress cannot stop him at all or even slow him down. My degree is in Political Science, so stuff the lecture about how things work.

Besides, if you know so fucking much, what other recourse does Congress have to stop a lawbreaking executive? Don't give me that bollocks about investigations. What good are investigations if nothing happens as a result? It just makes us look like a bunch of Neville Chamberlains. The Founding Fathers would weep at Congress's ineffectuality.

[SemperEadem]

183. do you work at the Capitol?

My daughter has a degree in PS AND she works at the US capitol--and she has said many times that what they teach in college is no where near how things are done in real life.

[TreasonousBastard]

189. My degree's in economics, but I don't know how...

to run a bank. What did they teach you about street politics and how ward heelers operate? How do you pass a bill when 35 congresscritters in your own party have their major supporters telling them not to?

Anyway, Congress has few options, and is more hamstrung than a President is when Congress doesn't give him what he wants. I agree that no one in the early days would have expected an Imperial Presidency, but let's face it-- it was pretty much our hero FDR who started it.

Making it too easy to impeach may have gotten Nixon out faster, but it could also have gotten Truman, FDR, and a few others booted.

So, bottom line is that impeachment has only been successful once in our entire history, and that with the cooperation of NIxon's republicans, and it's never been tried getting rid of both President and VP.

So, maybe the prick will bomb Iran, and maybe we'll go deeper in debt and the mortgage problems will sink us. Or, maybe all that will happen no matter who's in office for the next year and a half, and impeachment for a lot of the loudest is revenge, and not good government.

[martymar64]

353. I know how gov't works

Ideals don't mean shit in our capitol. Street politics mean nothing either. The fix is already in and both parties are in on it. I know that when you say major supporters, you mean those with the money.
I know it is purely the politics of expediency and cynicism and corruption. K Street lobbyists buying our "representatives" votes counter to the interests of the people is the norm, not an aberration. I have ZERO faith in our Government and our politicians of either party ever doing anything resembling the right thing. We've not really advanced beyond a feudal patronage system run by multinational corporations. I'd be not surprised if another "terrorist " act happens, causing bush to declare emergency martial law and simply dissolve congress and cancel elections altogether, backed by the firepower of Blackwater mercs. Call me cynical, but I put nothing past that evil bastard. Do we just awn and go back to American Idol?

Since Congress will sit on their hands and cedes more power to the president, what recourse do the people have? Do we sit meekly and accept our chains? Maybe America will go down not with a bang but with a whimper.

All I'm feeling about our government is shame and sadness that the great experiment begun by our founding fathers has indeed failed and the constitution is now really "just a god damned piece of paper. It was a nice idea, but it is pretty much over. The best we can hope for is that when we break up the country, it won't degenerate into civil war.

[NavyDavy]

411. just give fox news more Dems calling for the fall of our country

[Name removed]

598. Deleted message

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

[moodforaday]

158. Here's the point:

One point is it would slow Bush/Cheney down. If impeachment proceedings distracted Clinton, they will do likewise to Bush. So for starters, it will help avoid war with Iran. Not preclude it entirely, but at least make it less likely. Isn't that worthwhile to you?

Also, a properly conducted impeachment proceedings would unearth so much information - and put it on the airwaves - that criminal proceedings after Bush is removed from office or his term expires would be practically a formality.

[mondo joe]

162. Now you're channelling the "Will of the American People"?

It's amazing that a nation with little concensus on these matters can be intuited by you into a simple case of what should be done.

And if you think the only remaining remedies are revolution or civil war, what will it say about the Will of the People when neither of those things happen?

[martymar64]

168. Then what's the solution, smart guy?

How will we stop this dictator? Or are you happy with him right where he is? When they disappearing anti-war activists, union leaders, and other dissenters, what will you do?

I think I already know the answer, you'll likely cower in your house and hold onto the delusion that we're still a democracy, while stopping your ears to the screams of those being tortured.

[mondo joe]

205. Political process. It's not exciting, and it's sure as fuck not fast enough.

But it's all we've got.

There's not going to be a civil war or revolution in the near future. If the Will of the People were what you seem think it is, they would have happened already.

[martymar64]

360. Sadly that's true

When the time comes for the president to declare martial law and dissolve congress, we'll just timidly go right along. Some people will protest, but they won't be around for long. So will turn up dead, others just won't turn up at all.
We'll all just meekly accept our chains and surveillance moving into our homes ala 1984 and will line up just like good Germans. We'll accept the fact that their will be a secret police snitch in every apartment building and on every block. We'll accept it as a given that our phones are tapped and that our mail is opened. We'll timidly acquiesce to being able to being detained for ANY reason the police can think of and that the courts will become show trial fast tracks to the prison industrial complex as slave labor with no idea why you're there and if you'll ever get out. We'll pretend not to notice when our friends and neighbors suddenly disappear never to be heard from again.

We'll accept all that and more. Because we are not the same people that founded this country. America is not yet dead, but it's sure coughing up a lot of blood.

[mirrera]

277. Beautifully said...perfect...exactly...n/t

[moodforaday]

156. Did you ever snicker at Bush

when he was saying how hard his job was? Excuse me while I snicker NOW.

ANd when exactly do you want her to start working on impeachment? After how many more thousand dead Iraqis? After how many more dead US soldiers? After Bush bombs Iran - will that be a more opportune time?

[MrMickeysMom]

321. So, this would qualify why you'd never find reason to "do it"?

Yeah, okay... it's hard work. I think I've heard someone say this before. :eyes:

[moodforaday]

152. Yes, an extraordinarily difficult job

So extraordinarily difficult, it's almost as hard as Bush's, and you know Bush works hard! Well, the job is apparently so extraordinarily difficult Pelosi is incapable of performing it.

You guys hired her, you gave her a job to do. She not only failed, she didn't even try. You know she didn't have to put that war funding bill on the table, once Bush vetoed it. And how come she's the one who decides whether impeachment is on the table or off it? I thought it was about high crimes and misdemeanors, but now it seems that Nancy Pelosi herself has a bit of the "decider" mentality!

[NavyDavy]

427. so we have another person on a dem site saying you guys

hired her you guys did this you guys did that.....so like more troll work to me...

[whopis01]

557. That is just the nature of her job.

No politician, no matter what their party affiliation is, should ever be given a free pass on an election.

[knight_of_the_star]

16. Thanks for the clarification Skinner

That said, you might want to put out another announcement looking for more Mods cause things are going to get bumpy from here on out.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. So, I basically had it right in my attempt earlier to explain this?

From what I understand she can be discussed
Posted by Lone_Star_Dem on Tue Jul-24-07 12:13 PM

But no one who posts on this board may attempt to work toward the defeat of Pelosi via their postings here. The way I understand this is one isn't to advocate her beating Pelosi, or post any fundraiser activity regarding her campaign, or really any other campaign related information. In other words it would be breach of the rules to say, "I hope she kicks Nancy to the curb," but to say "Cindy's right, Nancy should put impeachment on the table" would not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1420474&mesg_id=1421043


I didn't explain it exactly the same as you but the essence seems to be the same to me.

[Caoimhe]

18. Thank you Skinner n/t

[moodforaday]

161. How can you say both

thank you's - the one in your title and the one in your sig image? One is not like the other, you know?

[Marrah_G]

204. They are not in opposition to each other

Maybe in your mind they are, but not everyone thinks the same way you do.

[Pab Sungenis]

459. Yes, they are.

Pelosi caved to Bush on ending the war. She caved to him on Impeachment. She's an accessory to his crimes now.

Ehren Watada has been taking a stand against the war and paying for it with his freedom. Nancy Pelosi chickened out on the war, and our soldiers are paying for it with their lives.

[NNN0LHI]

19. I wasn't confused about this at all but thanks for the reminder

Take care and see you later.

Don

[Perky]

20. Hallellujah. Hallellujah. Hallellujah. Hallellujah.

I will alert the Mods each and every time I see the advocaty.


You want to salm Pelosi that should be fine. But you advocating voting for Sheehan let the alerting begin

[martymar64]

112. Snitch alert!

Nancy the Bush Lovin' Chicken Lady would be proud of you. Let the tattling begin!

[Puglover]

210. No shit

What a fuckin tool.

[Big Pappa]

693. Good grief

n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

318. I know you!

I've served on boards of directors and have been active in professional organizations over the years. One of the reasons I can follow politics, in fact.

You're the person who gets on the board and works everyone over. You make a point of stopping any provokative meaningful discussion while pointing out every reason it should not be brought up or follow some other order of discussion, using your copy of "Robert's Rules for Order", New directions of business as a result, drift off like boats without rudders. Any challenging thought for the board gets broken into a thousand points of questions until it is drained of any meaningful discussion discussion AT ALL.

Guess we'll just have to use double secret probation eek-spay while you notice you're in the discussion oom-ray! :think:

[slj0101]

21. Thank you.

[EFerrari]

22. Crystal clear, Skinner. Thanks.

[nosillies]

24. thank you, k & r

[bananas]

25. Is the sigline image Ava made that a lot of us are using ok?

It wasn't about her running for office.
It was in response to extremely crude comments made by DUers.
If it wasn't for those comments, she probably wouldn't be running for office right now.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

62. my guess would be that...

it served that purpose THEN ... but now would prove confusing and controvertial in light of her announced change of party and planned run against an elected Democratic representative.

It's Skinner's call. oc ... but my vote would be that they should be discontinued to avoid controversy.

[moodforaday]

164. No controversy please, we're Dems!

We of course should dread controversy so much more than we dread less horrible things, like war or Rupert Murdoch's support for Hillary Clinton. Those are kind of unpleasant to think of... but controversy, it's friggin' MURDER!

[Skinner]

82. At this point, I don't see any problem with that sig line image. (nt)

[bananas]

95. Thank you! nt

[hfojvt]

140. that was a key question

although I expected that answer too.

I will always appreciate Cindy's anti-war efforts and regret that she chose to splinter the anti-war movement.

[mzteris]

326. except she STILL looks like a PIRATE

with that eyepatch!!

:P

I know. I know. I actually saw it one day with my glasses on and realized it's just a shadow.

But I rarely wear my glasses at home - and never for the computer (trifocals make it very tricky) I just use a large screen/font.

But everytime I see that pic - I think PIRATE.

[Lasher]

661. I wish you would reconsider

When an individual uses that sig line image, it's like every one of their posts is flame bait. Sheehan backers probably wouldn't like it if others used a derogatory image in their sig lines.

I respect the challenge of trying to find middle ground. But since Cindy is actually a candidate I don't know how she can be supported without also supporting her candidacy. This dilemma won't get any better because her attacks against Democrats will surely persist.

[Swamp Rat]

27. Skinner, how do you feel about the numerous inflammatory threads calling Cindy derogatory names?

It is divisive and counterproductive.

[Jax]

32. I hope you get a response to this

It is a valid question.

Alyce

[yardwork]

41. I'm with Swamp Rat on that question.

I've never participated in any Cindy Sheehan threads before this week, pro or con. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I do feel that all these attacks on her - and anyone who suggests that we have more important things to worry about - are downright silly. They make DU look bad, imo.

For crying out loud. "Cindy-bots?" Who? Where? Sound like a bunch of freepers wetting their pants. We're better than this.

I have no problem observing the DU rule about not supporting candidates running against Democrats. No problem at all.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. What about threads calling Nancy Pelosi derogatory names?

They're divisive and counterproductive.

[yardwork]

50. Alert on them.

[MonkeyFunk]

67. why?

they don't break any rules.

I'm pointing out that Sheehan shouldn't get any special protection that real democrats don't get.

[yardwork]

101. If you give me an example of one, I would understand better.

If people are calling Pelosi "derogatory names," their posts probably are violations of DU rules. If they're not violations, then the posts must be fairly mild.

[martymar64]

117. So Nancy is immune from criticaism?

Don't say anything bad about Nancy or you'll be banned!!!!!!

If Nancy doesn't want to be called bad names, then she better start doing her fucking job. So far she's been too busy planting kisses on Bush's ass and refusing to impeach him.

It sounds like she is protecting him.

CONSTITUTION AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY!

[rpannier]

202. I see you missed the whole point

The question was about whether Cindy was fair game for criticism.

You turned it into a "You can't criticize Pelosi" meme.

Nice try.

[martymar64]

597. Read some of the other posts.

Some of them openly advocate forbidding criticism of nancy.

[NavyDavy]

430. this person is such a baby,...

[martymar64]

596. Whatever dude

Expecting our representatives to actually do what they were elected to do is so immature. What was I thinking?

What's your suggestion then? Would you have us sit meekly while our constitution is shredded. You may, being military. You've sworn your loyalty to bush as your CINC.

[MonkeyFunk]

157. my point is that there's no rule

against calling dem politicians derogatory names - if there were, there'd be tumbleweeds blowing through GD.

Nor should there be a rule against calling Cindy Sheehan derogatory names.

[rpannier]

412. My apologies.

I feel stupid...
I misread your post.

Thanks.

[xultar]

74. No shit! I was wondering about that too.

[creeksneakers2]

227. What about threads full of people

pretending they aren't being allowed to speak their minds because of DLC trolls?

[blogslut]

52. Looks like some of those threads are getting locked

n/t

[Marrah_G]

69. What about the posts calling our congress people derogatory names

while cheerleading for someone who is slamming the party every chance she gets?

THAT is divisive and counter-productive.

[moodforaday]

165. It depends on what you want.

Do you want to end the war? Or do you want one more party member in Congress? Because you may not have both.

[Marrah_G]

170. Sorry I don't believe that a constant barage of insults thrown at the dems is going to end the war

If you choose to think that way then fine. I will continue to support the people I feel are in the best position to actually make a difference.

[dysfunctional press]

145. just like cindy's candidacy!!

nt

[mondo joe]

146. I'd rather she's called derogatory names than Democrats.

Why the double standard for Cindy?

[proud2BlibKansan]

172. Thank you Swamp Rat

That needs to be addressed.

[Swamp Rat]

174. My "peace" pic has reappeared here:

:D

[Marrah_G]

201. That is REALLY pretty

I would love find a shirt with that on it!

[philosophie_en_rose]

178. She's a public figure and not a DUer.

To the extent that the other rules are followed (sexism, racism, etc), criticizing Cindy Sheehan is no different than criticizing Ralph Nader or Ann Coulter.

If Cindy and her fan club can't handle it, then they should grow a thicker skin and consider the names they've hurled at others.

[tammywammy]

185. Exactly!!

[madrchsod]

249. ouch.......

[yardwork]

448. "She" is not posting on DU. Swamp Rat's post was about our community.

I don't agree with a lot of things that Cindy Sheehan has said and done. On the other hand, I respect her for being an activist and dedicating her life to bringing attention to the need to stop this war. She lost her son in this war - a far greater sacrifice than most of us will know (I hope).

Is it necessary to brow-beat people here in our community? Isn't it a little silly to get all hysterical about "Cindy-bots" running amuck? When I am called a "Cindy-bot" it's obvious how ridiculous this is. I've never posted in a single Cindy Sheehan thread until this week. I'm certainly not supporting her candidacy.

Likewise, copy-cat threads making animal noises mocking Cindy Sheehan and her supposed "bots" make DU look silly. Let's go get those Bush bastards, and stop hurling brick bats at one another.

Bunch of nonsense, imo.

[AZBlue]

291. I think he succinctly answered that in the last line of the OP.

Well-said - and hopefully it will be heeded! :)

[quinnox]

29. Although expected, I am pleased nevertheless

This is another wise decision but unfortunately the cindy groupies will continue to plaster her every move on DU even if they don't blatantly advocate for her in the election.

[DeepModem Mom]

30. Thank you, Skinner. K&R

[applegrove]

31. But but..she could win the presidency and end the war.... LOL!

[JitterbugPerfume]

33. The rules are pretty clear

DON"T PANIC

[Schema Thing]

34. Can we discuss her andidacycay in Pig Latin?

ommm

[greatauntoftriplets]

35. Thanks, Skinner.

I may be one of the few here who is calm, and intend to stay that way.

[cynatnite]

36. Thanks, Skinner n/t

[dolo amber]

39. NOW I'm confused

DU has rules? :silly:

[EFerrari]

48. . . .

:spank:

[buddhamama]

40. thanks!

:thumbsup:

[rateyes]

43. "Everyone calm down, please."

"I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to back down. I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time to go 'round and 'round and 'round. It's too late to make it right. I probably wouldn't if I could. I'm still mad as hell, can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should."
--The Dixie Chicks.

I won't use the board to campaign for Cindy.

But, I'm not calming down, either. Not while I've got family and friends deployed/deploying to Iraq.

[mitchtv]

105. There are plenty of Repukes to target

Let's all remember who the bad guys are.

[rateyes]

119. I haven't called Conyers a bad guy...

but, he's not above criticism, either. Hell, I love my wife, but we still have fights once in a while.

Conyers, IMO (and, I'm entitled to it), should stop counting the votes before he asks for them. MAKE THE CASE.

[martymar64]

120. Like those who REFUSE to fight the Repukes.

Impeachment being "off the table" is REFUSING to fight.
With "Democrats" like Nancy, who needs Republicans?

Disclaimer: I really don't give a shit if Cindy runs or not. I just want our elected officials to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS!

[Voice for Peace]

216. curious and curiouser

"who the bad guys are"

I'm not a Democrat so maybe I shouldn't be visiting this forum. I thought it was about Democracy, not the Democratic Party. I personally think it's a big mistake to generalize about Republicans, or Democrats, or Libertarians, or anybody for that matter. I realize the forum admin has the right to make this call, so I'm not specifically arguing with the ruling about Cindy Sheehan. But I have personally found her courage and her passion to be inspiring.

I think it's a big mistake to pledge blind loyalty to any political party. In my opinion it becomes just one more form of human divisiveness, hate, scapegoating. If Democrats are so great, why would some of them be hating & condemning so many who don't see things the same way?

Growing up I was influenced by parents & their friends, and was thus by default a Democrat. I had never really thought about it or examined my beliefs; but instead had accepted in ignorance that the Democrats were good guys and the Republicans were bad guys... nice and simple.. and kind of robotic. Because it's not true, and it's not that simple. It's not!

I'm not a Republican, but I know many who are, and they are great and smart people. We see eye to eye on some things, and not on others. I know alot of people who are Democrats who are also great people, but also many who seem prejudiced and ignorant, fond of pointing fingers, namecalling, groupthink, exclusiveness of others who don't see things the same way. I know some Libertarians who are really smart and make a lot of sense to me. I read and know conservatives who are sharp and smart, in my opinion, particularly about foreign policy, individual freedoms, and the content of the Constitution.

What is this loyalty to a political party all about? I am asking earnestly, because I really don't get it. It seems, to me, to only be fuel for more wars of one sort or another. More walls, more blame. Do I not belong on this forum?

Is there something inside of me that wants an excuse to hate? Yes. Do I want to feed it? No.


"I desire only to know the truth, and to live as well as I can...And, to the utmost of my power, I exhort all other men to do the same...I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict." Socrates

[mondo joe]

221. You didn't know DU was about the Democratic Party?

Do you often sign up for such things without even a cursory review of the purpose or rules?

There is no "pledge of loyalty", blind or otherwise, to the Democratic party. It's just the purpose of this board to support Democratic candidates.

[Voice for Peace]

224. I fear it was only cursory

As I've been reading here for some time, and appreciating it, and finally signed up to be able to join discussions; but I must have skimmed too quickly and missed that point. Still, my question is valid, and sincere, if anybody can answer.

[mondo joe]

226. I think I did answer you.

The board is about supporting the Democratic party. There are a whole lot of boards to suit a range if interests and goals. One can even belong to several at the same time.

But that's the purpose of this board. Asking it to be something else is like volunteering at Planned Parenthood and asking it to be a jobs or art resource - that's just not what it's about.

[Voice for Peace]

236. but what I am asking

"But that's the purpose of this board. Asking it to be something else is like volunteering at Planned Parenthood and asking it to be a jobs or art resource - that's just not what it's about."

... is why does a person support a party. It seems to me that a political party is only the sum of the individuals at any given time, and it's always changing and not always good.

Do people who support the Democratic party see any value in there being more than two parties? I know there is much criticism of the 2-party system, the difficulty in fresh independent voices getting on the ballet and being given equal time & respect. This seems unhealthy to me somehow, limiting of individual choice... so why adherence to a party at all?

Look.. I am politically ignorant. I know a lot about some things, and nothing about a lot of things. Politics I don't really get; it doesn't seem to have much to do with freedom.

[Voice for Peace]

240. ack.. ballot, not ballet

Getting on the ballet would be a whole different challenge, especially for a politician.

[mondo joe]

242. Take 2:

A party may be the sum of the individuals at a given time. Or it may be be a party's principles at a given time.

More importantly, however, the US system gives considerable power to the party in power. When a party is in the majority in Congress, they can do a lot regarding the agenda. That's just how it is. So you can try to be the party in power, by identifying the party with principles closest to your own and supporting it, , or you can accept not having that sort of power.

Politics isn't about freedom.

[Voice for Peace]

243. Probably why politics per se has never interested me.

"Politics isn't about freedom."

Freedom does interest me, though. So in that light, I have seen/heard commonsense from various parties, in part, at times.

Most of it though seems like an awful waste of money and time; and the money comes out of the little folks' pockets for the most part... if they pay taxes.

I don't, because i'm a bum.

I also do believe that power tends to corrupt people. And egomania seems out of control in the world of politics. This can't be good for democracy.

[MH1]

256. Why support the Dem party

Because it beats supporting the Republican Party, and in almost all cases at the national level, those really are the ONLY two choices...whether you like it or not...because that is the way our system is set up.

I happen to not like it. I am strongly in favor of changing the electoral system to something like instant run-off voting, so that then people would be able to vote their ideals without the spoiler problem.

But that's not the way the game is played today, and if you want to effect any improvement in the social condition at all, you need to figure out how to make progress under the current rules.

Otherwise you could end up like someone who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000.

[mzteris]

or in this case -

like volunteering at Planned Parenthood and demanding to teach ABSTINENCE ONLY and denounce everything else as vile, evil, futile, ignorant, and just plain stupid.

[creeksneakers2]

235. A couple of theories behind party loyalty

If one chooses to become a candidate, he needs support and a massive campaign to get votes. One way to get support is buy it. Only rich people or those financed by the rich can do that. The only other way is to go find like minded people and form a group and work for change together. That's what the party does, and its the only alternative to the rich controlling everything. A young man can still start out stuffing envelopes for a small campaign and work his way up to the highest office in the land because we have a Democratic Party.

The majority rules. If you aren't in the majority, you don't rule. The only way to stay out of the minority is to agree with the 51% of people most like you and let the other 49% go without. No 51% or even 1% of people agree on everything, so if your side is to win, you will have to convince everybody else to agree with you, or go with the final decision of the rest. Everybody has to give up something and compromise for the whole to work.

Democrats ask for common sense loyalty, not blind obedience.

[mitchtv]

293. first of all welcome to DU

let me just say this in answer to your thoughtful post. If you believe in the right of collective bargaining, and unions are good for the working class,If you believe Bush's war is a lie and an illegal war of aggression, if you believe in reproductive choice, and that Gay is ok and Gays should be allowed to live with the same legal protections as other tax paying Americans. If you believe it is time for the US to join the rest of the industrial, developed nations, and have a national health care plan that covers ALL Americans, you would probably support the Dems. The Republicans are the party of the rich and is all about greed and selfishness, and scapegoating of gays and minorities, and of course the primacy of Corporations over the population, and of course they support the murder going on in Iraq. Good luck

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Sounds reasonable.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. thank you.

[Jersey Devil]

49. Skinner, a hypothetical question for you

What if she were running for another office?

[cynatnite]

63. She'd still have to be a dem no matter the office...

at least that's how I read it.

[Bleacher Creature]

71. Not exactly

She'd either have to be a Dem, OR running for an office where there was no Dem. The best example is Bernie Sanders. He ran against a Republican for the Senate in Vermont. The Democrats decided not to put up a candidate, and Bernie caucuses with the Senate Dems. Many people here happily supported and advocated for Sanders last year.

[Jersey Devil]

96. Exactly! Ralphie Boy, for all we know, was a Republican

Nahhhhhhh!

[WinkyDink]

228. Who's to say, really?

[H2O Man]

54. Thank you

for reminding everyone of the simple, rational, and relatively easy-to-follow rules.

I think that having more primary contests could be a good thing for the party. But that doesn't mean that every primary challenge is a good thing. And I am not in favor of any party -- republican or otherwise -- who runs candidates against democratic candidates at this time.

[tandot]

55. Thanks, Skinner.

[LeftNYC]

56. "Skinner rule like Stalin"

locked my impeach Skinner thread...

[Zodiak]

57. Not my district

But I do support her efforts to pressure Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats into action now instead of an indeterminate time later. It is what anti-war activists do and have done since time immemorial.

Cindy hasn't a chance, though. A better vote would be for a Democrat willing to take up the mantle of impeachment/ending the war and doing it with a fight in mind. But that takes a politician....not an anti-war activist, and it probably will not happen out of Nancy Pelosi' district.

The thrust of electoral victories for the left in the next season should be in putting in populist primary opponents to some of our more Republican-like reps in reddish districts. That is where the real fight for the left will be, and the potential gains could be great.

People want change.

This other race is a side-show of far less political consequence than, say, Leiberman vs. Lamont.

[mzmolly]

61. Thanks for the clarification Skinner.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. Hmm.

"you may not advocate for or promote her candidacy against Nancy Pelosi."

Could you clarify that a little? If we believe that Sheehan's "campaign" has no chance of unseating Pelosi, and in effect it's a publicity stunt designed to draw attention to Pelosi's failures on impeachment and the war, can we say we support the sentiment?

[mzmolly]

73. Regardless of your "beliefs"

"you may not advocate for or promote her candidacy against Nancy Pelosi."

Pretty clear. ;)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. Then it should be simple to answer my question.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

81. I think there was.

The OP speaks baby. :P

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. Seemed Clear Enough. The Term Used Was 'Candidacy', Not 'Victory'.

It would appear based on the plain easy to understand language that it is support and promotion of her actual candidacy that is relevant, not whether or not she is a viable candidate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Thank you for your unbiased opinion, OMC.

I'll stick that with the others.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. You're Welcome. If You Require Any Futher Assistance, I'm Here To Help.

Feel free to lean on me for all of your 'what was meant by that?' needs. :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

88. if sheehan splits the liberal votes, than she has a good chance of unseating pelosi

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Do you really think so?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

100. yes i do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Then I guess Pelosi better put impeachment back on the table.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. ok, so still proving my point, that she shouldnt be supported here.

because she could cause a GOP victory,

[knight_of_the_star]

113. As much as I think Sheehan shouldn't be doing this at all

The GOP has about a snowball's chance of winning Pelosi's seat.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

116. well yeah i suppose you are right. but i think my point is that third partly liberal candidates

can cause an internal divide. today its pelosi, what if its someone with a narrow scope next time? i think the policy that DU does not support candidates running against the Democratic candidate is a solid policy.

[martymar64]

124. Then the party better start swinging hard left

We need to be a real alternative to Republicans, not just a paler, weaker version of them. Otherwise, we'll go the way of the Whigs, and rightfully so.

[mondo joe]

154. Is it 1999 again? "There's no difference between Bush and Gore."

Wrong then, wrong now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

173. yeah gore and bush we so alike

:sarcasm:

sometimes it feel like we are hell bent on repeating mistakes.

[pschoeb]

187. Not likely, She will most likely lower the Republican's normal percentage

Pelosi has had third party including Greens, run against her, and a couple of years with no third party groups. Her percentage of the vote doesn't really change regardless of third party candidates, but when third parties run, including the Greens, the percentage that the Republican candidate gets drops. It'd pretty clear that many of the people who vote for the third party in SF seem to be independents that normally vote Republican (possibly as a protest vote, as the Republicans have no chance of winning), or are persons who don't vote at all for Democratic or Republican candidates. So Sheehan will probably do better than previous third party, much of that will actually lower the Republican candidates percentage, at least by 5%, which is what historically a leftist third party candidate has done. In Sheehan's case she might also lower Pelosi's percentage but the Republicans usually get 23% when no third party is running and 18% when one is(usually Greens), while Pelosi's percentage stays pretty much unchanged regardless. It's hard to see how the Republicans could pull off a win with their standard 18%, they are not going to get any higher, and my guess is they will drop even lower maybe running at 15% if Sheehan runs. How would both Pelosi and Sheehan do worse that 18%?

The real question is if Sheehan starts polling decently, then Pelosi is probably going to have to pull in more money to campaign, and might take up resources that would normally go to other candidates in tougher races.

[BlooInBloo]

331. Betcha a star for a DUer that she loses by 10 or more percentage points.

[pschoeb]

491. Well if Sheehan gets within 10% of Pelosi, Sheehan has actaully won

Regardless if she doesn't take the seat. Her goal is to put political pressure on Pelosi, not win her seat. Since Pelosi is saying impeachments is off the table for clearly political pressure reasons, it makes perfect sense for Sheehan to apply political pressure to get it back on the table. Showing the Democratic Party there will be repercussions to not impeaching as well. Anyone who could get within 10% points of Nancy Pelosi is doing extraordinarily good, and it would mean Nancy would have to spend more on her campaign and call in for help that might have gone to other races.

My guess is Sheehan will get about 20% of the vote, the Republican will get 15% and Pelosi will get 60%, this would still be a good peformance by Sheehan as no third party has ever gotten over 10%, if she starts polling that high early on, it could put pressure on Pelosi's campaign.

[Telly Savalas]

234. Pelosi dominates that district too much for this to be a concern

Pelosi had 85% of the vote. The GOP challenger had 12%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/

It would require 3 Sheehans, all equally pulling support from Pelosi, in order for the GOP candidate to sneak through to win. It's just not going to happen.

[catgirl]

399. Dream on

[madinmaryland]

68. Thanks for the clarification!

Hopefully this storm blows over quickly!

[Alexander]

72. Thanks.

[dkofos]

76. aweo;qfg'weijhf

[Posteritatis]

285. Your eloquence truly moves me to tears (nt)

[Marrah_G]

79. Thank you Skinner

Now if you could just do something about posts like "Cindy is Mandela" and the dozens talking about how she is due for Sainthood and the entire Democratic Party has gone to the Dark Side. (cue Darth Vader music) It's getting to more like the anti-democratic underground around here lately.

[stimbox]

241. More like the DLC Underground around here lately.

Did Skinner change the URL yet?

[Danger Mouse]

309. There's the door. You may leave anytime.

:hi:

[stimbox]

330. Triangulate this!

I've been a donating member here longer than you!

[Danger Mouse]

361. Hehe...triangulate.

That made me laugh.
Wait, what were we talking about again?
:tinfoilhat: my hat is shinier than yours.

[bluestateguy]

80. I stand with Nancy. Nancy speaks for me.

nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

84. me too

[PoconoPragmatist]

83. I Assume This Rule Does NOT Apply to Primaries??

Quote:
You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office.
Unquote.

The Primary is to determine WHO the nominee is. May I assume that, if I seriously do not like a specific person running in a primary, I may work against them...and for the person of my choice to win the Democratic Party nomination?

Just want to clear this up. Thanks.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. you cant support third party candidates.

you can support another dem.

[PoconoPragmatist]

97. That Was Not My Question

Let me try it another way.

Suppose it's 2004 again. I'm a Howard Dean supporter, and I really don't like Kerry. Just for the sake of argument.

Now, I really want Dean to win. And I really DON'T want Kerry to win.

In my pushing for Dean...am I allowed to "work against" Kerry, by making dirogatory remarks, claiming he will kill our chances for winning, etc?

Because the 2004 primaries were full of garbage like that amongst the candidates themselves, and even among my friends.

Can't say what it was like here, because I was not here then.

BUT..

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office.

There's the rule.
The way I am reading this rule is...Being a Dean supporter in 2004, I would be allowed to lambaste Kerry on this forum during the primaries...BUT, once he became the NOMINEE...then, such behavior would be off-limits here.

The reason I'm asking this is because I am seeing a lot of people trash Edwards...who I currently support, in the primaries...and I want to know if that is violating this rule or not? Is it okay for people to trash Edwards? Obama? Clinton? Gore? - is it okay NOW, because none are actually the NOMINEE?

THAT is the question I'm asking. Because, as an Edwards supporter, I'm somewhat bothered by a lot of the negative talk I see here about Edwards.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

115. yes you are allowed to do what you just described.

[Alexander]

92. Cindy is not running against Pelosi in a primary.

That should answer your question.

[PoconoPragmatist]

99. That Was What I Thought, Too.

But, again, I'm just looking for clarification, because I'm somewhat upset that I see Edwards being bashed around here quite a bit.

Since Edwards is not yet the NOMINEE...I assume this behavior is still okay?

THAT is my question.

[eggman67]

108. It is my understanding that you can slam away

at primary opponents, but that stops once the nominee is selected.

[PoconoPragmatist]

163. That Was Mine, Too - Based On what I Read Of The Rule

Just wanted to clarify it.

Thanks.

[Yukari Yakumo]

390. Isn't that what we're doing with the Pres candidates? {nt}

uguu

[Javaman]

87. Thank you Skinner. I would think this goes the same for Ron Paul as well. nt

[Skinner]

98. Of course the same goes for Ron Paul.

The guy is a right-wing Republican nutjob.

[lies and propaganda]

323. Amen!

Truer words could not have been spoken!

[SidDithers]

91. Excellent...

hope the mods can keep up with all the alerts heading their way.

Sid

[Zywiec]

93. Everyone calm down, please

As if...

:rofl:

[saracat]

94. THANK YOU SKINNER! Maybe now I can stop cutting and pasting the rule!

[martymar64]

128. That oughta make you happy

I know how much you hate Cindy with a passion. Maybe you can raise some money and hire a hitman to have her whacked too!
:sarcasm:

[saracat]

133. I don't "hate' her.I think she has become a detriment to the progressive cause.

I wish she would just sit back and let the competant people speak.She doesn't even know her history or how government works.She should pick her battles better too.Don't attack her friends.

[martymar64]

136. How is Nancy a friend by protecting Bush?

By leaving impeachment "off the table", Nancy is de facto protecting Bush. Congress has no other way to stop him.
It appears she will let Bush destroy what is left of our wounded democracy and won't lift a finger to stop him.
Most competent anti-war voices don't hold political office. And Nancy ain't one of them. If fact Nancy is starting to look more and more Rethug ever day. She utterly disgusts me with her cowardice.

[creeksneakers2]

238. Nancy is not a Republican

She probably shares nearly all your goals and just has a different strategy for reaching them.

Leaving impeachment off the table isn't de facto helping Bush. Bush isn't going to be convicted anyway until we have more on him. Turning left wing voters against the Democrats is helping Bush. Both Bush and Sheehan want to minimize the Democratic vote.

Nancy has done far far more than lift a finger. Its easy to dismiss efforts when one isn't the one who has the job.

[moodforaday]

171. Well maybe that helps

Because "how government works" seems to be a big part of the problem right now.

[Danger Mouse]

311. Uhh...

wow.

[Madspirit]

107. Whew

I sure am glad Scoop Jackson isn't around any more. I would have a hard time supporting THAT Democrat... :rofl:

Lee

[Oak2004]

307. In some ways this board is a creature of its times

Once upon a time ago, when we had two relatively sane and normal political parties, instead of one relatively sane one and one batshit crazy fascist one, the critical divisions were along policy, not party. Splitting one's vote between parties was the norm. Liberals supported and voted for liberal Republicans as well as Democrats; conservatives voted for conservative Democrats as well as Republicans. Throughout most of Scoop Jackson's era, were the Internet anything other than a research tool, it would have been utterly impossible to hold this board together. I doubt that Skinner would have even thought of a "Democratic" Underground -- he'd have probably created a "Liberal Underground".

Those days are gone (and with them my status as a liberal Republican-- something as likely to be found today as a stegasaurus).

Even though in most races in most parts of the country the real choices are limited to relatively sane Dems vs. batshit crazy GOP, it's an unnatural division perpetrated upon us by the extremeness of the far right. We all feel the inevitable tension between party and principle. Frankly I hope I live to see the day that the crazies are gone, healthy and realistic choices exist again, and DU goes out of business or turns into Liberal Underground. But until then, unless you live in one of the rare places where electable third parties exist, the Democratic Party is the only game in town. The rules of this board are, paradoxically, both awkward and reasonable for these times.

I guess we're all a part of history here. Too bad our historical period sucks so much.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

114. Flamebait

:yoiks:

[karlrschneider]

118. THANK YOU

:kick:

[Raksha]

122. Cindy would have been smarter to have stayed

in the Democratic Party (or joined it), and then she could have challenged Pelosi in the primary. She'd get a whole lot more support that way, and we could have supported her primary challenge here on DU. Seems like the way she's handling it (running as an Independent) is kind of a stupid move in the tactical sense.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. I don't think she really wants the job, Raksha.

In fact, I'm willing the bet her ideal situation is a real candidate oppose Pelosi in the primary.

[Raksha]

132. You're right...she probably doesn't really want the job.

That's the only thing that makes any kind of sense. Because she's going about it the wrong way if she does want it.

[proud patriot]

151. I agree

:hi:

[PoconoPragmatist]

299. Disagree

It would have been smarter, yes, if it was her intention to WIN. I do not believe this is the case. I believe her intent is to shine a light on IMPEACHMENT...and Pelosi's refusal to pursure it. I think she wants that spotlight on Pelosi, so that another Democrat might emerge to challenge Pelosi in the primary...someone who may actually beat Pelosi.

If that is her strategy, and I believe it is...then, tactically, this is the best thing in the world she could possibly do....running as an Independent.

I only hope that, if this IS her plan that, when the chips fall where they might, and the Democratic nominee is decided...whoever it may be...all of us Democrats will rally behind the nominee.

apart from her refusal to consider impeachment...I have no problem with Pelosi. I suspect Cindy feels the same way. She just wants to force the impeachment issue. Or at least keep it front and center. And if that's so...then, tactically, she has done precisely the correct thing.

This way, she will not siphon votes off from another Democratic challenger to Pelosi.

Think about it.

[BringEmOn]

125. I hope you don't start a thread in 2008 supporting a Republican for VP

like you did in 2004.

[Skinner]

138. LOL

Good one.

[PoconoPragmatist]

303. Interesting

concept to talk about...if only for the mental farts. Think this country is ready for a bipartisan Executive Branch?

Not likely to ever happen in the current climate. But an interesting concept on an academic level. Because once, a long time ago...the candidate with the most electorals won President...the second most won Vice President. the Presidential nominee did not CHOOSE his Vice President...hence, they actually COULD come from two different political parties.

That said...when the electoral college is all but dumped overboard...do you suppose something like this may come out of the rubble as our new system? That is why it's an interesting concept to discuss, if only for the mental farts.

[Hobarticus]

516. The most interesting post in this thread...

...asks some very good questions.

:hi:

[PoconoPragmatist]

610. Thanks

I've thought about opening a separate thread on the subject. Again, I believe it is an interesting topic for academic gymnastics.

[mistertrickster]

129. Fair enough . . . rules are rules. We must have order. nt

[mondo joe]

150. Did you not know there were rules when you signed up?

[mistertrickster]

366. It meant it seriously, not sarcastically. Hard to get the tone right with

these nt posts.

I post a lot to my local newspaper's WEBlog. They have no rules, no mods, no sign-in.

The trolling and sock-puppets drive one nuts.

That's why I said, "we must have order" because without it you get chaos.

Sorry I wasn't clearer on that . . .

Carry on.

[mondo joe]

517. Sorry - I misunderstood. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up.

:-)

[Cameron27]

130. Thank you.

I agree with you completely.

[johncoby2]

134. Try IU.

[shaniqua6392]

137. We can not support anyone other than Democrats. Period.

It is completely understandable that it should not be promoted on DU. Personally I will not post or comment on her at all now that she has decided to run against Pelosi. Why doesn't she move somewhere else in the country and run against a Republican to really help effect change? What she is doing is divisive and counterproductive IMO. No matter how much I love her....I completely disagree with her on this one.

[nc_gadfly]

147. so what if I say. . .

. . .Stewart/Colbert '08? Only if they're democrats I suppose.

[NMDemDist2]

166. welcome to DU nc_gadfly!

and I think you're on safe ground with Stewart/Colbert since neither has actually stated the intention to run as an Independent

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

233. He's been here since 8/05... nt

[nc_gadfly]

540. yeah, i'm a quiet one

:)

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[Marrah_G]

176. No one is keeping you here

You should take all that self-righteous bitter angst and start your own board. Then you can spew BS to your hearts content.

[shaniqua6392]

397. Yes. Only if they are Democrats.

This is Democratic Underground and we will only promote Democratic candidates. Period.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Pab Sungenis]

462. If we can't support anyone other than Democrats

then we shouldn't be allowed to support Pelosi, either, since she's betrayed our party.

[mondo joe]

567. Nancy Pelosi is the candidate selected by our party. Democratic voters decide

who represents them - not you.

[Pab Sungenis]

576. I'm a Democratic voter.

And I don't want her representing me. Her district, if they re-elect her, can have her. She's not my Speaker, and she should either bow to the will of the party or get out.

[EstimatedProphet]

148. Good to have this stated directly

[asthmaticeog]

198. And yet...

...stating something directly is still no insurance that about half of DU will comprehend it. As evidence, I offer this thread.

[EstimatedProphet]

266. Point conceded.

[johncoby2]

153. This is like DUH?!?!?!?!

Its DEMOCRATIC underground. Not INDEPENDENT underground.

Check the other internets for that group.

[racaulk]

159. Thank you, Skinner. K&R

:kick:

[lazer47]

177. Thank you Skinner, K&R

[liberalnurse]

179. Bravo Skinner!

Thank you for the friendly reminder for my peers. :yourock:

[MODemocrat]

182. Thank you Skinner, it makes perfect sense to me

It might be different if she were planning to run on the Democratic Ticket. Democratic Uderground should not support anyone running AGAINST the Democratic PARTY CANDIDATES. I do like Cindy Sheehan,
and she is very brave, but she is attacking the Democrats, and allowing the War mongering Repubs a free ride right now. ;-)

[tandem5]

188. And if Lieberman had won the nomination?

It's your board, your rules, but consider that there is a distinction between a person who considers himself a democrat versus someone who is a member of the democratic party. Does the representative with the "D" next to his name, who fails to represent adequately the party's fundamental platform trump the citizen who tries to live by the values the platform instills? Can there be no outlet for maintaining the health and integrity of the party that is supposed to represent us?

[Name removed]

192. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Marrah_G]

193. No one is stopping anyone from supporting anyone

This is a private site with pretty clear rules. No one is forced to come here. No one is forced to support anyone. There are other sites where that can be done or people can get together and start a new one.

[Lord Balto]

199. Maybe the Democratic Party is a private organization too.

Guess I'll have to find someone less private to vote for. By losers. Give my regards to the chief losers, Al Pussy Gore.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

203. Thanks for your CONCERN.

[Skinner]

207. "Al Pussy Gore"

I get it now. You were a troll all along. See ya.

[Marrah_G]

208. !

:applause:

[David Zephyr]

315. You just made my day.

:applause:

[mtnester]

705. I hope you did that one personally young man

and did it feel good laying the tombstone down?

:)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

213. Come back, Balto!

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

246. I LOVE YOU!!!

My sweet EVOO boy.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

287. Back at ya!

:hi:

[proud patriot]

257. ROFL

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

313. You rock.

:D

[Adsos Letter]

215. ah...methinks thou dost protest too much...

...nice tombstone...

:D

[brentspeak]

217. Lord Balto -- a proud member of the 101st Chairborne Division.

Fighting "them" over here, because someone else is doing the fighting over there.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

222. !

:spray: :rofl:

[H2O Man]

279. "By losers."

Ha!

[Danger Mouse]

312. Enjoy your granite pizza.

:bye:

[tammywammy]

194. There's a distinction I think you're overlooking

While many wouldn't have supported, that's fine and good. You just cannot promote any candidate on this website that's not a democrat.

If someone wants to support a 3rd party candidate, Lieberman or Cindy, then they'll have to go elsewhere to promote them over the democratic candidate.

And if Lieberman had won the primary, people were and are still able to criticize them. You just cannot support another candidate over them here on DU.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this? You're still free to criticize any democrat in Congress.

[Skinner]

206. This really isn't that complicated.

If Lieberman had won the nomination, then members would not have been permitted to use this website to support a third-party candidate against him, either.

And, if you're looking for an outlet for "maintaining the health and integrity of the party" there are still plenty of those. Primaries, for example.

[WinkyDink]

230. The term is Capital-"D" DEMOCRAT. Big D. The Party. Is this a NEWSFLASH?

[Marrah_G]

232. Apparently it is for some. n/t

[whopis01]

564. I believe that the idea behind the rule is this:

Since only registered Democrats can vote in the primary, then the nominee is the person who was chosen by Democratic voters. In a sense, the idea is not that one should not campaign against an individual, but rather one should not campaign against the collective decision made by Democratic voters in a primary. The rule really protects the will of the voters more than an individual.

In the case of Lieberman, the system (DU rules, that is) worked exactly as it should have. The Democrats in his state chose not to nominate him. Since he was not the nominee, campaigning against him was fair game.

To answer your question directly, if Lieberman has won, then he would be the person that the collective Democratic voters of Connecticut had chosen to represent him and campaigning against him would have gone against the will of the majority of the Democrats in that area and thus should not be allowed.

The problem with your question about "maintaining the health and integrity of the party" really comes down to how do you determine what is the standard for the 'health' of the party. The only viable measure of the intention and will of the party is who the people nominate.

[tandem5]

619. First off...

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, thank you.

I'm not particularly bothered by the rule. I interpret the rule in terms of independents, greens, or even republicans coming on to the board and obfuscating and contorting our own (democrats) ideas and arguments. So in that context I think it is a necessary and useful rule. I was somewhat irked, however, that the solution to legitimate dissent, and I'll return to what I mean by legitimate dissent in a moment, was the rote recitation of guidelines.

I understand the purpose of primaries, but I don't see in just primary colors. Not all states conduct closed primaries, not all democrats vote for a candidate on the basis of adherence to party values. There are incumbents with large sums of money and name recognition greater than that of most rock stars.

But even in a perfect system our part doesn't end after our candidate has been elected to office. As we are so often reminded by our elected officials, they represent all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them. But does that mean they can behave or act in a manner that is not consistent with their own party?

Clearly there is something wrong when Nancy Pelosi looks genuinely surprised at being booed by the loyal party members at a recent speaking event. Our party leaders aren't always listening. I know this to be true when their outsourced fund raising firm calls for the sixth time today asking for donations, but it is obvious that there is no line of communication to the democratic party to outline the reasons why we refuse to give any more money until something has changed or at least that some acknowledgment is given.

I interpret, and I think rightly so, that our political party is a micro version of our larger democratic process. One can march peacefully against our government and be a patriotic US citizen and one can support a non democratic candidate and still be a democrat as a means of dissent, if for no other reason, but to make our leaders listen.

I'm not really interested in Cindy Sheehan's approach. Nor do I care if she is a "true" democrat - she might be, or she might not be, but one can support her candidacy and still be a democrat.

Maybe that's not how the republican party does it. I'm not a republican. I'm a democrat, and, hopefully, so are you (as it is a message board for democrats). So let's talk about it, let's hash it out. It's what we do.

[whopis01]

689. It makes things tough when you aren't allowed to be rigid and inflexible...

Let me begin by saying that the rules of this board are not necessarily the rules that I would apply if it were my place to do so. I also think that they have been designed with good intentions and in general work well. However, the fact that they are a set of rules as opposed to a living, thinking person means that they are not going to be able to adapt to all situations.

Good or bad, this forum is something that was created to support the Democratic party, and not be a general platform for all things liberal and progressive. Personally, I think it is one of the more frustrating aspects of the forum. As I have said before the word "Democratic" in "Democratic Underground" refers to the party, not to the concept.

To be honest, I actually don't care for the idea of political parties that much at all. I think that the party mentality tends to stifle ideas and innovation. Particularly when lock-step agreement with party ideals is forced upon those within the party. Also, just having a (D) next to your name does not mean (in my opinion) that you are the right choice for the job.

I agree with you when you say that one can support Cindy Sheehan and still be a Democrat. At least sort of... it is really one of the things I struggle with. What does it mean to be a Democrat? It really comes down to how you define that. If you think that the word Democratic refers to a set of concepts and ideas for how to run a society, then yes you can support Cindy Sheehan and still be a Democrat. However, if you think that word refers to a specific political organization then it is hard to argue how one can be a Democrat and still support someone from another party over their 'fellow' Democrat.

I much prefer the first definition. Though if the rules of this board were rewritten to match that, I wouldn't want to be the one having to make judgment calls to enforce something like this:

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political concept or ideal other than democratic concepts or ideals.

Officials are correct when they point out that they represent all of their constituents, not just those who elected them. However, they should also realize that they were elected because the majority of their constituents agreed with their platform. That doesn't mean that they should ignore the concerns of the minority, but you are not going to get anything done by trying to give everyone what they want.

I think that the largest threat to a democracy is that, in actual practice, the concept of majority rule does not work well. In order for a democracy to be successful, those that lose a vote have to be willing to help support the majority that won the vote. However, the majority that won the vote have to realize that their victory is not absolute and need to take the concerns of the losing minority into account.

If I were to try to summarize my ramblings above, I would say this: The board has its rules and they are what they are. Someone can disagree with and even campaign against an individual within the Democratic party yet still be a Democrat them self. Inflexible rules are always the easiest to apply, but not often the most productive approach.

[tandem5]

692. Maybe it all boils down to this, at least in respect to this site's rules...

that a distinction can be made between the member who posts in support of, say Ralph Nader, and is a member of the green party, versus the member who posts in favor of Sheehan, but who is a democrat who doesn't necessarily promote the loss of a democratic seat, but simply wants to give voice to shared frustrations. And it doesn't always have to be that those opinions that differ from party leaders, are in the minority of the party as a whole. The point is, if a poster, is simply aiming to show a democratic leader a better snapshot of an ever changing and adapting party with big and little Ds, then I don't think that is antithetical to this board's philosophy.

Now if this distinction is too "fuzzy," too hard to enforce at a post by post level, then so be it.

In any event thank you for your dialogue.

[northofdenali]

197. K&R, Skinner - this was needed.

:kick:

Cindy works hard to stop the war, but as a 3rd party candidate, she does not and never will have my support for any office.

[George II]

220. Thank you for a great attitude

Last year I found myself banned from another "democratic" website because I participated in a discussion about the CT primary between Lamont and Lieberman. I politely said that I preferred Lamont, but if Lieberman won the Democratic nomination, being a Democrat, I would support him. For that I was labeled a "troll" and banned. I don't miss it (BTW, Lamont won and I campaigned for him!)

I much prefer this site anyway, and appreciate your loyal and positive attitude toward ALL Democrats.

Thanks again!

[Magrittes Pipe]

231. Wow. Reason and sanity in DU.

Who knew? :shrug:

[a la izquierda]

239. I have an observation, if anyone cares...

those who say that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery really needs to pick up a history book and READ IT. You would realize that after the Civil War the parties almost did a flip-flop. What we now call Democrat actually typified a Republican back then, and vice versa. (well, that's the long and short of it)

Sorry if anyone already made that point. I just get irritated with some people's lack of historical knowledge.:grr:

[George II]

248. That's for sure

I just wonder what Lincoln would think of his "Republican Party" today? Betcha he'd be a Demcorat in a flash!!

[madrchsod]

244. she`s not going to run for office

so it`s kind`a a mute point

[Evoman]

245. Suppose Cindy Sheehan changed her name to Democratic Sheehan.

Could we support her then, seeing as how she is a Democratic candidate.

:hide:

[Jim Sagle]

251. Good.

Cindy was never a real Democrat, even if she thought she was. She's no lefty either. She's an Old Right fascist sympathiszer.

[madrchsod]

253. i would`t go that far..

but i still have my doubts about the "cindy movement"

[LanternWaste]

583. Could you elaborate just a little on that statement

"She's an Old Right fascist sympathiszer"

Really? Could you elaborate just a little on that statement-- for those of us without your obvious depth of wit, wisdom and insight?

[Raine]

254. THANK YOU Skinner

for letting those who support Sheehan know that it is against DU rules to advocate for the downfall of an elected Democratic office holder! :thumbsup:

[Cleita]

255. I hope it also includes Ralph Nader should he decide to run. n/t

[Forkboy]

259. It always has before.Can't imagine why it wouldn't again.

[ScottytheRadical]

260. So I'm not permitted on this site?

The second paragraph is what bothers me:

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate."

I'm not a Democrat and I've never said I was in any post on this website. I'm a revolutionary socialist and a member of the International Socialist Organization. However, I've never made a post on this website encouraging the election of an individual running against a Democrat. I understand this website is mainly for progressives who still cling to faith in the Democratic Party, and there are some Democrats I really truly admire, such as John Conyers, Barbara Lee, and Dennis Kucinich. And I do enjoy reading Democratic Underground for the news articles that are posted here but not anywhere else and because I share everyone's distain for Conservative Idiots and we have alot of common ground there.

Like I said, I don't post very often and I don't make posts encouraging the election of a third-party candidate over a Democrat, although I often believe that should be the case. However, these rules prohibit me from making *any* political or advocacy posts - it does not ban posts *regarding* endorsements of non-Democrats, instead it bans *supporters* of non-Democrats from making ANY posts. So should I be kicked off the site?

[Harper_is_Bush]

263. Good grief man, it is what it is. You're clearly misinterpreting it. n/t

[achtung_circus]

270. What for? Is it not possible to participate in a lot of discussion

on the common ground and still avoid advocating the election of non-Democratic party candidates?

Lots of others do it.

[LanternWaste]

585. How about this--

How about this-- If you get banned, it means you're not permitted on the site, if you don't get banned, it means you're permitted on the site.

Or, even simpler (maybe)-- you could read the rules again, apply some common sense to your posts and never have to worry about it again...

[kpete]

261. self-deleted question about difficulties administrating loyalty tests

[BlooInBloo]

262. k&r.

[Name removed]

267. Deleted sub-thread

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

[David Zephyr]

274. I don't envy your stewardship of the DU today, Skinner.

But I do agree. Cindy should challenge Pelosi within the primary. Alexander's point above reminding everyone that Nancy Pelosi voted against the war is a valid one. In fact, Cindy was not, to my knowledge, an activist against the war until she lost her child.

I supported Matt Gonzalez for Mayor of San Francisco when he was a green. But...in that election, there was only two viable options (a Democrat or a Green)...there wasn't even a Republican on the radar. Sort of like a Democratic Primary in many ways.

In any event, I love Cindy and cherish her. However, her challenging Pelosi is not helpful to the cause she champions....it hurts it.

I agree with your policy and support it. It's sensible.

[Forkboy]

275. I'm guessing that 300 replies means people aren't calming down.

I like when you post for a couple of reasons;

One,I've always felt bad that it's your site and yet you rarely post here.Seriously.

Two,I like seeing the smug "neener neener neener" mentality of the people who have been DYING to hear you say this.You've quelled their inner pain and suffering,and now maybe they can stop quoting the damn rules all over the place to anyone they dislike being here.Make this a sticky. :)

[Blackbird_Highway]

278. Go Zell Miller!

He's a Democrat, so let's all stand behind him! Rah, Rah!

[Blackbird_Highway]

283. From the DU Rules Page

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives.

Except that it's for Democrats only, and not for other prgressives,

[mondo joe]

302. I wonder why you quote only part of the rules, but choose to ignore the rest.

[Marrah_G]

308. Because he is concerned?

[BlooInBloo]

332. (sob) There's just SOOOO much concern! rofl!

[Marrah_G]

304. More concern, you are just a helpful little bugger aren't you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

319. Is That Warped Interpretation Of The Rules Intentionally Created By You For Sake Of Flamebait, Or

did you actually interpret them this way?

Just curious.

[Marrah_G]

301. Thank you for your 'concern'

[brentspeak]

340. I see that we have more concern trolls on this one thread than any other

[Marrah_G]

345. Ya think???

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

346. Because Sheehan is now their best bet to fuel division.

They can't resist.

[Hippo_Tron]

392. Speaking at the Republican National Convention basically nullifies your Democratic credentials

Zell Miller did that and therefore his credentials as a Democrat were basically nullified. Pelosi has not done that, therefore this is still a Democrat. There is a big difference.

[Truthiness Inspector]

281. K & R and thank you for this clarification. n/t

[smiley_glad_hands]

289. Thank You.

If I wanted to see John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi relentlessy bashed, I'd go to freeperville.

[Danger Mouse]

292. I'm not surprised by this at all.

Awesome job, Skinner!
:toast: :toast: :party: :yourock: :yourock: :headbang: :patriot: :kick: :kick:

[SaneInSC]

297. Party before country RULES!

Straight ticket all the way. Just like my republican friends here in SC. The people here are perennially 50th in education though so thats to be expected. Oh well...what a disappointment. GL w/ your leaders. RAWR!

[Marrah_G]

305. Thank you for your Concern

[Danger Mouse]

314. ...

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

306. To the contrary: it's just the purpose of this web site.

It doesn't put party before country -- party members and candidates are subject to criticism.

But the point of the site IS to support the democratic party.

You might as well complain that the point of Planned Parenthood is family planning.

[SaneInSC]

320. Just disappointed thats all

Okay so now I'm fully aware of the meaning of the Democratic portion of the name Democratic Underground.com. I suppose now your going to tell me that the server hosting this site is located underground in a basement or something. :)

I actually had not given much thought to the site name. I had erroneously thought it had to do with the democratic process, and the underground portion meant people here could "think outside the box". I won't be back though I guess, as I can't blindly follow people who place a certain letter beside their name, be it (d) or (r) or whatever. I'd like to be able to discuss the best possible solutions to a given problem or set of problems, not the best solution only given by a person who is a democrat. It short circuits thinking. I'm just bummed out now because there are a ton of great people here. In fact, the best people I've had the pleasure to interact with on the 'net. But my brain won't allow me to ONLY support one party or another exclusively, even though the other major party is clearly rotten atm. So now I'm down to just mother jones, HuffPo, and KoS. Super.

[mondo joe]

324. I'd suggest that supporting a party certainly does not mean one is to "blindly follow"

people with a (D) beside their name. You'll see plenty of criticism of, and disagreement with, most (D) types.

The only real limitation is not using this forum to support someone opposing a (D).

Surely there is plenty for you to do and say here.

[SaneInSC]

338. Thank you for being decent)

The way I see it, it sort of is blindly following. Its like, "any color you want, as long as its black".
Support any candidate you want, as long as they are a (d). That, by definition, limits choices and to some extent, solutions. I know that atm the democrats have MUCH better proposed solutions, and I can't think of any (r) that I could support.

Again, I misunderstood the nature of this place and am just very disappointed now. No biggie. Just another one in a series of many over these past 6 years.

And again mondo joe, thank you for being decent; you are much more indicative of the people I have met here than the other couple of replies I received.

[mondo joe]

341. Hm, I guess I don't think you have to support any candidate to take part in DU.

You can easily bypass candidates and talk issues.

Of course it's a progressive board so you still have some limitation.

But if you've had fun and enjoy the people here, I can't see any reason to leave.

:-)

[SaneInSC]

351. Good idea

Thanks :)

And I'll reserve the right to be bummed out over this on principle.

[NotGivingUp]

364. Would've been nice if this site WAS about the democratic process & standing up tor the constitution

no matter if the person had a D by their name or not. I will not blindly support corporate whores that are selling us down the river without a paddle. I am going to stand with people who truly want to make a difference in this country.

[LanternWaste]

586. 'fess up... you used to write for Monty Python, right?

Never read in the rules that we have to blindly accept a nominee because there's a D) after the name. Could you point that out for me, or were you just being clever?

And if it's that you were simply trying to be clever, by golly! It worked! it was soooo clever! And that bit about thinking outside the box? Brilliant! Genius! Almost as good as the "underground in a basement" piece. Hats off to you, sir. Hat's are off!

'fess up... you used to write for Monty Python, right?

[SaneInSC]

612. Nee!

Come back you yellow bastard, I'll bite your legs off!

[MADem]

591. Well, reading is fundamental...or is your computer broken?

The rules here are for THIS site. You were asked to read and follow them when you signed up. Ooops, pesky detail, that.

Feel free to go elsewhere and say whatever you want. Or is DU your "Home and ONLY" page?

They don't like it when you wear a bathing suit in church down there in SC, but you're free to wear one at the pool. The rules in each place, you see, are different. No one is stopping you from wearing that bathing suit if you really have an urge, now, are they? You just have to wear it in the place where the rules say it's ok.

The rules here are the rules here. If you don't like them, no one is forcing you to post ONLY here. This isn't the only website in the world, really. Even though it might seem so.

[JPettus]

317. No Problem, as I see her candidacy as another Nader

She may have the best intentions, but she will split the vote and may allow some Repug to get into office in her place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

322. Skinner you are only going to run into one problem

at this point... the party is shooting itself on the foot, with a 12 gauge shotgun.

It ain't gonna be pretty... when the smoke clears many a toe will be missing

And her candidacy is but a symptom of this little problem

[Pab Sungenis]

464. Good point.

We should be dealing with the issues causing this split. The problem is our elected officials aren't.

[wundermaus]

325. Cindy Sheehan represents the New Democratic Party -

We just haven't figured that out yet. The Democratic Party is the flip side of the Republican Party... - Same corporate minions, just less overt about their true intent. The Democratic Party, just as the Republican Party has been taken over by corporate interests and do not represent the will of the people. They just pretend to, that's all. Cindy Sheehan is a true American Patriot, that this forum does not allow us to express our support of her over a "Republican" in Democrat clothing is hypocrisy. There is nothing sacred about the democratic party nor the republican party. Both are corrupt and useless to serve the best interests of the people of the United States. Cindy is yelling at us all loud and clear! and this forum chooses to silence her. Incredible. Disgusting. Moronic. Good Bye.

[Marrah_G]

327. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

Buh-Bye

:wave:

[wundermaus]

343. Thanks for the compassionate warning...

But don't worry about me, I'll be okay. You just take good care of your self and those corporate whores that pretend to be your representatives. You may want to wear a full body prophylactic... who knows where they have been.

[Marrah_G]

347. I'll take my chances

Seriously, I hope you find someplace more to you liking. I know if I didn't like the viewpoint or rules of a site I would keep looking.
May you find what you seek.

[wundermaus]

356. Already done that, thanks

I have set up a progressive R&D forum and we are doing just fine. It's not just Democrat or Republican, it is Progressive. If you want to know more, PM me and I will send you a link to check it out. I have been a Democrat my entire adult life. (over 30 years), and it really pisses me off that we the people are all dismiss by our "representatives' with a wink and a nod to their corporate bosses... Impeachment is not only on the the table - It's what's for dinner. I'll take my Fascists raw, with lots of catsup... it hides the rotten shoe leather smell.

[Nunyabiz]

329. Totally agree and well said

[derby378]

333. WTF?

This really isn't all that hard. I've been a supporter of Camp Casey for a long time. And Cindy Sheehan has every right to run against Nancy Pelosi if she so chooses. I admire her chutzpah.

But she has often quoted Gandhi, stating that "we have to be the change we want to see." And as far as I'm concerned, if I want to see change within the Democratic Party, I have to be part of that change.

So I'm supporting Democratic candidates in 2008, and I'm staying a Democratic precinct chair. Dammit, somebody's gotta do it.

[wundermaus]

352. WTF, Indeed

Change it if you can but it appears we are all a day late and a dollar short. Unless you are a millionaire (billionaire) you can hope and dream and scheme all you want... they are't going anywhere... and neither are you. The system ain't broke, it's corrupt. - And they ain't gonna GIVE the power back to we, the people. We will have to TAKE it from them. We Americans - Democrats and Republicans are going to have to unite and FIGHT these fascist pigs. And the best way to do that short of armed rebellion is to boycott them and form a new political entity. Starve the suckers.

[NotGivingUp]

357. Unite and FIGHT the fascist pigs! It's the only way. n/t

[NotGivingUp]

355. Great post. Agree with you wholeheartedly. n/t

[WinkyDink]

409. So START YOUR OWN "NDP" WEBSITE. Nobody's stopping you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

471. I'm Proud Of Our Democrats, And Your Attacks On Their Character Are Beyond Misguided.

At this current space in time, Cindy is no longer representing anything more than the extremists of the far far left who have gotten so wrapped up in their passion that they've lost all sense of reasoning and logic. That does not equate to being the 'New Democratic Party'.

Furthermore, your whole 'the two parties are equal' ridiculousness reminds me of somebody near and dear to my heart. Would you mind taking a moment to look at my avatar? Thanks.

[wundermaus]

729. All Talk and No Action.

Makes Johnny a dead soldier.

[calteacherguy]

She's a raving, self-serving, lunatic! nt

[Jed Dilligan]

337. I support her protesting

I think her candidacy will be a good thing for the party, even though I don't support her and she can't win.

Is there still a place for me here?

This is the worst schism I have ever seen on DU. Maybe it's time for me to move on? My support for the party has always been based on being anti-Bush and antiwar. If it turns out that the Democratic Party is not THE tool for these causes, I see no further reason to be in it.

[brentspeak]

342. The worst schism? What, between concern trolls and the rest of us?

[Jed Dilligan]

344. Which side are the trolls?

I see a schism between the people who are mostly antiwar and anti-Bush and people who are mostly pro-Democratic. Without the former there would have been no 2006 victory.

[brentspeak]

350. Uh, yeah

The vast majority here who understand the rules of the board aren't antiwar and anti-Bush... :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Meanwhile, on another topic...are you familiar with Lord Balto? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1422881&mesg_id=1425098

[Jed Dilligan]

369. That's not what I implied.

What I implied is there are some people who are here entirely because of opposition to the war and Bush, and some who support the Democratic Party in general. They may well be against the war and Bush too but their support has a deeper basis.

If the party doesn't end the war and at least try to impeach Bush, we may well leave. The pigheaded chauvinism of ultraloyalist posters can only speed that process.

No, I haven't heard of Lord Balto. Is there any reason I should take an interest?

[Name removed]

371. Deleted message

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

[Jed Dilligan]

375. That one whooshed right over me.

Thanks for the translation.

[Forkboy]

374. meanwhile,on another topic...

are you familiar with Vichy France?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

Boy,this mindless insinuation game with people I don't agree with is easy peasy! I don't even have to care about any truth to it at all!!!!

[Name removed]

339. Deleted message

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

[libnnc]

349. quit spamming

[WillyT]

354. MMmmmmfffmmmmfff.... *Buuuuurp*... Oops, Sorry...

:popcorn::beer::popcorn::beer::popcorn::beer::popcorn:

:evilgrin::hi::evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

358. Administrator . . . I think hugely fair . . . Thank you !!!

To clarify: You are still permitted to discuss Cindy Sheehan, but you may not advocate for or promote her candidacy against Nancy Pelosi.UNQUOTE

Just as a PS on this, I would have preferred that Cindy Sheehan challenge Pelosi's lack of moving on impeachment by running as a Democrat in CA --
I think there is a Republican seat open because of a scandal??

At any rate, it would be a better way to do it, IMO -
And, more likely that Cindy might have gained a seat and been in Congress fighting the good fight -- as a good Democrat -- and we'd have a good source inside the party for finding out what REALLY is going on -- !!!

Ah, well . . .

[cboy4]

359. What a sad, sad thread.

[Jack_Dawson]

368. Seriously.

You will all march in lockstep or else. Is this DU?

:scared:

[Forkboy]

372. I've been here since Sept. 12th 2001...yes,this is DU,and it's always had this rule.

[Jack_Dawson]

379. Not disputing its existence

Just its pointlessness. What distinguishes us from freepers are we are allowed to think for ourselves. The democratic party we elected has completely rolled over, and people have a right to be pissed off about it, and express that anger. Be it Lieberman...or Pelosi. You can't cherry pick who is "correct" and "incorrect" to criticize.

"You are not allowed to support such and such" sounds fascist at best.

[mondo joe]

507. Fascist? You have confused a voluntary message board with a government with

the full force of law.

Do you have no sense of private property?

If you started a web site promoting pro-choice politics, let's say, would you continue to work and pay for it for it to be used for anti-choice propaganda?

[Jack_Dawson]

624. Umm...

I think more people on DU support Cindy Sheehan than Zell Miller (D) and Joe Lieberman (D), that's all I'm sayin. And I don't see either side in the present feud arguing on Bush's behalf, which would be analogous to your "anti-choice" scenario. :beer:

[mondo joe]

668. I don't know why you keep thinking Lieberman is a Democrat.

Don't you get the news?

[LanternWaste]

587. Yeah. Great. That's exactly what I'm going to do. March in lockstep.

Yeah. Great. That's exactly what I'm going to do. March in lockstep. That's the only reason I've come to DU. It's great exercise! And it replaces over exaggeration, as well...

:sarcasm:

[sueh]

362. Thank you, Skinner

[calteacherguy]

365. Wonderful. Absolutely marvelous! K&R. nt

[Drum]

367. K & R n/t

[Hekate]

370. Thank you, voice of reason and sanity.

:applause:

Hekate

[Reterr]

377. Thanks Skinner

I do like Cindy and don't dislike this stunt as much as some other Dems do, mostly because there is so little of Nancy losing her seat. But, you are such a cool admin overall that I will willingly oblige in the very very few restrictions you apply on your own site :).

[Wetzelbill]

378. Cindy is a one issue activist, and a one issue candidate

Pelosi voted against the war and is great on many issues. She could do a lot more to stop this war though, and Cindy is right to call her on it.

However, if anybody thinks that Speaker of The House, Steny Hoyer is going to make ending the war easier, well, good luck on that. I admire Cindy and respect her, but if she was elected it may even exacerbate the bureacratic problems more than anything. Replacing Nancy with Cindy wouldn't do a thing in the end. Plus she'd be so demonized as a congresswoman Dems would be running away from her more than anything. If you think the status quo Dem congresspeople are hesitant to work with people like Kucinich on certain issues like impeaching Cheney, or Jack Murtha on ending the way, wait until Cindy Sheehan gets in office. You'll have rats scurrying away as fast as they could.

[leftofthedial]

381. does this mean all discussion of Cindy is verboten

or just positive discussion

or just discussion specifically promoting her candidacy?

:shrug:


it's hard to seperate the person from the candidate.

[Jack_Dawson]

382. You will applaud people with a (D) next to their name

And villify those with (R) next to their names. There is no gray area here. Do I make myself clear? Good.

[leftofthedial]

383. I gladly villify those with an (R),

for they are either mentally ill or a criminal or both

but she apparently will have an (I) next to hers.

[Jack_Dawson]

384. Then send money but don't post about it

Or they may have a sit-down with you outside Satriale's. You don't want that.

[leftofthedial]

386. I don't understand the "love it or leave it" mentality of some "democrats"

can't they see when their party has been corrupted and no longer represents their interests?

we've complained about how stupid working- and middle-class repukes have been for a generation now, blindly obedient to a party that has consistently voted against working- and middle-class interests . . . now the shoe is on the other foot and the locals are just as blind as "raygun democrats"

[WinkyDink]

414. It's called a "website". For like interests. You know, some are for celebrities, some for food,

some for TV.
They all have rules.

Don't like the rules, you don't participate. You don't whine or snark or insult; you either abide by the rules or find---or start---a more compatible website.

It's really so simple.

[Jack_Dawson]

474. Me neither LeftofDial

Their standard refrain is "hey if you don't like it go start your own site" which of course misses the whole point. We like DU, we like the site, and we like(d) the freedom and exchange of ideas which used to be permitted on here. What we question is blind allegiance to a party that has clearly become marginalized. But there's no reasoning with them along those lines, so just know I'm with you. :toast:

[Anita Garcia]

504. me too

[mondo joe]

510. I notice neither of you has a star next to your name. Interesting position - others

should put their work and money into creating a forum for you to use in opposition to the stated purpose of the forum.

[Anita Garcia]

513. You know Joe

Sometimes my name has a star and sometimes it does not.
Sometimes people think I have it right and sometimes people don't.
Your opinion matters here because it is a discussion forum.
And yes, others have put their work and money into creating lots of forums for me to participate in.
DU is the largest and currently the one with the most diverse opinions.
I like the diversity.

[mondo joe]

515. I give $ to DU to support its stated purpose. It's not nice to see others want to use my gift, and

the gifts and work of others, for a purpose contrary to the stated purpose of DU.

[Anita Garcia]

522. Understood

I now understand the offense that you feel.
Fortunately, for some, and unfortunately, for others, like you I suppose, this board currently allows those who give and also those who do not give to express their opinion.
I am not offended by the differing opinions I find here, on this thread and other threads on DU.
I do, however feel that some opinions may be disrespected more than others for something that some seem so comfortable with and others not so much.
Like discussing the pros and cons of attacking a sitting Democrat.
For some, it is an awful proposition.
For others, it is part of the process toward better government.

[mondo joe]

524. It seems you are trying hard to not understand.

I never said or suggested DU should not let those who don't donate post.

What I said was that it's not nice to have some people, like you for example, pushing to misuse the $ and work that have built and created Democratic Underground.

It's like giving money and volunteering for the National Abortion Rights League and then having someone use the organization for anti-choice purposes.

[leftofthedial]

534. the stated purpose of the forum is (according to its mission)

to provide a place where people can express outrage against bush and the illegal seizure of power in 2000-2001 and to generally support progressive and liberal causes.

It is interesting that you don't know the stated purpose of DU.

I can understand Skinner's official position that one cannot use DU to promote the campaign of a non-Democratic opponent of a Democratic candidate. I remember the Nader wars.

But some here seem to think any criticism of a random lump of meat with a (D) next to its name is unwarranted. That's silly and unproductive. Many of the "democrats" in Congress have failed miserably at promoting the stated principles of the Democratic Party. Many, indeed, seem to be working on behalf of our enemies.

As comforting an archetype as it may be for those who don't want to actually think, the current situation in the USA is not analogous to sports. 2008 is not a "big game." It is not a "horse race." DU is not a high school pep rally. Actions speak louder than words--or letters. Just because someone has a (D) by his or her name, they do not get a free pass.

[mondo joe]

538. You're quite incorrect.

You quoted the founding of DU - not the stated puropse.

The stated purpose is as follows:

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

You are additionally wrong in saying "some here seem to think any criticism of a random lump of meat with a (D) next to its name is unwarranted". This demonstrably false, as Democrats are regularly criticized by virtually everyone here. No one - NO ONE - has said or suggested that "someone has a (D) by his or her name a free pass."

There's a big difference between constructive criticism of Dems, which is consistent with the purpose of the board, and promoting candidates running against Dems, which is not.

[leftofthedial]

615. then I don't see what we are arguing about

your last sentence sums up my opinion

I've been flamed, slammed, ignored, vilified, called all sorts of names and had my internet house toilet papered for constructively criticizing "democrats." Some here seem to worship the "(D)."

I asked originally at what point discussion of Cindy Sheehan (or any other individual running against a "democrat") ceases to be a discussion of a topic pertinent to those of a liberal or progressive persuasion and becomes promotion of their campaign.

I have mixed feelings about Sheehan. I have increasingly negative feelings about Pelosi. If I discuss some positive aspect of Sheehan's "movement" is that "promoting her campaign"? If I criticize Pelosi for being a 60-something rich white member of the ruling class who refuses to hold her fellow 60-something rich white members of the ruling class accountable for their crimes, is that promoting Sheehan's campaign?

[Jack_Dawson]

546. I know you're not talking about me...

Jack Dawson - Star next to my name. Gave (again) last week. Been giving since 03. :hi:

[leftofthedial]

526. back atcha

:toast:

[MADem]

594. "The Whole Point" being you'd rather use Skinner's bandwidth to post your BS, is that it?

And who cares if he owns the site, and has set up rules for the rest of us who don't have a problem with them?

It's all about YOU, isn't it!!!!! And what YOU want!!!

Sorry, this site and the world don't work that way...go find a site more to your liking, if this place is so onerous and CRUEL to your sensibilities. Otherwise, follow the rules and stop griping about them.

[Jack_Dawson]

616. LOL...like I said

that's their standard refrain. No problem though...I donate to Skinner's bandwidth.

Stay strong, Leftie

:beer:

[MADem]

627. "LOL"--"THEY" (of the "standard refrain") happen to be the site owners.

I rather doubt you'd be too thrilled if someone wandered into your house, shat on your carpet, REPEATEDLY, and justified their action by saying they made a small donation to your property tax fund.

"They" are Skinner, et.al. When you disregard his rules, you disregard him.

And sorry, call me old fashioned, but I don't think that's "on." I think it's rude in the extreme. For starters.

[Jack_Dawson]

644. So supporting Cindy Sheehan

is equivalent to taking a dump in someone's house? I mean...really?

C'mon now.

:eyes:

[MADem]

665. If someone does not want you to do something, and you do it anyway, REPEATEDLY,

why yes, it is equivalent.

It doesn't really matter what it is you do--crapping on the carpet, smoking in the house, throwing garbabe on the floor--after a time, when you keep doing it, over and over, when you know it's not wanted, when you have been plainly ASKED not to do it, that IS the same as shitting on someone's carpet. And you wouldn't be rolling your eyes if it was happening in YOUR house.

It's blatant DISRESPECT. They're not suggestions, they're rules. They apply to all of us, even YOU. You aren't special in that regard, and just because you don't think it's such a big deal, others do. Including the site owners.

You're not allowed to get four strikes in baseball, because there are rules for that game as well. You either follow them, or find a place or a game more to your liking. No one is forcing anyone to be silent--just not advocate for third party candidates HERE.

Why is that so damned hard to understand? I rather don't think it is, actually--I think that the CindyBots want to be able to hector Democrats about her half-baked candidacy in a hope of trolling for voters and contributors here. They want to exploit the goodwill of the site owners for purposes that the site owners do not endorse. That's crapping on their carpet. It's blatant disrespect.

Try pulling that shit over at FreeRethuglick, and see how well you do. The CindyBots have had a good, long and TOLERANT run since she announced her candidacy, but enough is enough. No one is saying you can't talk about the pathetic woman, just not tout her as a candidate. And still, the whining and complaining.... :eyes: indeed.

[Jack_Dawson]

673. Why so angry?

I mean...you're really worked up. Profanity, insults, CAPS. I've been here a long time, and don't remember running into such a non-tolerant vibe, that's all. I have a xanax if you'd like one.

[MADem]

674. Oh, bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

You have to do better than that. "Why so aaaaaangry?" Well, when people are rude, disrespectful, and willful assholes, one does tend to get IRRITATED.

But then, I could ask you "Why so OBTUSE?" or "Why can't you read and comprehend simple phrases contained in the rules?" or "Why do you think it's OK to crap on your host?" or "Are you ALWAYS this much of a selfish prick?"

The fact that you HAVE a Xanax is an interesting piece of information in itself. Your theme, plainly, is "My way or the highway." And that says something about you, and what it says is not good.

I'm not worked up, I'm fed up with people who are rude shitheels, is all. I was raised better than that. You might try the old "consideration of others" theme. It's quaint, but it enables people to get along in large groups.

[Jack_Dawson]

675. Clearly, you're not worked up at all.

My mistake. :blush:

[MADem]

676. And you're someone who can't accept that rules are rules at a PRIVATE website.

You continue to tilt at ME, when your actual argument is with the author of the rules (who I happen to support, wholeheartedlly).

You can stop using me as a proxy for YOUR ill-concealed anger. Because my "feelings" with regard to this matter aren't the point, at all, are they?

The point is, and I'm thrilled about it, that you can't keep "Candidate Pelosi-bashing CindyBotting" hereabouts anymore. See, I'm HAPPY now.

So if anyoone is "worked up"--it's you. Coming after ME, because you don't have the stones to get into an insult-fest with the people responsible for the real reason you're so pissed off.

Get over yourself. And read those rules next time you sign up on a discussion board, it will save you angst next time.

[Jack_Dawson]

679. Ummm...

No one's "coming after you". Take a deep breath. It will all be OK. :hi:

[MADem]

680. I'd suggest you do the same. A deep one, now. Accept reality when you breathe out.

And reread the subject line of the first post of this thread.

Because, no matter how much snark you toss at me, that's the situation.

Live with it.

:rofl:

:hi:

[mondo joe]

630. If you donate for something you don't agree with, that's sort of on you, isn't it?

I try not to donate to causes I fundamentally disagree with.

[Jack_Dawson]

646. Nevermind

Your mind is closed. You have your opinion, I have mine. Nothing's gonna change. Let's just agree we hate Bush and call it a night.

[Blue-Jay]

628. No. You made yourself dumb.

[JCMach1]

385. Amen and kick

[Morereason]

387. I am one of those who thought this board was about Democratic and Progressive values both

I have been on here for some time. I mostly support Democrats and am a registered Democrat, and I have worked for Democrats in my area. But it is dissapointing to see that this board will unfortunately behave in such an limited manner.

[Bridget Burke]

416. Well, now you know why we're called Democratic Underground.

We don't support "Progressives" who plan to run against Democrats.

[mondo joe]

431. I don't understand how people sign up for a message board without reading the

purpose and rules.

[Divine Discontent]

389. wow

This is probably over now, but I wanted to speak my thoughts even if it's only for my own thinking on this. Not sure what was going on but, wow, but the OP isn't what is shocking as so much as the assault within it.

I spend hours every week, writing emails, calling, clicking on all those email links from over a half dozen sites that I've signed up with, asking us to tell our congressman or senator to do this or that, and have supported DU through telling people about it and helping change votes from 'naive Republican' to 'informed Democrat', and giving an hour's pay every time I could during a quarterly fund raiser for all the work you all do. I spend much more time doing those things than I spend on the site here that I love, but I feel I need to be doing those other things if I'm really doing all I can to help stop this horrible mistake we're going to pay for over the next couple decades. And with my love of this site, I don't think I've been more disgusted about comments on it than I have about some of them from the past few months. I also have never been so disgusted with my party's speaker of the house. Well, I'm not really a registered Dem in FL because I became Independent after my Mom and brother got told they weren't registered in '04, even though they were registered as Democrats like me, but were not allowed to vote for the honorable Senator from Massachusetts thanks to the work of Katherine Harris more likely than not. I changed it for the protection of my vote. I'm sure there are some that are gonna pull those 6 words out of context and twist them and say I'm not a Democrat. That's how absurd I feel the comments have been this year.

DU is pretty set in stone, when it comes to what can be stated and what cannot, even if I feel that the rules aren't always equally applied - they are applied as the mods who give their time see fit - and I'm not going to fault them - it's just a site, and they give valuable time policing it. I don't agree with everyone or everything on this site, but I try to remember to follow everything when told of something, or when I see something that is brought up to someone else, and respect other's opinions in a proper way when I state I don't agree (like with atheism/belief discussion, for example). There's absolutely nothing wrong with most of these people stating their unhappiness with certain aspects of this whole thing, but the same people keep railing EVERY person who makes a questioning comment as some sort of fake-dem and it's rather nauseating. You can't even voice your thoughts on what you have seen yourself, as NO other user on here has the same exact comments each of us has, without hearing you're more than welcome to go bye bye!

I have plenty of threads in my journal showing my clear disgust for these anti-citizen's rights SOB's in the White House and our nation's church leaders posing as compassionate Christians while some of them champion the bloodshed. I made a highly recommended thank you letter to John Kerry for being one of the few voting to end the war a while back and made the first thank you thread for Keith Olbermann's first special comment that I sent a copy of to his office. I also slammed fraudulent money-grubbing gay-bashing televangelists in another, and post anything I can that brings shame upon the Republican party ---

BUT ---

I was shocked when Speaker Pelosi said impeachment was off the table and since then I have begun to have less and less respect for her as a Democrat as time has went on. Who cares if someone says they're a Democrat when it comes to ending this war or impeaching these criminals? How can she not have already pushed for impeachment hearings after all the hell georgie has put this country through - from his just SITTING there while 9/11 unfolded when Al Gore would have jumped right up, to the trillion dollars that's going to be squandered on this INVASION (not a war, they weren't fighting us), the total lack of compassion and disinterest by him for those drowning in the flood waters in NOLA, the destroying of habeus corpus, the spying on all of us and our emails and calls with their super computer programs running through our words, the outing of a CIA operative who was doing her part in helping protect this country from terrorists, the torture of captives with his authority, and so much more!

So, maybe when it comes to making decisions, Cindy Sheehan isn't the best, but she's not a politician, that's SO apparent - she's a mother who lost her child to shrub's warring mentality. She's attacking one of the right people in my mind, Pelosi has much power compared to many, and she isn't using it as much as she could, as you recall, she just said georgie was from a great patriotic family (patriotic to whom?). I would hope anyone of us being the progressives we are, would be going after impeachment hearings at the very least, so that the B*sh administration crimes can be openly discussed in the halls of Congress. I could care less if it's in vain, because I believe we need to stand up and fight this war and chastise all who are in power who aren't doing all they can to stop it. I read a comment the other day on here, saying in effect, Congress doesn't realize the power they hold and they're letting B*sh and his minions get away with grave attacks on nature, us, other countries, and seizing the gold in the process to the tune of hundreds of billions for them & their cronies.

I respect your OP and your authority over your site even if you don't read my thoughts, I'm not saying you need my approval either, but this is a place of discussion and I'm just saying what you said makes sense, that no campaigning for non-Democratic candidates takes place on your site. It's not complicated. In more ways than one, this is more a liberal underground, because I know many Democrats that think a lot of the views on here are a bit kooky (from the 9/11 conspiracies, to the bush ties to Hitler, to the Gosch/Gannon talk and on and on), even if some of it is backed up with some very intriguing facts.

But, in saying that, because of the hatred for Cindy that I felt a few weeks back from many people, and your telling the other DU'er that the sig line image of her was OK, I'm putting putting up the Cindy pic myself for a while, because of the abuse I feel she's taken.

It's my opinion our main focus should be ending this invasion that kills innocent blood every few hours - and I can't think of very many Americans who've tried doing more on a national level as this noble woman has, regardless of what party/no party she is affiliated with - and for that I am adamant in saying...

[Bryn]

663. I like the way you think

in Fla I became a registered Independent voter to protect my vote after the screw up in Florida in 2000 even though I am a democrat. I thought I was being paranoid, but after reading your post I know I wasn't. I have since left FL when I took an early retirement from my job last year.

Your post makes a lot of sense.

It also annoys me to see some posters' "you're welcome to go...." There's a rule in DU that is against this kind of talk. Not to make anyone feel unwelcome here.

[symbolman]

394. Skinner

Is it possible to have a Cindy Sheehan DU Discussion Group, so that the many fans can congregate there, and perhaps not clog up the Discussion boards with constant posts and arguments about her?

Personally I'd like to see this contained somehow, getting a little sick of folks Trashing people like Conyers, who I know and respect, as many here do, and members of the Green Party inserting themselves on top of it.

Too many people have ridden the Dems the distance, and then dismounted to stab them in the back.

Why is NO ONE mentioning the 17 to 25 REPUBLICANS who are Holding this country HOSTAGE? THEY are the ones that need to be DESTROYED Politically, and with NO MERCY.

Start going after them, folks, THEY are the ENEMY, NOT the Democrats.

[Forkboy]

395. One bone of contention here....

Too many people have ridden the Dems the distance, and then dismounted to stab them in the back.

I've voted solid Dem for two decades now.It's not I that has done the back-stabbing.I stand for the exact same things I did when I turned eighteen and was thrilled to be a Democrat.The Democrats don't stand for those things with the passion they did then,if at all at times.

You're correct,the Democrats are not the enemy.But don't make it sound like long term Dems are pulling out the knives without a feeling of that knife having already been inserted into OUR backs first.

[Tesha]

410. Hear, hear!

Like Forkboy, my basic politics haven't shifted since
about '68 when I was an anti-war, anti-racism, pro-woman,
pro-human-rights Democrat right in the mainstream of my
party's political thought.

But somehow, I now find that I'm viewed as some sort
of "wild-eyed left-wing nutcase".

Nope. I'm still in favor of all those things Democrats
*USED TO FAVOR* when they had principles instead of
consultants and the DLC whispering in their ears.

Tesha

[symbolman]

422. Maybe I should have said a Fork in their backs?

:)

I'm kidding you - I'm a life long Democrat too, and believe that they should step up to the plate, esp at this time, when Bush fever is at it's lowest ebb. The man is a Monster, and everyone knows it, he wipes his ass with the Constitution daily..

It's not hard to be a Bush Hater, the National Review called my and my site pals a "Bush Hater" LONG before it was "cool" :) (That was Takebackthemedia.com)

When I was referring to "too many people" I meant Cindy Sheehan. I was there in Congress's basement Filming the Downing Street Minutes, having flown from Hawaii on a second's notice, when I heard that NO MEDIA were to cover Conyer's hearing. The good folks at the DU here put up the money in donations to SEND ME THERE, and I was honored to do it.

I had to CHASE Conyers down the Hall in that basement, when Pelosi's aid wouldn't let Me or my Camera IN the hearing room, all the rest of the Media had decided to show - I collared Conyers by the elevator (thinking that after chasing him that SOMEONE was going to be standing on my spine soon), and he had his aid escort me to the Hearing room, where I battled for a spot. There, by the elevator I told him I was there to represent the "blogosphere", that all those other cameras were there to "stab him in the back" with a sound bite - but I was there to film the Entire Hearing, and get it to people uncensored, etc.

Cindy Sheehan was there, as was Ray McGovern (and intense and wonderful Patriot) - later, in the hall, Cindy was getting HUGS from Maxine Waters, and others, and was a "guest" of Conyers, invited to the Hearing to speak out.

As far as I'm concerned SHE is Stabbing HIM in the back, as is Medea Benjamin (a GREEN Party person, always has been as far as I know), and it makes me MAD that Cindy felt she could USE the Dems, and instead of going after those 25 or so REPUBLICANS (neither is Code Pink, who I used to respect, until they marched around dressed up with a Sequin Covered casket, like Mardi Gras. As a Veteran, who worked in a VA Hospital after Nam, I thought that was the RUDEST protest EVER)..

Cindy had me at first, and I am sorry her son was killed, but to be honest, there are poor women in Ghettos losing sons as well, to gang violence, drugs, starvation, etc - it doesn't give you a pass, or make you Gandi. I enlisted during Nam, and there was a good chance I would get killed as well, luckily I didn't, but if you VOLUNTEER then you MUST KNOW that you May DIE. It's just the damn truth. The war *I* was in was ALSO a trumped up "police action".

It DID end when people stood up and said they wouldn't TAKE IT ANY MORE, and for that I respect her - but in the end I don't trust her, and think she actually needs some Counseling, at least for Grief, and all the shit that's been thrown at her. Her fans aren't helping her as she should be helped. When she "quit" the last time, they should have got her to a Shrink in my opinion. Instead they keep egging her on. What if she breaks down and "quits" again, supposing she was in OFFICE, and lost it?

Enough of the rant. I admire anyone who stands up, I have myself on many occasions, as many here know - but I won't back her - I don't agree with her, and I'm frankly sickened by those who denigrate those Dems who have accomplished a LOT, given that Bush and Cheney have ALL the GUNS, ALL the MONEY, and ALL of the Judges..

Folks might want to think about that.

In any case, I wasn't trying to insult YOU or other Dems with the knife in the back remark, but I still think it's True in the end..

And deeply disturbing.

Thanks for the comments, everyone - I appreciate you all :)

[Decruiter]

396. Finally, a voice of reason. Bless you, I hope Skinner gives you consideration.

You are the bestest.

Peace.

(My very favorite ever is Jim Hightower, I believe we have way too many cats, large ones at that.)

Thanks again for your reasonable solution. I truly hope someone pays attention. Give the Cindy fan club a place to meet up outside of DU. Or don't. Please just let GD at DU be better. I also hope we can make LBN be better as well, the last week or so, LBN has been lacking a lot.

So much has happened in the last couple of days, so much needs to happen, so many issues need to be addressed and our best and brightest even here at DU are bogged down in this stupid "cindy/conyers" dust up.

I met Ray McGovern long before I ever had the pleasure of meeting up with Cindy.

What Ray had to say today in his essay stopped my heart.

Bells are ringing everywhere and no can hear them over the cacaphony.

[Marrah_G]

407. great line

"Too many people have ridden the Dems the distance, and then dismounted to stab them in the back."

[rpannier]

408. Allow me to join the chorus on this one...

Thanks.

I was hoping that this site would remain the Democratic Underground.

Not the Democratic, unless it's cindy sheehan, underground.

[LiberalArkie]

415. I have a question, if this was the 60's or 70's, would it be wrong to

talk about opposing Lester Mattocks, Orval Faubus, or George Wallace? They were all solid Democrats. It was always impossible to oppose them in the Primaries.

Just a question I have always wanted answered.

[Freddie Stubbs]

419. Why was it impossible to oppose them in primaries?

:shrug:

[LiberalArkie]

443. They were Democrats, no one ever beat an incumbent Democrat.

Just never happened back then.

[Freddie Stubbs]

664. Lester Maddox lost the Georgia 1974 gubernatorial primary

[Bridget Burke]

421. If this was the 60's or 70's--we'd have no Internet.

But, seriously, folks...

It's always a fine idea to encourage "better" Democrats to run against Democratic incumbents we don't like. As long as they remain Democrats. And enter the Democratic primary.

As 3rd party candidates, they don't have a chance of winning.

And I hardly think that Nancy Pelosi belongs with the guys you mention. (By the way, it's Lester Maddox.)

[LiberalArkie]

445. That was the thinking then. Always vote Democrat, no matter who was running.

I am so glad that Winthrop Rockefeller (Republican) defeated Orval Faubus. It brought us fair elections, Liberal politics and a lot of progressive government actions. It scares me to think of "voting the party line" no matter what. I lived though that.

[mondo joe]

447. And DU doesn't require you to vote the party line, or to vote for any Democrat at all.

But since the stated purpose of the site is to support the Democratic party, it seems sort of contrary to use its resources against the party, don't you think?

[LiberalArkie]

497. You are correct. See I am liberal, and the Democratic party is moving conservative.

I have had the sh*t beat out of me in Selma, and at the Moratorium's in NYC, and at home in Arkansas all by good upstanding conservative Democrats. I don't want to do go through that again, I am too old for it. Can anyone recommend a liberal site kind of close to makeup of DU?

[MADem]

595. Do you mean Lester Maddox?

I rather doubt that DU would be as cohesive if it could have existed at all back then--seeing as there were no internets back in the dark ages.

Back then, the "Southern Caucus" was boiling over, and about to come into being as the Republican Caucus. That group of racists and the rest of the party were at loggerheads.

[Bread and Circus]

417. It's kind of weird that we can support folks that have the (D) behind their name...

even though they don't live up to Democratic, Progressive, or Liberal Ideals.

Zell Miller?
Lieberman?
James Traficant?
Bob Casey Jr.?

So these people we could have supported, but not someone against Bush's war?

Color me surprised and disappointed.

So, I finally know.

DU is more concerned with partisan hackery than true progressive ideals.

I don't even care for Cindy Sheehan, but I'm surprised you would silence her supporters.

Shame on you.

Now I'm reminded why I haven't sent money to you or the Democratic Party for a long time (this is someone who has sent over $4000 to Dems and DU in the past).

And the difference between DU and Freerepublic.com is what?

Oh and I forgot one more thing: Four legs good, two legs bad....

:cry:

[Marrah_G]

420. No one is silencing anyone

There are probably a dozen websites out there that people can post in support of her campaign. Is it so difficult to understand that on this topic you have to post elsewhere? No one is being kicked off for liking Cindy you just can't be campaigning for her her. If you hate his rules then start your own. I am not being snarky. I mean it. If a forum I was posting on had rules that I couldn't live with I would simply move along and find a new one or start my own.

[brentspeak]

423. Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

DU isn't the Democratic Party; it's an independent website not associated with the Democratic Party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

424. Ms. Sheehan is free to run in the Democratic primary

But apperently she has some 'slavery' issues.

[mondo joe]

435. Maybe you could use all that money you didn't donate to start up the website of your dreams,

rather than expecting others to give up their work and money to what you want (rather than its stated purpose).

[Bread and Circus]

521. Read it's stated purpose:

About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.

Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues.

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court. We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive. In that spirit, DU has already gained countrywide notoriety as the originator of the weekly Top Ten Conservative Idiots list, which is published (almost) every Monday.

Democratic Underground gets lots of visitors and we rely mostly on donations to pay our expenses. We therefore invite you to make a contribution to our efforts in whatever amount you can afford. Democratic Underground is legally a for-profit organization, therefore, you won't get a tax deduction for your contribution. However, you will get the satisfaction of knowing that as long as there are conservative idiots, Democratic Underground will be here to hold them accountable (and maybe even make fun of them).

---

Seems to me that there's nothing in there against supporting the candidate of one's choice as long as he/she is generally upholding progressive and liberal ideals.

Even when you check "The rules" there is nothing explicitly stating anything against supporting progressive non-Democrat candidates:

Discussion Forum Rules
These are the basic rules. For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

Last updated November 7, 2005.
1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.
3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.
5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.
6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.
7. More Information: For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

Only when you drill down to this inappropriately titled piece...

How We Enforce The Discussion Forum Rules
This is a detailed explanation of how we enforce the basic message board rules.

Last updated February 1, 2006.
Who We Are

Who is Welcome on Democratic Underground, and Who is Not

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, anti-social behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a fellow progressive, a long-term member of this community, or a donor.

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior.

Relationship to the Democratic Party

Democratic Underground is a completely independent organization. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party in any way, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

Civility

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

Content

Disruption and Inappropriate postings

Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone. Do not send email, snail mail, phone, fax, or other messages to anyone if your intent is to threaten or harass, and do not encourage others to do the same. Do not take your disagreements offline, and do not do anything to try to harm or harass any member of this message board offline.

Do not post personal information about any other person, even if that information is publicly available. Do not "dig up" information about any other visitor to this website. You may post the public contact information for public figures, but you may not post anyone's private information without their consent.

Do not use our message board for personal fundraising, for-profit advertising, or selling products or services, except in the specially-designated "DU Marketplace" forum. We will occasionally make an exception in cases where the product or service contributes to the Democratic or progressive cause, provided that you ask an administrator for permission before you post.

Do not post messages that are entirely in capital letters, unless you are trying to indicate yelling or intense emotion.

You are permitted to discuss political or social issues relating to human sexuality, provided that you exercise the appropriate level of maturity, sensitivity, and discretion. Topics about sex are not permitted in the DU Lounge, although we may occasionally make an exception for articles posted from mainstream news sources.

Do not post messages about bodily functions.

Do not post graphic images of violence, gore, pain, or human suffering. If you have a legitimate political purpose for posting graphic images, you may do so provided that you include a clear warning in the subject line of your post.

Do not post messages asking for medical advice.

Stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent.

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "cunt," "whore," "slut," "skank," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. A common exception that is permitted is the use of words like "whore" or "prostitute" in cases where public figures or the media do favors. (For example: "Fox News is whoring for the GOP again" or "Tom DeLay is a prostitute for corporate interests.")

Special note with regard to the word "bitch": The word "bitch" has been the source of a great deal of controversy on this website, because some of our members consider it to be a bigoted slur against all women, while others do not consider it bigoted. For a while we actively deleted posts which included this word, in an effort to keep the peace. This effort helped to keep discussions on track, but it resulted in many deleted posts that were otherwise perfectly fine as well as many confused people. Futhermore, the moderators themselves were ambivalent about removing the word. For this reason, we no longer automatically remove the word "bitch." However, we strongly urge members to voluntarily avoid using the word if they wish to keep their own discussions from going off-topic, and we reserve the right to take disciplinary action if we think someone is deliberately using the word in an effort to disrupt or cause trouble.

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. As a general rule, discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not. If you are easily offended by discussions about religious beliefs, or if you take pleasure from offending or ridiculing people with different beliefs, or if you consider progressive people with different beliefs to be your enemy or your inferior, do not participate in religious discussions on Democratic Underground.

Discussion topics relating to religion that have little or no relation to politics or current events must be posted in the Religion/Theology forum. If you are easily offended by discussion relating to religion, you are strongly advised to avoid the Religion/Theology forum. Instead, consider participating in one of our many DU Groups for believers or non-believers.

Please note that sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not categorically forbidden (except in the case of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence, as mentioned above). However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

Have a thick skin. Please be aware that just because you consider a post to be offensive does not mean that it is against the rules or bigoted. As a general rule of thumb, posts about ideas are generally okay, but posts about groups of people are often inappropriate.

Duplicate Topics and Spamming

Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted. There are different levels of enforcement in different forums. For example, the Latest Breaking News forum has extremely strict rules against duplicate topics, but the General Discussion forum is much more lenient. Cross posting of duplicates in the two General Discussion forums is not permitted. Cross-posting of duplicates in other forums is occasionally permitted if there is a clear reason for doing so.

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

Inflammatory or Flame-Bait Discussion Topics

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread.

National Security

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president or other high-ranking official in the United States government. In the case of the president, do not even post jokes, as the Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor.

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating armed revolution or violent overthrow of the government of the United States.

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violence or military defeat against the United States, the U.S. military, US service people, or the people of the United States.

Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country.

Do not post unpublished information on troop movements, military maneuvers, or any other information which may compromise US national security.

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Restrictions on Linking to Other Websites

Do not post messages that give publicity to websites that have little purpose other than to smear, disrupt, or complain about Democratic Underground. Currently there are only three websites that fall into this category. Their addresses are not listed here because we do not wish to give them publicity. They are easily identified by their bizarre obsession with Democratic Underground.

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites. While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance. Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore not welcome here.

Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites, except in our September 11 forum, which is the only forum on Democratic Underground where we permit members to debate highly speculative conspiracy theories. A reasonable person should be able to identify a conspiracy theory website without much difficulty.

Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided that they are doing so in the proper context.

If you would like to know if a particular website is restricted, please contact an administrator.

Where to post various discussion topics.

Democratic Underground has a large number of forums on a number of different topics. We encourage you to take time to familiarize yourself with all of the different forums so you have a better idea of where to post various topics. We also encourage you to take advantage of the "My Forums" feature so you can easily keep track of the forums that interest you.

We have very strict rules for starting a discussion thread in the Latest Breaking News forum. Those rules are displayed when you click "post." Please follow those rules, or your thread will be shut down.

The General Discussion forum is for discussion of a wide range of topics that are relevant to politics, public policy, and current events. Topics with little or no political relevance are not permitted in the General Discussion forum.

Due to continuing problems, discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues is limited to the Israel/Palestine forum, and is governed by a special set of rules which are available in that forum. If a discussion is primarily about US policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, it is sometimes allowed in other forums. Discussion of other Middle East issues is also sometimes allowed. If a thread is on a different topic, but later goes off-topic and becomes a discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues, the moderators may move the thread to the Israel/Palestine forum.

Discussions about politics and public policy that relate to religion are permitted in the political forums, including the General Discussion forum. However, discussions that are primarily focused on theological questions, including discussions about the truth or untruth of certain religious beliefs, are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and must instead be posted in the Religion/Theology forum.

Posts about so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted on Democratic Underground, except in the September 11 forum.

Posts that are unrelated to politics or public policy (such as pop culture, entertainment, sports, or celebrity news) belong in the DU Lounge, in the relevant Topic Forums, or in the appropriate DU Groups.

Questions about Democratic Underground policies should be emailed to the administrators. Discussion topics pertaining to specific enforcement actions by the moderators are categorically forbidden. Discussion topics relating to Democratic Underground policies, procedures, enforcement, etc., are sometimes permitted if they are respectful and not disruptive to the administration of the website. We reserve the right to lock or delete any such topics for any reason.

Special Rules for DU Groups

Donating members have the ability to post in special forums called "DU Groups." All of the DU Groups are in the same folder, and they are designated by a special icon. DU Groups are a special type of forum, organized by DU members, and dedicated to a particular mission. The mission statement of each DU Group is pinned to the top of that group's forum listing. Individuals who participate in a particular DU Group must do so within the limits set by that Group's mission statement. Those who fail to abide by the mission statement, or whose presence is disruptive to the other members of that Group, will be barred from posting in that Group.

Unfortunately, in the past some members have used the protected "echo-chamber" available in the DU Groups in ways that increased feelings of victimization among members of that Group, or increased hostility toward DU members who are not participants in that Group. This has been a particular problem in Groups devoted to specific Democratic candidates, and in Groups for believers or non-believers. Because of this misuse of the DU Groups, we have been forced to institute a few additional rules to keep discussions productive.

Do not use the DU Groups to whip up feelings of victimization or to complain about perceived mistreatment by the administrators, moderators, or members of Democratic Underground.

Do not use the DU Groups to discuss members of Democratic Underground who you do not like, or whom you believe to be disruptors.

Do not use the DU Groups to "rally the troops" to go participate in discussion threads elsewhere on our website, or to likewise encourage members to vote in polls or recommend threads or alert on posts.

Additional information about DU Groups is posted in the DU Groups folder.

Posting Restrictions on New Members

New members are restricted from starting new discussion topics. We require you to first post responses to a few existing discussion threads before you are given the privilege to do so. We wish we did not have to enforce this rule, but we have found it very helpful to keep disruptors off of our message board. Please do not email us to ask what the minimum number is; we won't tell you, and it's not very high.

New members are similarly restricted from using the private messaging function or recommending topics for the Greatest Page.

Your username, signature line, and avatar image

All registered members must select a forum username which will appear with all of their posts. Members are expected to take care when selecting their usernames, which cannot be changed once they have been selected. Do not select a username that could be considered inappropriate or disruptive to the community.

Members are not permitted to have more than one account on Democratic Underground.

Members have the option of including a short signature line at the end of each post, and donors have the option of uploading a small avatar image which appears in the margin next to each post.

Your signature line and your avatar image must adhere to the community standards for this message board. Do not use your signature line or avatar image as a means to disrupt the message board. If either your signature line or avatar image is judged to be disruptive, you will be asked to remove it or change it. The administrators have the final authority to decide what is considered disruptive.

Your signature line may not exceed 400 characters. This 400-character limit includes all characters, including spaces and URLs for links and images. You may have no more than one image (.jpg or .gif format) in your signature line at any time. This image may not exceed 500 pixels wide, 200 pixels tall, or a file size of 20 kilobytes. If you do not know if your image is in compliance, right click on it and select "Properties." You may not use any HTML code in your signature line except the special message board code for: bold, italics, links, center, and line breaks. You are limited to a maximum of two line break
tags.

Your avatar image should be in either .jpg or .gif format, and should be no more than 3 kilobytes. We recommend that you crop your avatar to exactly 48 pixels wide and 48 pixels tall.

Copyright

Copyright issues and Bandwidth Theft

Do not post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three or four paragraphs.

Do not plagiarize.

Do not steal someone else's bandwidth by posting images that are hosted on another website. Democratic Underground is a high-traffic website, so posting images from other sites will cause their server load to increase dramatically, and might even cost the website owner money. If you wish to post an image from another website, you must contact the owner of the other website to get their consent.

Democratic Underground has the ability to block remote linking to images hosted on other websites. If you are a website administrator and you would like images from your website blocked, please send us an email to let us know.

Do not link or share copyrighted digital media such as mp3s or DVDs.

Wherever possible, please make an effort to link directly to the original source of an article, instead of linking to sites that have re-published someone else's content.

Forum Administration

General Rules

We reserve the right to ban anyone for any reason, to delete any post for any reason, to shut down any discussion for any reason, or to do whatever we feel is appropriate to run this website.

The rules listed here cover the most common disruptive or inappropriate postings, but this is not a complete list. We reserve the right to remove any post that we consider disruptive or inappropriate, even if that post is not specifically forbidden by our published rules.

All of the rules for posting on the discussion forum also apply to messages sent through our private messaging system, or by any other method of communication on this website.

If you think someone is breaking any of the rules listed here, or if you think someone might be a disruptor, please click the "Alert" link on the offending post so the moderators can deal with it.

The administrators have the final authority on all matters relating to this website.

The Moderators and Administrators

Treat the moderators and administrators with respect.

Do not post messages attacking the moderators or administrators.

Do not publicly accuse the moderators or administrators of bias.

Do not send rude messages to the moderators or administrators, by email, by private message, by use of the "Alert" function, or by any other means.

Do not publicly post correspondence you receive from moderators and administrators, and do not share it with other members of this message board.

If you have any questions about the rules of this message board, please contact the website administrators by sending an email. The administrators of this website are Skinner, EarlG, and Elad.

Questions about Democratic Underground policies should be emailed to the administrators. Discussion topics pertaining to specific enforcement actions by the moderators are categorically forbidden. Discussion topics relating to Democratic Underground policies, procedures, enforcement, etc., are sometimes permitted if they are respectful and not disruptive to the administration of the website. We reserve the right to lock or delete any such topics for any reason.

Please be aware of the following

Messages posted on our discussion board are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Any information disclosed on our discussion board becomes public information. Anyone who visits our website is able to read any of the messages posted here. Also, many of the messages posted here are indexed by search engines, including Google.

By default, your profile is available to other registered users. You can hide your profile using the features available by clicking on the "Options" icon.

Democratic Underground, LLC, does not have a policy of checking the veracity of messages posted by users of our discussion board. Use discretion when evaluating unsubstantiated claims.

How the moderators do their job

The moderators of Democratic Underground enforce the rules based on consensus. Whenever a moderator takes action, they are required to first get a consensus from the available moderators that action is necessary and appropriate. What constitutes a consensus varies based on the situation. If a rule violation is obvious, then action only requires a second opinion from one other moderator. But if a situation is unclear, highly subjective, or likely to be controversial, then the opinions of many moderators are required. Whatever the situation, one moderator has the power to veto any enforcement action. All moderator actions are logged by our software, and can be reviewed by the administrators.

All of our moderators are unpaid volunteers. They are selected from the membership of our community, and represent the full ideological spectrum of our membership. They usually serve for terms of three months. During any given term, we usually have a mix of veteran moderators who have served for many months and relatively new moderators who have only recently volunteered. Before each new term, the administrators post an announcement calling for new volunteers. If you wish to volunteer, keep an eye on our announcements section in the forum Lobby.

Your Freedom to Leave

All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you do not like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.

---

...do you actually find a specific prohibition against supporting non (D)emocrat candidates.

It seems to me the "stated purpose" is not consistent with the ad hoc rules as written in the last attachment.

But then again, it still bewilders me, and my wife, that you are obliged to support any candidate as long as they have the magic (D) attached to their name, irrespective of their views, rhetoric, or stances on the positions. Like I said, it seems like partisan hackery to me and makes this site essentially no different from Freerepublic.com

four legs good, two legs bad....

[mondo joe]

560. See Rule 2.

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.


It is logically impossible to support Democratic candidates for office by supporting their non Democratic opponents.

Furthermore, you and your wife seem to share a reading comprehension disability - you are not required to "support any candidate as long as they have the magic (D) attached to their name". But you can't support their opponent and be in compliance with the rules you voluntarily agreed to.

[Bread and Circus]

573. didn't you see the qualifying term "generally"?

gen·er·al·ly (jĕn'ər-ə-lē) pronunciation
adv.

1. Popularly; widely: generally known.
2.
1. As a rule; usually: The child generally has little to say.
2. For the most part: a generally boring speech.
3. Without reference to particular instances or details; not specifically: generally speaking.

The word, "generally", as used in "the rules" from my reading of them means that their can be exceptions and that it is not a specific or exclusive directive. I think "for the most part" is most apt. This does not mean "always". So, this actually seems to support my point of view, not the OP.

Additionally, the lengthy post to which you are responding is actually a retort about DU's "stated purpose" which seems to depict DU as a site for Democrats and progressives of different types. However, the OP and some of the rules in the "how we enforce the rules" post contradicts that.

Finally, and this is not really mentioned, DU is supported by donor funds at least to some degree and I would imagine people who support Cindy Sheehan have given money. So it seems like a case of biting the hand that feeds.

Also, as a final point here it strikes me as hypocrisy of this site to support Cindy Sheehan when it serves the Democratic Party but to denounce her even if her core goals (stopping the war, accountability of politicians) hasn't changed.

Again, I don't support Cindy Sheehan in any way (I never did and I didn't give two hoots about Camp Casey when she was being cheered on almost exclusively here on DU). However, what matters to me is principle.

So, is this a site of principle or is it just a site of partisanship dressed up like a progressive website?

[mondo joe]

582. Time for basic grammar.

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

Please note, "generally" applies to the first part of the sentence ("supportive of progressive ideals"), which is distinguished by the comma break from "and to support Democratic candidates".

If it meant what you're suggesting, it would be "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals and Democratic candidates for political office.

And since Skinner has been quite clear about implementatin of the rule, are you now going to tell us that he doesn't even know what he means by his rule?

To answer your final question, as is made clear by Rule 2, DU is a site for Democrats and other progressives, and members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

What don't you get about that?

[Bread and Circus]

620. I think you mean reading comprehension, not grammar, but in any regard....

I've read your post through a few times and I just don't buy what you are saying, especially after I looked up the proper use of commas. I tested out of having to take Freshman English in college and I did fairly well with my advanced composition classes (4.0's across the board), but I will grant you it's been along time since I had to study punctuation.

However, rather than focusing on minor points that neither of us can truly prove, please take me to task on the spirit of the posts I have contributed here because I think the bigger issue is the one we should be focusing on.

Again, is this a site for progressive values and ideals or a partisan website? If it's just a partisan website, please just admit it. If that's hard to actually say (although if we interpret the rules as you do, it is partisan foremost), then maybe that should give you food for thought.

It's my fundamental belief that blind partisanship is hurting our country and the country my children will inherit. If DU is just out there to promote partisanship, it's part of the problem.

If the people of DU took pleasure in using Cindy Sheehan when she was good for the Democratic party, but kick her to the curb when she is not, then they are part of the problem.

If these concepts totally escape Skinner and you, then I think you folks have some soul searching to do.

I know I'm here as a guest and I've not contributed money in a longtime, so I will take my leave if I am asked. However, in the meanwhile I will try to promote what I believe to be the core principles of consistency, fairness, and loyalty over partisanship.

Also, because I love the Constitution infinitely more than DU, I will try to err on the side of promoting free speech as should the Admins. I know they have a job to do, but it's laughable to suggest that supporting Cindy Sheehan's bid in SF is going to actually hurt Nancy Pelosi or the Democratic party. If anything, it will probably help it. It's kind of a joke to me that folks here have taken such a hardline stance against Cindy Sheehan, especially when she used to be DU's darling.

[mondo joe]

629. No, that's not what I mean.

Reading comprehension comes after you understand grammar.

That said -

DU, as you ought to understand from the text provided earlier, is a site for Democrats and other progressives, and to support Democratic candidates for office.

I don't like blind partisanship either. But of course I do not consider DU, or myself, blindly partisan.

If the Democratic Party takes a turn I seriously disagree with, I'll work to change it or I'll leave.

What I won't do is ask a site committed to Democrats to support my working contrary to their mission. That's asinine, and rude as well.

I don't go to anti-choice boards and ask them to support my pro choice posts. I don't go to anti gay boards and ask them to support my pro civil rights posts.

It's that simple. People work for and pay for this board. DU would be taking their money and time under false pretenses by using it to support something OTHER than the stated purpose.

As to Cindy Sheehan - formerly the darling of DU - now there's blindness for you. When DU agrees with her, it agrees. When it doesn't it doesn't. It would be BLINDNESS to follow her no matter what.

I'm personally delighted that she's running. She won't damage Pelosi in the least, and she'll have to show what she's made of.

[Bread and Circus]

643. And again, the "stated purpose" doesn't grant political immunity to Democrats.

You are confusing "stated purpose" with "the rules" and "how we enforce the rules". The only place I read anything that resembles a "stated purpose" or mission statement is when I click on "About DU" http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html . It says a lot about opposing conservatives and Republicans, but it says nothing about the sole exclusionary and dedicated support of Democrat candidates when a more liberal candidate is running as an Independent. It's too bad you can't go back and correct your original post about DU's "stated purpose" now that you may realize it doesn't actually say what you pretended it to say. Instead, you seem to go for an ad hominem attack to suggest I am stupid or illiterate, implying I don't understand basic grammar. By doing so, you actually violated this rule: #3.Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

Furthermore, I think you are in fact admitting DU is a partisan website, though you won't literally say it. Like I said before, that should probably give you some food for thought and send you soul searching.

Finally, Skinner has given his interpretation of the rules and those are the ones that matter. I can respect those and I appreciate the privilege to tell him I think he's wrong in a civilized manner. Overall, DU is an awesome site. There's nothing quite like it. However, it would be better if it refined its rules regarding the support of liberal and progressive candidates that have decided it would be better to run outside of the two-party system (that many reasonably argue is hurting the country) in order to better represent liberals and progressives.

[mondo joe]

647. No one ever said it did. You can criticize Democrats all you like. Didn't you know that?

As you know, Skinner's rules. I don't know how you keep misunderstanding it.

You position is something like "This pro choice board is great - but I wish it would expand to include anti-choice positions as well".

It's DEMOCRATIC Underground, not Liberal Underground or Outside Two Party Underground.

[Bread and Circus]

648. You said it did. I'm sorry you can't go back and edit your original post...

as I know it's probably frustrating for you. Enough for you to start putting words in my mouth.

As a reminder, here's what you said:

"rather than expecting others to give up their work and money to what you want (rather than its stated purpose)."

[mondo joe]

649. WTF are you talking about?

I never said Democrats couldn't be criticized. To the contrary, I have repeatedly said constructive criticism is encouraged, and even non constructive criticism is tolerated.

Now you're really just making shit up.

[Bread and Circus]

650. hmmm... I think you are just trying to derail the train of thought now

because you know you are on the losing side of this sub-thread.

again let me quote you:

"rather than expecting others to give up their work and money to what you want (rather than its stated purpose)."

What part of that quote is made up?

[mondo joe]

651. There is NOTHING in what I wrote that implies Democrats can't be criticized.

DU is quite clear on that. I don't understand why it's a mystery to you.

[Bread and Circus]

652. I didn't say you said "Democrats can't be criticized."

I never even implied in the slightest way you said that.

Actually, what I've tried to say is that you opposed my original post by saying my original post is somehow antithetical to DU's "stated purpose". You did this not by quoting the "stated purpose" but by quoting what are poorly written rules that can be interpreted more than one way as in "See rule 2." or something to that effect. After our digression about grammar, I came back around to succinctly pointing out that DU's "stated purpose" that you referred to does not, in point of fact, counter anything I've written here in this thread. It was you that introduced the "stated purpose" item to this sub-thread, not me. It appears to me you've become increasing frustrated and have resorted to ad hominem attacks about my grammar skills, putting words in my mouth, and derailing the discussion with tangentialism. And finally, you respond with more putting words in my mouth.

Let it be known again that I never said or implied that you said or implied that "Democrats can't be criticized." Even Skinner recognizes that Democrats are not above constructive criticism. Let it be known I recognize that as well. But what's dismaying to me is that they draw the line when a political contest is at stake, because that smacks of partisan hackery.

Please stick to the real topics at hand.

[mondo joe]

653. Here's what the thread tells us:

You: And again, the "stated purpose" doesn't grant political immunity to Democrats.
Me: No one ever said it did. You can criticize Democrats all you like. Didn't you know that?
You: You said it did. I'm sorry you can't go back and edit your original post...
Me: WTF are you talking about?

The real topic at hand: This board is about supporting Democratic candidates, who do not have political immunity and can be criticized. Cindy Sheehan is not a Democratic candidate, so people can't use DU to subsidize their support for her candidacy.

Furthermore, there is no "line drawn when a political contest is at hand" -- it's the same rules as always. Constructive criticism is still encouraged, political contest or no. And you still can't use a forum created to support Democrats to oppose Democrats.

Questions?

[Bread and Circus]

654. No questions...

I just think you have a fairly creative, albeit misguiding, interpretation of this sub-thread and I love how you completely leave out your first two posts in it, as well as the ad hominem attack, the putting words in my mouth, and the tangentialism you resorted to.

The real topic at hand in this sub-thread originates with my post, not what you want it to be. You have utterly failed to refute any one of my points.

By reading elsewhere in this thread I noticed this little gem:

"I notice neither of you has a star next to your name. Interesting position - others should put their work and money into creating a forum for you to use in opposition to the stated purpose of the forum."

This is a quote of yours, word for word, cut and pasted.

First, you subtly infer that these other are somehow less entitled or less authentic in their participation in this site. You then suggest that somehow you have more ownership of the site because of the star by your name. This is actually against the spirit of the rules, found here:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground.

I think the last statement applies to you.

Now by my account, in that sub-thread you broke the rules and in our sub-thread you broke the rules again (by implying I'm ignorant of basic grammar). So, who here is really misusing the website?

By the way, I used to have a star by my name but it got removed after the '04 primaries because there was a huge revision of the system and avatar naming at that time. I gave enough money at the time to buy way more bandwidth than I've ever used and I've never implied that someone is less entitled to an opinion based on the "star by your name" status. I think posts should be judged on the merits of their arguments, which is consistent with the spirit of the rules.

[mondo joe]

655. I can't help your misinterpretations, willful or accidental.

I stand by what I said. People who don't even support the site but want it to serve their purpose (which is contrary to the purpose for which it exists) are scavengers, using the work and money of others to subsidize their own activities.

I have zero problem with anyone not having a star next to their name. I do have a problem with the subset of who expect others to subsidize their activities in opposition to DU's purpose.

[Bread and Circus]

657. Now I and others are scavengers? I think you broke the rules again.

[mondo joe]

658. If you feel I broke the rules, use the alert button.

I don't think it's breaking the rules to point out that people who misuse the board at the expense of others are scavengers.

[Marrah_G]

670. you are banging your head against a cement wall

[stranger81]

505. EXACTLY.

Of course there are other forums folks could post on that don't have this reactionary rule, but I think the point is that those of who are disappointed by this edict from on high are disappointed because we thought DU was better than that -- we thought democratic values were behind the name as well, not just a "D" behind a candidate's name.

And I, frankly, am even more dismayed at the number of folks proudly standing up to support this kind of a rule, insisting that any candidate who chooses to run as a Democrat is worthy of support regardless of what they stand for. By that logic, Sam Brownback could switch his party affiliation to Democratic tomorrow and 60% of this website would fall in happy lockstep behind him.

Sad. And scary.

[Bread and Circus]

518. Thanks.

[Jack_Dawson]

618. Very scary indeed.

I'm beginning to think after 8,000 posts and multiple donations I'm not sure where I am at the moment. Blind partisan hackery is why our country is in the mess it's in. Republican Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution. As did Republican James A. Leach. But Democrats Zell Miller and Joe Liberman voted FOR it. Blind allegiance is a very scary thing people. Wake the fuck up.

Now's the part where someone tells me to put up or shut up, and/or go start my own website, which of course misses the point entirely. But I'm with ya. :toast:

[Bread and Circus]

621. I think us Clarkies think alike (my wife and I gave him $4000 in '04)

I was also responsible for www.michiganforclark.com, which was Michigan's main grassroots Clark website.

:patriot:

[Jack_Dawson]

622. I was Donor #10

I remember setting my alarm and waiting for his site to go live. Or at least accept payments. $4,000! Nice work. My $100 pales in comparison, but it was a lot to me at the time. :toast:

[Bread and Circus]

625. When I think back on it, $4000 is extremely crazy and we couldn't really afford it.

But I really, really believed in Wes and what he stands for. He's done us proud ever since.

[Jack_Dawson]

626. And remember the reception he got on DU?

"He's not a real democrat!" "He's in the military therefore he's a repuke!" etc. That's what's so scary about the groupthink on here. And I know what you mean. He was the first candidate in the history of candidates I got excited about. He was so fucking real and genuine. I called 200 strangers in Tennessee and Virginia on his behalf and thought nothing of it. I wish he'd run! Arrrrgh.

:toast:

[Bread and Circus]

645. He got a poor reception but by the end he led almost every DU "who's your candidate" poll

I used to go by the name of familydoctor around that time. I changed my name when the primaries were over. I wanted something less personal but made a bigger political statement.

[calteacherguy]

531. Shenan is not a progressive, she's a raving nutcase. nt

[Jack_Dawson]

623. Ummm, thanks Bill-o

:eyes:

[Jack_Dawson]

617. High Five!

It really hits home when you list those "Democrats". So stop supporting Cindy Sheehan and take all that money and start your own site and send the rest to Joe Lieberman. Ummm yeah that makes a lot of sense?

:toast:

[Gman]

418. Good for you, Skinner

One thing very good about Sheehan's announcement is she freed the party of the albatross around it's neck that she has become.

[King Coal]

425. Yeah, she should be supported by IndependentUnderground.com

[MrPrax]

426. Is this fair?

Cindy was good enough for democrats when she was being used by them.

But generally the whole raison d'ete of the Democratic party has to be to cultivate the appearance of issue ownership while purposely working off of non-democrats in the media.

If they need to look concerned about the 'Bush' war they have supported pretty much up and down because the public has turned -- Sheehan and her crew comes in handy. Democrats then can claim ownership on protest and all manna of civil disobedience, without officially taking a stand. Sheehan was trucked up to Canada to have her picture taken with the NDP -- to only then have the NDP en masse vote to support Canada's Bush government.

It's the same trick they are playing with two other huge issues: health care and the environment. The Democratic party can't take a single platform to this approach because they don't have consensus on a single thing. So you get 'celebrities' and 'third parties' to chew the big scenery on those issues relieving the democratic party from ever taking a leadership role -- or even a stand on single user. But democrats get the appearance of having the popular position which works well for fund-raising.

So it does seem unfair that since the democrats have no problem 'zombie-fying' issue oriented movements and laying claim to their historical legacies, they shouldn't be so squeamish when people like Levin or Conyers let the cat out of the bag.

Since a lot of what goes into the perception of what democrats stand for isn't really directly from the democratic party, then it seems slightly dangerous to start cutting off 'issues' from the democratic party...simply feeds the intolerant elitist label.

I think someone that votes for Zell Miller and THEN calls themselves progressive, should be able to stand a little criticism.

[Marrah_G]

428. Yes it is fair

It is Skinner's site. They are his rules. No one is stopping anyone from starting a site to promote her candidacy elsewhere.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

429. it is fair. this is not liberal or progressive underground its democratic underground

we want dems to get seats in the house/senate/white house. cindy was not used by dems. she was a good activist. recently she has been working against the dems. which as a private citizen she is entitled to do. but as a democrat we are also entitled to support our candidate (pelosi) and not the other people running against her.

i personally think she would suck as a politician.

[mondo joe]

432. Is it fair that the work and money that went into a board to support Democrats is used by people

opposed to Democrats?

[Freddie Stubbs]

434. Is it fair to say that the Democratic Party is the party of slavery?

:shrug:

[cgrindley]

437. Well, historically, yeah, it is

unless you want to utterly ignore the history of the lead up to the American Civil War

[Freddie Stubbs]

440. It WAS the party of slavery

The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle.

[smiley_glad_hands]

468. She "used" the dems also.

Now shes just dividing us. W is the problem, tearing down dems is not the answer.

[cgrindley]

436. I do NOT support Sheehan's candidacy

I merely enjoy drawing attention to the hypocrisy of those who would now metaphorically stab and kick her after such shrill and often hysterical support.

But as far as Cindy vs Pelosi goes... it's Pelosi all the way.

But the hypocrisy really does make me puke and some people should be ashamed. In a way, it's been like watching the Freeps get all twisted and backstabby over Rudy. Just as stupid if you ask me.

[L. Coyote]

439. Gooood. Likewise for all the other opposition, like Cheney. Cindy joined the wrong group.

Now that she is has joined Bush and Cheney in opposing the Dems, this is the right thing.

[tomp]

444. "to work for the defeat of..."

so, we can "discuss" cindy. we can talk about what's going on with her and with her campaign(s). obviously, we can talk about pelosi and what's going on with her campaign. if i could, then, for example, paint sheehan's positions strong and peolosi's postions weak, would i then, assuming i had any sway over the voters in peolosi's district, be "working for the defeat of" pelosi? or am i ok as long as i don't call on anyone to vote for sheehan?

[Pawel K]

450. As much as I disagree with this (and boy do I disagree strongly) this is your house

and your rules. We are guests here and because of that I will personally respect this rule and I think others here should too without all this bitching and moaning.

[bigwillq]

451. Thanks for your clarification.

:)

[Pab Sungenis]

454. So does this mean

we're no longer to even criticize Pelosi, because it might be construed as aiding and abetting her challenger?

[Mark E. Smith]

458. Have you tried USENET?

Lotsa folks over there who'd love to hear from you.

[tammywammy]

469. Where did Skinner say we can't criticize?

You can criticize her all you want. You cannot use this board to support Cindy in the race. Period. It's not hard to understand.

[Yukari Yakumo]

563. Constructive criticism is allowed.

Just throwing insults and misinformation is not.

[Pab Sungenis]

577. Ummmm....

I hate to say this, but every single statement you quote from her in that graphic is TRUE.

Our party has a terrible history. And its current leadership doesn't seem to want to paint a better future for us, either.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

728. The Democrats started every war of the twentieth century bar Iraq 1?

That's retarded and so false.

[acmavm]

460. Whoo-freaking-Hoo. Let me be the 120th recommendation!

[Anita Garcia]

461. Not really "Underground"

"To clarify: You are still permitted to discuss Cindy Sheehan, but you may not advocate for or promote her candidacy against Nancy Pelosi."

And not really "Democratic".

[ProfessorGAC]

465. Silly

Petulant, pouty and all the while making no real point. A trifecta.
The Professor

[Anita Garcia]

478. Really?

Must not attack Democrats - understood. Sorry you took offense at the post.
I was just pointing out that the name of this discussion board should not be used as an excuse to bash Democrats.

I've recently run for office as the only Democrat against 4 Republicans.
You know, Professor, my candidacy is over.
I wonder...if my candidacy was not over, would you still be allowed to call my post on DU "petulant and pouty"?

Tell me, Professor, where's the line?
You can call my opinions silly because I am not currently an elected Democrat, correct?
But, if I was an elected Democrat, you could not?

I'm curious, Professor, do the DU rules apply so clearly to all Democrats or just those with notoriety?

This is a discussion board, correct?

Professor, must we all blindly support elected Democrats against non-Democrat rivals? Well, I guess THAT is a silly question, since we are all aware that this is the virtual world and not the real world. In the real world, everyone has the right to expression their opinions whether or not that is verbally or by running for office. But, I guess here in cyber DU-ville, only those opinions made by virtual life long Democrats not currently running for office or elected to office are worthy of positive replies. Other posters, whether or not they are elected Democrats must suffer the virtual pain of replies like "silly".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

482. Please Point Out To Me Where Someone Declared You Cannot Offer Criticism Towards Democrats.

Since you are all huffy puffy about it and seem so convinced that rule exists somewhere, I'd appreciate tremendously your pointing it out to me.

If you can't find it, then maybe you should rescind your over the top and inaccurate attacks on DU above.

Thanks! :hi:

[Anita Garcia]

487. running against a Democrat

Choosing to run against an elected Democrat is a form of expressing criticism against that Democrat.
I am perplexed by the tone of your post. Why use the terms: "huffy puffy" and "over the top and inaccurate attacks on DU".
It's a virtual discussion board.
I have a favorable impression of DU members.
They have supported my family and our activities.
I think we can promote a general understanding of the ideals of the Democratic Party without lowering ourselves to a form of message control.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

494. Nice Try, But Your Own Words Dispute Your Defense.

You did not put forth a narrow premise that supporting Dem opponents should be tolerated, though even that premise is asinine when taking into consideration what message board you're on.

Instead, you issued a far broader attack on the character of DU by asserting that one is not allowed to criticize Democrats at all here. That is beyond false on its face and was an attack on our community that was undeserved and overreactionary. Your attempt to spin your own words into a more direct premise of 'we should be allowed to support Dem opponents' has failed since your own words have rendered that argument as hollow.

You said the following:

"Must not attack Democrats - understood."

Obviously a statement declaring that the OP is implying that Democrats are immune from criticism.

You go on to say:

"I've recently run for office as the only Democrat against 4 Republicans.
You know, Professor, my candidacy is over.
I wonder...if my candidacy was not over, would you still be allowed to call my post on DU "petulant and pouty"?"

This is where your defense falls completely apart. You did not run as an independent, you ran as a Dem. Your implying that if you were still in the act of running we would not be allowed to criticize you is even further proof that your attack was not on us being unable to support candidates running against the Dems, but instead on us not being allowed to criticize Dems AT ALL.


Further proof of contradiction to your "who me, I'm innocent!" defense.

"You can call my opinions silly because I am not currently an elected Democrat, correct?
But, if I was an elected Democrat, you could not?"


So there ya go. Since you had put forth MULTIPLE implications that DU does not allow criticisms of Democrats, you should be capable of pointing out where such a rule exists. If you cannot, then you should admit your error and apologize to the community for attacking it in false ways.

[Anita Garcia]

498. DU does not allow criticism of Democrats

DU members can not post opinions in favor of a non-Democrat running against an elected Democrat.
That's the OP.
That's the rule.
I live in a country with lots of rules/laws that I do not agree with and wish were different.
I do not apologize to my neighbor for the making of those laws, nor do I apologize to my neighbor for attacking those laws.
However, I will support my neighbor's right to change those laws that I find offensive to the spirit of free speech and the right to petition the government.
This is not a democratic society.
This is not underground.
It is only a virtual discussion board with rules regarding what type of discussion will and will not be allowed.
Limitations on the CONTENT of the discussion allowed renders it non-democratic.
Why would a member of DU be offended by my calling DU non-democratic?

[mondo joe]

500. False. Constructive criticism of Democrats is encouraged.

And even non constructive criticism is tolerated.

And if you thought DU was supposed to be Democratic, you are strangely unaware of the purpose of the very board you signed up for.

[Anita Garcia]

511. Running for office is not constuctive?

I read the rules before I signed up.
Understood:
"Democratic" as in party - yes.
Democratic as in particpation - no.

As some push for a more a tolerant understanding of why promotion of a candidate running against a sitting Democrat is not allowed.
I will continue to push for a more tolerant understanding of why running against a sitting Democrat should be considered constructive criticism of a sitting Democrat. I am not promoting any particular candidate. That type of post should be made somewhere else where it is allowed.

What I am saying is that a DU member should not be criticized or banned or belittled for posting an opinion in favor of promoting the democratIC process of petitioning our government. And running against a sitting Democrat is a form of petitioning our government.

[mondo joe]

514. It's not constructive criticism, which is encouraged and permitted.

So please cease with your falsehoods.

You say you read the rules, but clearly did not think much about them.

You can say what you think SHOULD happen - but it's clearly not consistent with the stated purpose or rules of the board. And as a donor, DU would have taken my $ under false pretenses by permitting something contrary to the stated purpose which is what I gave to support.

[Yukari Yakumo]

566. Just a thought.

And even non constructive criticism is tolerated.

But given how nasty it's become lately, I wonder how long that will last.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

502. Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is. If You're Going To Attack Our Community With Such Wild Claims,

then please provide the proof that supports your wild claim.

I already know full well that your attack is unwarranted, misguided and blatantly false. But since you are continuing to attack us in such a way despite being called out on it, then you are either acting ignorantly or disgracefully.

Your premise is false. That much is true. But why your refusal to acknowledge such? Why the continued deceitful attacks on our community?

Like I said: If you're going to issue such attacks then you should have the ability to defend them. Show me where such a rule declaring that "DU does not allow criticism of Democrats" exists. If you cannot, then you should apologize and withdraw your false remarks. If you refuse to, then I consider it a disgrace that you are KNOWINGLY casting attacks on our community that are deceitful and false.

[Anita Garcia]

519. I don't feel as though I attacked you.

We're on the same side.
I'm a Democrat and I'm a member of DU.

On this virtual thread, the only difference that I see in our opinions is that I support a member's right to attack a sitting Democrat. Not on this board, mind you, but in their real life.

Further, I don't see how we move the Democratic Party forward if we continue to attack other Democrats and non-Democrats for saying that they support another's right to attack a sitting Democrat. Not on this board, mind you, but in their real life.

I understand that I am not allowed to attack a sitting Democrat on this board. I have not attacked a sitting Democrat on this board.

What I do not understand is the defensiveness and negativity leveled toward members who wish to discuss the pros and cons of attacking a sitting Democrat on this board and/or their real life.

Again, I don't feel as though I have attacked you or any other member of DU. And for that matter, despite reading your posts over and over, I don't understand why you are so offended by my posts.
They are simply my opinions about the name of the board.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

523. Jesus Christ What Part Of This Can You Not Grasp?

You have attacked our entire community by continuing to declare that it is unacceptable to criticize sitting Dems here. Why do you continue to repeat this blatantly false statement as if true? Why are you REFUSING to grasp the reality that you are quite simply WRONG in your interpretation? Why are you being so stubborn in your position, despite not being able to offer ANY evidence that such a rule exists?

I'm absolutely in awe that you were able to yet again state this:

"I understand that I am not allowed to attack a sitting Democrat on this board."

Why do you continue to put forth this deceitful and false statement? I have told you now God knows how many times that your statement is flatly WRONG. Why do you keep putting it forth anyway, as if no one has made you aware of that?

Do you still believe your unwarranted attack on our community is true or are you just putting it forward anyway just to be intentionally deceitful and baiting? If the former, can you actually provide ANY evidence that such a rule exists? Obviously it doesn't, but if you're going to continue to believe it does then the least you could do is search for its existence. But if you are continuing to put forth your false premise with intentional knowledge that the rule does not exist, then shame on you for attacking our community falsely.

[Marrah_G]

525. Why are you banging your head against a wall?

:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

529. Honestly?

Because as sad as it is to say, I still can't yet confidently deduce whether the poster is merely being stubborn and ignorant; and issuing the statement based on lack of comprehension; or if the poster is playing dumb and putting forth the false premise repeatedly with purposeful intention to disparage our community.

To me, the difference is important. But I do see where you're coming from that the conversation is much like beating one's head against a wall.

[Marrah_G]

535. I vote for the latter

[QueenOfCalifornia]

490. Just for the record...

I agree with you.

I think that "Professor's" comment to you, about you, was "silly."

The condescending nature of Professor's statement caused me to recall just why I stay pretty much to myself - It was contentious at best and mean spirited. Really Professor, do you have to be the quintessential, schoolyard bully?

I have some mixed feelings about a lot of what I have read in this thread. People have gone off in all directions - Skinner has a right to control this web site since it is his domain. If people don't like it, do not support the DU with donations.

First - I do NOT agree with everything Cindy Sheehan has said or done. That said, some people here have been downright mean in their attack of Cindy (whom I have had some meaningful dialog with ) - I think, if some of the people attacking Cindy were to meet her, they would feel some shame for their lack of understanding about just where she is coming from. She has not wavered one iota from her mission. She wants the president to come clean with her and the rest of the world. She wants honesty from the criminals who have hijacked the constitution. She is not naive, she knows that they will never be honest with her or with us - BUT at least, at the very least, she has been holding their feet to the fire. She has been doing everything humanly possible to force their hand and bring attention to the role they are playing on the world stage.

In MY opinion, she has never tried to USE the democratic party - What she has done, is grieve for the loss of her son - she elected to take her grief public. She did not coil into a fetal position and drink herself to death, she stood up, went to Washington and demanded some answers. You don't have to love her or understand her completely but I think it's not too much to ask that you show a little bit of respect for what she has been through and what she is doing to focus attention on ending the occupation of Iraq.

Cindy has never claimed to be a saint. Just a mother who wants some peace.

[Anita Garcia]

495. Right on

If every left of center member of DU took one cause and beat it to death the world would be a better place.

[mondo joe]

506. "Just a mother who wants peace"?

If she wants peace she can go find peace.

If she wants politics, she'll get politics.

Reminds me of the fundys who get into politics and say ofthe response "See, they are anti-Christian!"

You can't go into a political fight and expect to be a holy cow.

[tammywammy]

527. "You can't go into a political fight and expect to be a holy cow."

Agreed, but it seems many here think Saint Cindy is above reproach.

[Cameron27]

590. Absolutely!

:applause: :applause:

[ProfessorGAC]

678. I Call Them As I See Them

Your post was pouty, self-righteous, & apropos of nothing. Just a pointless exercise in boorishness.

And you reply was more of the same, just with more indignant, and highly repetitive phrasing.

BTW: I never suggested most of the things which you attribute to me. I don't run this site. Just a long time poster. So, verbosely making your quasi-point by suggesting i am taking a side, is just proof of my contention.

Happy you asked, now?
GAC

[blondeatlast]

466. Then why stick around? It's a PRIVATE board and big "D" Democratic.

We are more or less invited guests. If you don't like the offerings. you are more than free to go--even start your own site.

[Anita Garcia]

480. I have my own site.

Aware that I am free to go.
Totally against "message control".
Hopeful that the Democrats will embrace the "big tent theory" once again.

[mondo joe]

499. Against message control? So if 300 anti-choice homophobes set up shop

at DU and filled every thread with antigay antichoice propaganda they should be free to do so?

[Anita Garcia]

533. voter registration democrats

Is there a rule here against that?
If so, they will be gone.

Where I live there are a lot of voter registation Democrats who are antigay and antichoice. .
I do not like to hear, nor do I need to hear, their justifications for their positions. Their justifications will not sway my pro-civil rights position and beliefs.
I do not know if these voter registration Democrats who are antigay and antichoice vote Democrat.
I doubt it. I hope they do.
If a group of them came to this site, I think that if they show up, they will get what they came looking for.

You know, the message of the Democratic Party changes all the time.
I like to think that we voter registration Democrats and members of DU have something to do with that.

[mondo joe]

545. You failed to answer the question.

Is it "message control" to prohibit posts that are racist, sexist and homophobic?

Is it "message control" to prohibit use of DU to promote Republican candidates?

If so, do you have a problem with it?

[Anita Garcia]

555. oh goodness

I would leave the Democratic Party if it had the ability to control the message by the prohibition of free speech. I do not think the Democratic Party kicks out members based on their beliefs.

I also don't think of DU as an organization that actively tries to control the message of Democratic Party. I think of DU as forum with a set of guidelines that members are asked to abide by to be allowed the privilege to participate.

If DU allowed posts that were racists, sexist and homophobic, as well as pro-Republican I would leave.

I take a lot of what is said here and forget it. I also take a lot of what is said here and use it.

DU is for me to use.
I do not feel that DU uses me.
If I did, I would leave.

[mondo joe]

558. I'm just trying to understand why you seem to have a problem with "message control"

except for when you don't.

Perhaps I misunderstood something.

[Anita Garcia]

561. It's not a perfect world

we live in. I wish DU allowed for more, but it doesn't.
I wish left-leaning organizations were more open minded, but they are not.
Yep, people like me are left to wander this earth bumping into other like minded individuals when we can.
Sometimes we hook up and share ideas and take action against that which we are against.

[PhilipDC]

509. Big Tent theory

"Hopeful that the Democrats will embrace the "big tent theory" once again."

But Sheehan chose of her own volition to LEAVE the tent. She could have run against Pelosi in the Democratic primary, but that's not what she chose to do. What are her views on OTHER issues that makes her a strong Democrat or liberal? That whole income tax thing sounds very libertarian to me, not Democratic.

[Anita Garcia]

537. About our Speaker

I have not expressed support for any candidate running against our Speaker.

[Marrah_G]

467. No one is keeping you here

You have the right to choose.

[tammywammy]

472. Feel free to start your own board

This rule was here when you signed up. When you start your board, you can have whatever rules you want too. Amazing isn't it?

[Anita Garcia]

483. Yes, quite

Not attacking the rule.
Just pointing out that the name of the discussion board is a little misleading.
What's more amazing to me (I have a site), are the replies to my post.
Just a wee-bit defensive.
Why?
Are all 1000+ DU posters afraid that a random post may lose us a Democratic majority in Congress or cost us the Presidential election?
I doubt it.
My guess is that we are angry about the state of the Nation and that makes us a little trigger happy.
I am not pleased with every vote of every elected Democrat.
Can anyone be?
I will continue to read and post at DU until such time as I am banned or I get tired of the message control madness.

[tammywammy]

485. Not defensive

But it seems there's an amazing amount of people on this thread that are completely shocked shocked by the rule. After there are a few score of the same thing, "why can't we promote Cindy or whomever" it gets a bit annoying.

[Anita Garcia]

489. Annoying, yes

I'm not shocked by the rule.
I just don't get the fear of alternative view points.
If we are forbidden, so be it.
You know, lots of Democrats run against Democrats and lots of Democrats run with Democrats.
I would like to be part of a group that allows the former and promotes the latter.

[tammywammy]

493. There's not a fear

This board wasn't set up with that purpose. There are other sites out there that welcome it, and that's fine. But this specific site doesn't.

I'm an independent, and I haven't always voted for the democratic candidate, but I don't promote people who aren't democrats on this site, I do on other sites.

[mondo joe]

508. It would be misleading to let the sdite be used against Democratic candidates.

Why anyone would be fool enough to join a website or any other voluntary group without ever looking at its purpose or rules is beyond me.

The site, as clearly stated, is to support Democratic candidates.

[mondo joe]

501. Is your web site democratic?

Or do you determine its use?

[Anita Garcia]

542. member consensus

The site linked below is member consensus and therefore not democratic.
This site is not even close to DU or any other left-leaning forum in terms of membership.
It is just another group of like minded people who met on other like minded forums and decided to start their own site.
I'm certain that at some point each of the members were told by members of other boards to just leave and start their own site.
It is, however, anti-Republican, anti-Bush Administration, anti-war and pro-civil rights.
It does not however, prohibit discussion critical or otherwise of sitting Democrats.
And, it does not, due to the limited number of posters, allow for the diversity of left-leaning opinions that can be found here at DU.

[mondo joe]

544. But why isthe number of posters limited?

It sounds like you can't get whatyou want through your own efforts, so you want to piggy back on the work of others.

Another question:could your site be used to promote Bush, or the war, or the next Republican cadidate?

[Anita Garcia]

550. We are not popular

Most of my effort to end the war and make this world a better place is spent outside of the virtual world. I wish I could do more. I am not as good as others in the use of the computer as a promotional tool. Thankfully, I have wonderful friends on lots of different forums who are.
And no, the site will never be used to promote Bush, or the war or the next Republican candidate.

And yes, I guess in reply to your post, I do "piggy back on the work of others", here and there and on other left leaning forums where I share a common interest with a majority of the posting members.
If you are interested, or just want to check up on me, PM me and I'll tell what I have been able to accomplish and what I plan to do in the future.

[mondo joe]

554. Seriously: Why can't your site be used to promote candidates

like Bush, but you say you like "diversity"?

It seems you like a narrow spectrum of diversity, for which I don't fault you in the least, but you expect DU to not narrow its own range in accordance with its purpose.

[Anita Garcia]

559. No, not really

I have no problem with DU narrowing its own range in accordance with its purpose.
Until I am offended, I will continue to post and read and meander around the site.
And no, I don't think a single thread about DU will narrow my perspectives on diversity, here, there, on this site, that site, in the work place, at schools and jobs and so on.
As member and Democrat, may I just suggest that listening to other Democrats and progressives, and liberals and what have you is a good thing, even when the opinions of those individual members may be anti-sitting Democrats.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

528. It's pretty simple:

It's Democratic, not democratic -- big difference.

You can attack Democrats here, constructively, and you can even push for one Democrat's candidacy over another Democrat, i.e., the Democratic primaries.

However, you cannot push for a non-Democrat's candidacy over a Democrat's candidacy.

It's a private board, and those are Skinner's rules.

[Anita Garcia]

543. got it

[whopis01]

565. In this case, Democratic refers to the party, not the concept. n/t

[skygazer]

463. If this is "calming down"

I'd hate to see the alternative. :rofl:

Thanks, Skinner, sane as always. :hi:

[bluedog]

496. notice the threads though

attacking conyers..op eds about Cindy.......high praises and bravery.....thank-you posts..........this is some posters way of getting around the rules.......

[FreepFryer]

470. Agree completely. Of course, they'll simply attack those Dems Sheehan opposes

As they have with the preponderance of anti-Conyers threads popping up, 'ironically' on the very day the House Judiciary Committee is voting whether to hold 2 Bush administration officials in contempt of Congress.

DU isn't the forum for smearing, character attacks and encouraging divisiveness by dismantling our Democratic Party heroes.

[Caoimhe]

473. B.B.B.But I'm so concerned.....

Seems that every two years we have to go through this batshiat all over again.

[happygoluckytoyou]

475. TONY SNOW HERE----->

thank you cindy for attacking the republicans by going after nancy p.

cindy's complaint that nancy is not doing enough is unfounded---
WE are not all sitting in the private conference rooms where the DEMs are preparing their strategy... to some degree they need the ability to "politic" WHICH IS NOT A DIRTY WORD

money is power... popularity is power... truth is power... but so is the ability to strike fear (GOP)... to lie effectivly (GOP)... and we risk the ability to WIN by setting a moral high-ground which keeps us from TAKING OFFICE

NANCY IS A FIRST CLASS LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.... cindy should be attacking the real problem

The GOP would have you believe that the Dems are hypocrits because of:
An expensive haircut
Environmentalists using cars to get out their message
Certain votes which may look outwardly wrong
Not voting GREEN, rather than to WIN

WE ARE IN THE TRENCHES FOR OUR STANDING AS A PARTY...
A DEMOCRAT NANCY IN THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD HAVE US LEAVE IRAQ AND END THE OCCUPATION...

PUT ALL DEMOCRATS IN POWER AND YOU WILL SEE... JUST HOW WE CAN DIVIDE THE SPOILS...
THAT IS WHERE THE GOP KICKS OUR ASSES... THEY WIN...THEN DIVIDE
WE DIVIDE...THEN LOSE

ISN'T IT TIME TO QUIT BEING SUCH PREDICTABLE ASSES

[Debi]

479. Amen Skinner

:hi: thanks

[mmonk]

488. I broke my rule and have decided to post in this thread.

Just wanted to see if it will be a non-ending thread or not and make a contribution of keeping it going.

[Norquist Nemesis]

492. Works for me!

:thumbsup:

[ooglymoogly]

520. Yes imo this is the correct attitude and policy.....

I would have supported Cindy as a democratic challenger but not as an independent vote sponge. We must never tolerate another Ralph whatsisname that gave us this criminal cabal.

[LynneSin]

530. As a long term DUer - thank you for this post

I'm here to support Democrats. If Democrats suck then we need to run candidates against them in the Primaries, not start 3rd party races that divide up the party even more and potentially help republicans win (yes, I know that Pelosi's district is overwhlemingly progressive - it's just the overall concept)

[peacetalksforall]

532. I am posting late and cannot possibly read all the arguments, but

on my first read, I believe the policy announced on DU is fair. Perhaps I could be swayed on a point or two if I read some insightful posts. But, what is ideal about this is that Skinner announced the policy and presented it clearly. I like the upfront approach in managing the site.

[Name removed]

536. Deleted message

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

[Elspeth]

541. This seems fair enough

The rules are pretty clear.

[Major Hogwash]

552. Democrats, more Democrats, and still more Democrats.

We need more Democrats in Congress.
Until we have a veto-proof Congress.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

556. Hear Hear To That!

:toast:

[Yukari Yakumo]

569. And filabuster-proof too. {nt}

[Az_lefty]

572. Thank you Skinner for setting this straight...

I really wasn't looking forward to the endless Cindy threads, it's bad enough already.

[CreekDog]

589. If Pelosi isn't a real Democrat and isn't REALLY against the war

By that defition, we don't have many people that are real Democrats and really against the war.

So, where is the majority to end the war going to come from if in the process, the "true believers" only accept a small fraction of those folks in the movement?

I mean, basically when Cindy Sheehan says Nancy Pelosi is the enemy/opponent in stopping the war, I think we have reduced our power by 50%, meaning that you are splitting into two groups, the one group that wants the war to end and the troops to come home.

And you are splitting them essentially over timing. Funny thing is, a larger group pushing for the war to end and troops to come home means it will happen sooner. A smaller group pushing for both to happen NOW will mean that it will happen later because they don't have the votes to defund it and end it now.

[chaska]

592. Cindy may be the only democrat (small d) running. How dare you.

:wtf: :dunce:

[Marrah_G]

606. How dare he what?

:shrug:

[AnExtremist]

614. How Dare He!

Not share the popcorn!

:popcorn:

I was kinda outta line last night - sorry.

[Marrah_G]

637. I think that's a capital offense!!!!

Popcorn MUST be shared!

:popcorn:

[waiting for hope]

593. She's not posting on Daily Kos

anymore for the same reason - Thank you Skinner.

[Forkboy]

604. How's that calming down thing working out for everyone?

:)

[ComerPerro]

613. Amen. Its about time

[Jack_Dawson]

631. So Zell Miller (D) and Joe Lieberman (D) = Good

Cindy Sheehan = Bad. C'mon peeps. We're better than this shyte. :wtf:

:beer:

[LittleClarkie]

632. Joe Lieberman (I) = bad

Lamont (D) = good

[Jack_Dawson]

633. LOL - exactly

WTF is with all the groupthink? This is a very scary vibe on here right now. Please let the open-mindedness and free thinking notably absent at Freeperland prevail on DU. Someday.

And save the "start your own website" crap. I like DU. I like Skinner. I donate. But I'm sorry this is a very frightening thread. Blind allegiance is not a good thing peeps. Wake up. Read history.

[mondo joe]

636. No blind allegience. You can criticize candidates, you can discuss issues.

What don't you understand about that?

[Jack_Dawson]

638. I don't understand the hostility toward Cindy Sheehan

who almost single-handedly gave the anti-war movement a voice. The comments I'm reading on here I could be reading from Bill O'Reilly.

[mondo joe]

639. For what it's worth, my explanation:

Cindy said some crappy (and untrue things) about Democrats - this is a primarily a democratic board. So duh, her comments are not welcome. She then attacks people who have been fighting the good fight a fuck of a lot longer than she has. Again, duh - what other reaction would you expect?

It's so funny that you rail against blind loyalty, but you expect it for Cindy.

[Jack_Dawson]

641. I appreciate your explanation

but don't understand the insulting overtones ("duh") and such. Do you have an exact quote of her comments?

I don't necessarily support Sheehan, but certainly support people's right to. Obviously after the primaries we can't afford to splinter as a party (Nader, etc.) but the vitriol against a woman who lost a son in Iraq combined with the "you can't do this or that" vibe strikes me as very un DU-like. My $.02.

JD

[mondo joe]

642. No one is impeding anyone's right to support anyone they like.

They just can't expect DU to subsidize their support of a non democratic candidate.

Cindy lost her son, which is very sad. But you can't enter a political fight and expect to be a holy cow. There are plenty of Republicans who have suffered personal losses as well - that gets them no reprieve in politics, and it shouldn't. If you're too precious for politics, don't get into it.

[MADem]

666. Go to Daily Kos and read her diary

Why are you supporting the woman when you apparently know so little about her?

Read the CINDY FOR CONGRESS one, and the GOOD RIDDANCE ATTENTION WHORE entry, too (hey, she wrote it).

They're her words, up on the net for all to see--and they're batshit crazy assertions. She wrote them, no one else.

Here's the link--by her words we shall know her: http://cindysheehan.dailykos.com/

[William769]

659. Lets see here now.

Zell Miller is retired, Joe Lieberman is an Independent (BTW just like Cindy). so what was the purpose of your post?

[MADem]

667. An asshole and an idiot, good? In what universe? The dueler and the dope?

What a false argument. I think you'll have to walk a long mile to find anyone here who likes either one of those assholes.

So yeah, put Cindy in with those two, and you've got something going on there.

:wtf: indeed.

[mondo joe]

669. Didn't you hear that Lieberman isn't a Dem?

It helps to pay attention!

[Bread and Circus]

694. He'd be a Dem if it would help him get elected again and then voila! he's a-o-k again!!!

The (D) is a magical powerful thing and don't you forget it!!!

You see, we don't have to care about the issues or the rhetoric, only the magical (D). It absolves all sins, acts, and omissions come election time!!!

[mondo joe]

698. I don't know why you persist in these falsehoods.

Even if Lieberman were to be a Democrat again, it doesn't make him "ok". He's still subject to criticism on DU, as you well know (but refuse to acknowledge).

[cynatnite]

634. I'm hoping this thread gets up to a 1000 posts n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

662. Why?

[JacquesMolay]

656. I respect that. I won't post in favor of her candidacy.

... but I am going to send her money.

[Iverson]

682. Ah, Democrats for Nixon

If I understand correctly, we may look back fondly on the 1972 campaign and cheer on Democrats for Nixon because ... (drum roll, please) ... they were Democrats! However, cheering on those who wanted to oust Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch supporter of the VietNam war, is verboten because he too was a Democrat.

And if I understand you correctly, it's peachy keen to say nice things about Sen. Joe Lieberman, even though technically he's not a Democrat, because he caucuses with the Democrats, even when his ideas are antithetical to liberty, but it is most decidedly not peachy keen to praise Ralph Nader, even when he is right on an issue, because he had the temerity to seek public office not as a Democrat. Right so far?

If so, then ideas, even thoroughly small-d democratic and thoroughly underground, are circumscribed on the Democratic Underground website by loyalty to the Democratic Party and candidates.

This would lead to the present case in which Cindy Sheehan, who stands diametrically opposed to the Bush administration criminality, cannot now be advocated because she may oppose a Democrat who protects Bush administration criminality.

Let there be no doubt: the DU website has every right to perpetrate this type of intellectual Lysenkoism.

Hey, it's your game. Therefore, I will not advocate for Cindy Sheehan who is inarguably right about the Bush administration, as she is opposing Speaker Pelosi, Democrat, who is dead wrong.

Hooray for Nancy Pelosi, even when dead wrong!
Hooray for Democrats for Nixon!
Fie upon those politicos like Cindy Sheehan who, no matter how right, refuse to be Democrats!

[Freddie Stubbs]

683. Incorrect

The Democrats for Nixon anolgy is not apt. We are talking about a Democratic caniddiate for office versus an independent.

Don't like Speaker Pelosi? The primary is early next year.

[Iverson]

684. misperception

The question was never whether Cindy Sheehan was analogous to Democrats for Nixon. The question was who may be praised and why.

Your own answer gives you away, since you not only misunderstood this, but also the allowable universe of your reply exists within the party. Therefore, I think that you agree with me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

700. Either Way You Were Misguided.

You put forth a premise that Democrats for Nixon would've been tolerated here. If you actually used some common sense reasoning based on the now repeated 1000 times in this thread rules, you'd undoubtedly be able to ascertain that your analogy and its conclusion are just plain false.

[Iverson]

702. Don't be silly.

Democrats for Nixon were Democrats. QED.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

703. I'll Be Whatever I Want, Which Is In This Case Being Factual.

You, however, are being quite stubborn and ignorant in your lack of recognition towards the fatal flaws in your analogy.

You seem to have your equation all flipped around and confused. Instead of the factual interpretation of DU's rules that members cannot outwardly use DU's bandwidth to encourage, support or condone the opposition to Democratic candidates by non-Democratic candidates, you instead are ignorantly flipping the equation into an interpretation that "any candidate can be supported on this site, as long as you claim to be a Democrat while doing so".

Personally, I can't even fathom how someone could twist such an easy to understand and straightforward rule into such a warped and misguided interpretation. What's even more perplexing is that even with the plethora of further clarity towards the rule issued in this thread, you still are intentionally choosing to hold onto the warped interpretation in spite of having everything readily available at your fingertips to recognize that your analogy was tragically flawed and false on its face. It won't forever traumatize you to have to step forward and acknowledge that you were just quite simply wrong. I promise.

[MADem]

687. Your perceptions are completely wrong. If I wanted to be mean, I'd call them HORSESHIT.

Most Democrats I knew, and I was alive and kicking back then, a registered voter, too, thought DEMOCRATS FOR NIXON were a bunch of fucking assholes who weren't really Democrats. If this website existed back in those dark ages, those bums would be seen here as the Vichy bunch they in fact, were. Show me the "Democrats for Bush" forum within this site, why don't you? Why, there is none, and surely, though they're a minority, they exist.

And it's NOT "peachy keen" to say nice things about Lieberman here. If you paid ATTENTION, the minute Lamont won the primary, the Lieber-nauts got a Cease and Desist Order. All, what, two of them?

Let there be no doubt, indeed--DU has rules, and participants who get all shirty and offended because they didn't read those rules have no one to blame but themselves.

It IS "our" game--and by ours, I mean those of us who read the rules and don't have a problem with them. As for you, you should read before you sign on--to a website OR the dotted line. And stop getting pissed off because YOU made a deal you can't live with.

Grow up, why don't you, and stop whining. You don't like the temperature or the flavor here, go somewhere else. If I were you, I'd be a bit embarrassed that you didn't do that. It makes you appear impulsive, jumping into something without a clear idea of what the ideals and goals are. Someone who is easily led, "sold" on an idea by a title.

Your foolish "Hooray" hectoring is the behavior of someone who's pissed because THEY didn't get what they thought they were signing up for, because THEY didn't READ before they jumped in. That's YOUR fault, not the website's.

[Iverson]

688. Did you say HORSESHIT!?

Child, I'm sure I read the rules long before you signed on here. Your arrogant presumption does you no credit, and neither does your "stop whining" ethos, so redolent of the post-2000 election fraud.

No amount of personal nastiness from you can occlude the facts. Democrats for Nixon is a historical fact. So is the circumscribed discourse here.

Don't be ashamed of saying hooray, even if those for whom you cheer are supporting your purported foes, and the reverse as well.

[MADem]

699. Yes, I did. And I will say it again. Horseshit. And stop whining.

And I'm not a child, though I wouldn't mind losing a decade or two.

Let's have a look at what you wrote.

If I understand correctly, we may look back fondly on the 1972 campaign and cheer on Democrats for Nixon because ... (drum roll, please) ... they were Democrats! However, cheering on those who wanted to oust Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch supporter of the VietNam war, is verboten because he too was a Democrat.

Well, guess what? You DON'T understand correctly.

Now, you claim that you read the rules long before I signed on here? (Which, FWIW, was shortly after the site was founded, but I lost that password when my old computer died and couldn't post from work, so I did a lot of reading and little participating). If you actually comprehended those rules you claimed to have read, you'd realize that, if this site existed back then, DEMOCRATS FOR NIXON would not be welcome. Why? Because they were supporting a Republican against a Democrat in a contest for political office.

Go read those rules again. You've apparently forgotten the salient points contained in them.

The DEMOCRATS FOR NIXON have the same problem here as the DEMOCRATS FOR SHEEHAN. Capisce?

[Iverson]

701. Ah, so you said Horseshit.

Stop projecting. Your whining about writing that you can't tolerate is, how to say, so undemocratic.

The question is who may be praised and who may not. The party forms the boundary. Be as pugnacious, dense, and umbrageous as you like; there's still no escaping it.

Even your own futile effort to win a losing argument shows that your mastery of text is less than you wish. That is: Democrats for Nixon are Democrats, not Nixon. Sheehan is not the same as Democrats for Sheehan. By your own reasoning (sic), Democrats for Nixon may be praised, but Cindy Sheehan may not be.

Now wipe off the foam and sing with me:
Hooray for Speaker Pelosi who says impeachment is off the table!
Boo for Cindy Sheehan who stepped outside the line!

[MADem]

707. You are plainly dull of comprehension, as well as obtuse. NT

[Marrah_G]

712. .......

:yawn:

Don't like the site rules? Then go start your own. This is a private site with clearly stated rules. You have zero right to another person's bandwidth. You are here only as Skinner's guest, as are we all.

[mondo joe]

704. What is your interest in using the bandwith OTHERS pay for, for purposes contrary to the

stated purpose of the site?

Why don't you pay for your own propaganda instead of trying to misuse the work and contributions of others?

[Iverson]

706. gosh

Here I was figuring out who can be praised, and you're being soooooo mean. You're not a Republican, are you?

C'mon! Get with the program.

[mondo joe]

708. Here you are, wasting bandwith.

Some might consider that trolling.

Isn't there some anti-Democrat message board that would be more in keeping with your positions?

[Iverson]

710. Please don't throw me into that briar patch!

I'm sorry to have written something that you didn't like reading. What's the solution for that again? Ah yes. Make it go away.

I'll atone! I'll atone!

Hooray for voting for the IWR when Dems do it!
Hooray for voting for the USAPATRIOT Act when Dems do it!
Party above ideas!

[mondo joe]

711. Unable to have a dialogue, I see.

When asked a civil question, refuse to answer. :eyes:

You're like a leftish Bush.

[Marrah_G]

713. Mondo

He is just a shit stirrer. He just wants nonsensical arguments and wild-eyed ranting. Best bet is to just ignore the attention seeking child.

[mondo joe]

714. That's plainly true.

I felt I had to give the troll a chance before making a conclusion.

[Marrah_G]

716. I had an earlier hint though

I saw him in some other threads doing the same thing :)

[Iverson]

719. well I'm rubber and you're glue

It's a good thing that you're in the party that's above criticism, or else I might be more emphatic.

[Blue-Jay]

695. *snort*

[mmonk]

709. Sung to the tune of Never Ending Love

I have a never ending thread for you
I really hope it's ok with you
I really can't tell you what to do
But I hope you read the rules at DU

[Marrah_G]

715. baddddddddddddd

:spank:

Thanks for getting that song stuck in my head before my first coffee is done.

[mmonk]

717. Just thought I'd pass it along.

I was hoping I could get it out of mine.;-)

[Marrah_G]

718. Meanie

:cry:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

720. I would like to nominate this entire thread for a DUzy.

Simply hysterical, in all meanings of the word.

:rofl::rofl:

[myrna minx]

721. I'm bullish in kudzu! It's going places! n/t

:rofl:

[myrna minx]

722. A moose once bit my sister... No realli!. n/t

[Name removed]

725. Deleted message

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

[marano35]

726. Color me gone

I have enjoyed my time here, but I have to say that this post and this rule, even though I did not plan to do anything on here to actively support her lets me know that this site does not believe in the ideals the democratic party is believed to represent. This will be my last entry here and I am deleting the site from my computer.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

727. Buh-bye.

[LoZoccolo]

730. You knew this rule when you signed up, don't act shocked. n/t

[Zandor]

733. LOL!!!

Democratic party ideals are to oppose Democrats???

[wundermaus]

731. Funny thing about rules...

they all depend on who they are issued from and who they apply to. And another interesting thing about rules... there can be ways around them sometimes. By writing opinions and citing articles about Cindy Sheehan without mentioning her candidacy for office should work nicely. And the speeches and press releases from her as quoted should be permissible to post if done so without comment, right? And if, heaven forbid, she should hypothetically express doing something the majority of the voting population wants done while a certain, unnamed occupant of the US Senate only talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk, then that would certainly not be against any possible forum rule or subliminal thought control attempts, right?

Just the musings of a blind flying rodent in a pitch black room...

[Lilith Velkor]

735. Yep, no crapping on the floor, but farting is allowed

:eyes: