Don't add my name to any list of orthodox left wing liberals

[grantcart]

The idea of an 'orthodox' list of liberal left wing points that establishes somebody as a true 'left wing liberal' makes me want to gag.

I grew up in an orthodox right wing home and the right wing loves their fucking lists.

For 40 years I have been active on the left and part of the attraction is the lack of orthodoxy the exhiliration of debate and the chaos of creativity.

I like the debate and I like the fact that real liberals want to engage, discuss and fight and then go out for a beer and share a laugh.

So while I think that we should nationalize our health care system and nationalize our oil extraction system like Norway I also have lived in communist countries and realize that the profit incentive has brought tremendous innovation (like the computers we now use to argue with each other or the cocktail that keeps hiv folks living long lives) even as it is destructive and destroys peoples lives. So I want a mixed system, like most of Europe has developed.

Organized against the Vietnam War, filed for CO status and spent 8 years in refugee camps. Am I AntiWar? Well I celebrate FDR bringing on the defeat of the facist forces and I celebrate the armed invasion by the Peoples Republic of Vietnam to defeat the murderous regime of the Khmer Rouge so there are some things that are worse than War.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Iraq was a war of aggression and while there are some situations where a war of aggression is acceptable (see PRV invasion of Cambodia above) the US invasion of Iraq was an absolutely vile event. Even if the Iraqi's laid down their arms and welcomed us it was wrong.

Afghanistan is more complicated and those that equate the Iraq War and the Afghan War acutally are undermining the case that Iraq was especially criminal in nature.

There are good reasons to be concerned about the War in Afghanistan. I support the war with reserverations. I appreciate those informed voices who are against it. I don't think there is a single orthodox left wing liberal position. I know Pakistanis and I like Pakistanis. I know Indians and I like Indians and I know a lot of Afghanis and I like Afghanis. The fact is that this area is a much more likely candidate for a massive conflict costing millions of lives than either the DMZ or Israel and Palestine. Simply drawing the line between Pakistan and India setting up those two governments cost more than a million innocent lives. That is the chaos that AQ and the Taliban would like to create. There are some very well informed people who see it differently. I don't care to put them on a list. I value the debate.

I don't want the government limiting my wife or my daughters access to full medical treatment, but as a parent of an adopted daughter I am thankful to those mothers who are able to bring their children to term and share the blessing with another family. What list does that put me on?

When it comes to drawing up list of what a 'good orthodox left wing liberal' is I say "shame on you for undermining what is best about liberals" don't you dare add my name even if we agree on every little point, now if you have a list of 'left wing liberals that like to engage people in open debate with the freedom to disagree and still value each other' - add my name.




edited to change a faulty preposition

[KonaKane]

1. Retaliation thread?

against this one? ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8311956&mesg_id=8311956


Bad form, dude. Really bad form.

[berni_mccoy]

It explains a lot that you would take a post like grantcart's and accuse him of retaliation.

[grantcart]

6. Its in response to a general attitude that many here express that there is

only one appropriate liberal position on many important issues.

Now do you want to have a discussion about it?

Do you think that it is a good idea for liberals to have a litmus test?

Have liberals really become so insecure that we have to adopt the tactics of the Right Wing.

Lists of orthodoxy belong to the Right Wing not the left.

Really what is the point of having a left wing discussion board if only certain positions are acceptable.

If challenging that philosopy that that thread represents is bad form then I clearly don't belong here and will leave.

[KonaKane]

20. Ah, like the traditional "Malloy truth checkers check in!" thing here?

I don't see any complaints about that.

This thread is retaliatory, and misguided. The one it was lashing out against wasn't an attempt to make a list at all, but for the OP to get an idea of how many others here still held his or her views. I saw no sign up sheet attached.

[grantcart]

25. lol well if you think that there is no difference between a bunch of

people who want to form a group of similar opinions and listen to somebody that they like and the ongoing effort to establish an absolute list of acceptable orthodox 'left wing liberal' positions then your ability to distinguish wildly different concepts is severly handicapped and no wonder you would have a problem with the OP on purely procedureal grounds and not on substance.

[KonaKane]

31. Who wants to "form a group"? Who wants to "make a list"?

I saw no attempt at either. The OP of the thread that so bothers you simply wanted to know if they were alone or not. What's the big deal in that?

[grantcart]

45. lol you have a serious problem with reading comprehension and application of logic

1) Malloy Truth Checkers form a group to listen to a program together. I enjoy their threads. They have developed an fun intimacy.

2) There is "no big deal" with anyone posting a thread and wanting to know if people agree with it.

Did I suggest that thread should be locked?

I disagree with the fundamental idea that liberals should be so insecure that we need to have litmus tests and check off lists.

It is an ongoing tendency that I see here.

I disagree with that.

So I posted a thread and some people are going to agree, some disagree and some are making pretty funny jokes at my expense. That is what I think we should be doing instead of trying to boil down our beliefs to a convenient check off and then patting ourselves on the back.

What's the big deal in that?

Or do you think that threads that disagree with other threads should not be allowed at DU?

[KonaKane]

98. No, I think I saw it pretty clearly from the start.

You are angry at check off list and litmus tests. Got it. But you are not only inconsistent with your complaint (you give the Malloy Truth Checkers a pass for some reason), you haven't given us any examples of what so irks you.

Can you point me to any regular example threads of what obviously so annoys you?

[grantcart]

102. lol you really do have a problem with reading and logic

The reason that the Malloy Truth Checkers do not violate the spirit of the OP is because they have no intention of publicly defining what is acceptable orthodoxy. They are getting like minded people together to have a sympatico conversation. DU has lots of groups like that and I participate in some of them.

The difference between those groups is that they do not assume to speak and define what should be considered real left wing liberal and what should not.

Pointing to specific replies that I find objectionable is a violation of the rules of DU.

For the record I was never angry or annoyed. Just disagreed.

[KonaKane]

105. Attempting to insult me will get you nowhere.

You are miffed about the attempt to create an acceptable orthodoxy, but have not yet cited an example of such a thing on DU. I think you have a ligitimate complaint but you are trying to use it as a response to something that, so far, remains in the realm of fantasy.

Conveniently, you dodge posting any examples of your complaint, citing a possible violation of DU rules. So I guess that stalemates us.

[dionysus]

40. i bet you dollars to doughnuts if I, grantcart, and many other liberals "checked in" on that thread,

it'd turn into a fight with people claiming the obama supporters are conservative, "not real liberals", or some such malarkey.

[SidDithers]

61. It happened...

check out the responses to the poster from NJ.

Sid

[tnlefty]

137. Which poster from NJ?

Just curious. Thanks in advance.

[Solomon]

146. exactly why I didn't post there.

I agree with Grantcart 100%. I don't like the idea of an orthodoxy. For the first time I could sense something happening that we say about the right. We say the far right has hijacked conservatism. And so it seems the far left is hijacking "liberalism"

It's getting French Revolutionishy around here.

[Solomon]

147. exactly why I didn't post there.

I agree with Grantcart 100%. I don't like the idea of an orthodoxy. For the first time I could sense something happening that we say about the right. We say the far right has hijacked conservatism. And so it seems the far left is hijacking "liberalism"

It's getting French Revolutionishy around here.

[kenfrequed]

77. Sure...

Only you few stand up to chaos and anarchy.

The difference between liberals and conservatives isn't that we are so absurdly open minded that we will embrace the oppositions ideas. That is idiocy. The real difference is that we view issues and ideas as more important than the usual cult of personality claptrap and we do not give free passes.

So in that way, yes it is possible that you might find some people accusing Obama of being inadequately liberal. But that is what we are supposed to do in a free and democratic society. Hold our leaders responsible and point out that what they are doing may be wrong.

Would you prefer that the only critique of Obama come from the right? Wouldn't that cause him to play the Moderate-Zeno's paradox shuffle? Wherein we get Obama defined as a quintessential liberal who is forced to move farther and farther to the right to prove that he is 'moderate' or 'centrist?'

The worst part isn't just the move but that it allows Fox news to define what the political spectrum is.

[grantcart]

84. Well I thought that another major difference was that conservatives

were so insecure that they had to have precise lists telling people what to think and

liberals were muscular and secure enough to know that we agree on somethings and disagree on others and a healthy debate was always the best remedy.

So I think the worst part is that apparently the left is losing its sense of security now needs to establish a clearly defined orthodoxy so that it feels better about itself.

[kenfrequed]

91. More inductive generalizations

See the post downthread.

Your argument actually has a tiny similarity to another that was voiced by someone that was not a liberal at all to me in a joking fashion. "You are being intolerant of my intolerance."

Basically those of us on the left DO actually have issues and general positions on the issues of the day. Tolerance is not an issue, it is a way of thinking and open mindedness does not require that you pry open your skull and take an ice cream scoop to your brain first.

So I again challenge you to give me something resembling a list of what you consider a 'liberal orthodoxy' or simply abandon the term as inaccurate.

[grantcart]

99. and more reductions of absurdity

You said

"Basically those of us on the left DO actually have issues and general positions on the issues of the day"

Where did I say that we don't have broad areas of agreement in general principle.

Just because we don't agree on everything doesn't mean that there are substantial areas where we do agree on


To be very specific:

General Principle of the Left regarding the US military: The US military has grown excessively and its budget is handled irresponsibly and needs to be reduced. The use of military force has been misused and abused. The War in Iraq was a war of aggression.

I think all liberals would basically agree with that.

That has now been simplified to an antiwar platform that apparently equates all wars as being against the platform of the Democratic Party (see downthread)

And even more specifically many at DU have specifically said "There is only one acceptable liberal position on the war in Afghanistan and that is for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops".

Specific enough?

[kenfrequed]

109. not even close to specific enough.

So far the only thing you keep repeating is the supposed liberal 'orthodox position' on war.


So yeah, still inductive generalization based on one issue.

You need more issues otherwise your generalization is just that and you should probably reoorganize your post to being a narrow and specific argument about the war and drop this absurd 'liberal orthodox' malarky.

[Codeine]

82. Too right. Dr. House stepped in

and was greeted with all the vitriol and sarcasm one would expect from The Usual Suspects.

[Raineyb]

196. And every bit of it was richly deserved.

He's the first one to tell people what "real liberals" think and then get miffed when the argument is turned on him.

[cali]

135. there was no lashing out in the op

and the theme that grantcart was responding to is hardly relegated to that one thread you're referencing.

[roguevalley]

120. I'm a flaming liberal leftie from way the heck back. I know what

sets me off and what doesn't and I don't think I could list it. Justice is my cross in this life, justice and inequity and all of my feelings fall under those two categories. As for grantcart, he's good folks. Don't diss him.

[Lerkfish]

144. that wasn't the purpose of my thread

My purpose was more a quest to see if people I have conversed with in the past were being pushed out by the more strident rightward dems on this board. I was hoping some people would chime in that I haven't heard from in ages.

I know that I have felt unwelcome here, pretty much, and have been posting less. I wondered if others had, too. And a lot of the responses in my thread bore out that suspicion.

[pnwmom]

7. I think the original thread was bad form. n/t

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

95. Amen. After being lectured that we don't march in lockstep whenever

we so much suggest sticking together for the purpose of achieving anything, I do not appreciate that thread.

So much holier-than-thou over not marching in lockstep but then demanding lockstep!

[redqueen]

108. Well put. (nt)

[kenfrequed]

126. Hah

As though the 'hard left' in the party has even been thrown any bones or red meat. We are usually the ones that have to compromise and give up on everying. In healthcare we even compromised on our compromises and then even had those thrown off the table in the name of bipartisanship. Don't you think that there is a bit of justifiable anger there?

[muffin1]

168. Indeed, We were/are loons. Left wing icons were/are loons.

I fucking lost count of the threads proclaiming Kucinich to be some sort of asshole for defending the PUBLIC OPTION - never mind single-payer (which was never even on the table, btw). Sickening. Yeah, I am pissed.

[pnwmom]

175. You don't think the hard left has gained ANYTHING? That there's no difference

between what our situation would be now if McCain/Palin were in power?

Based on their campaigning and history, we'd probably be at war in Iran by now. And we wouldn't have had any health care reform. And we'd have had two more far right appointees to the Supreme Court.

[muffin1]

176. And if a progressive was in office,

we'd be out of both wars, we'd be prosecuting Bush and Cheney for war crimes, we'd have single-payer, and my best friend TokenQueer could marry the man he loves.

See? I can do play that, too.

For the millionth time, nobody here wants McCain/Palin. We would just like Obama to be a Democrat, at least.

[pnwmom]

178. Obama didn't run against someone more to the left. He ran against McCain.

And Kucinich, the only primary candidate significantly to the left of Obama, managed to eek out only a few percentage points of votes, even compared to Obama.

You're measuring achievements by comparing what Obama has done to your personal idealistic goal. I'm measuring his achievements by comparing what he has done to what McCain would have done -- and on that basis, I say the country's path HAS shifted to the left and we've all gained.

[muffin1]

192. If Obama had been truthful about the way he would govern,

perhaps Kucinich would have had more votes. I believed Obama when he said, "We'll change Virginia, we'll change the country, and we'll change the world".

If he had come out and said he would appoint a slew of Bush appointees, that he would not fight for single-payer or a least the public option, that his education policies would be throwing teachers under the bus, that he would be pro-drill-baby-drill, and that he would dawdle away two years 'studying DADT', he would not have gotten my vote. Would he have gotten yours?

Seems a pretty low bar to compare everything he does to the worst possible scenario. As a DUer once hilariously said, "A teaspoon of arsenic is better than a tablespoon, but I'm not swallowing either".

[pnwmom]

202. The election was between Obama and McCain. Of course Obama would have had my vote.

I liked Kucinich, but he had a very small organization and very little chance of beating McCain. Unfortunately, policy positions aren't enough -- you have to have a solid campaign organization, an ability to raise funds, and a pragmatic view of politics. Obama and Clinton both had this; Kucinich didn't.

As far as attaining progressive goals is concerned, I'm firmly in the "half a loaf is better than none" camp.

[muffin1]

203. Well, enjoy your half a loaf.

While the gay community doesn't even get the crumbs.

[pnwmom]

206. The gay community will benefit from HCR just as much as the straight community.

And the gay community will benefit from Kagan's appointment, as she is a strong supporter of gay rights.

[muffin1]

207. I'm not talking about them benefiting from HCR.

Not many, other than the insurance companies will benefit from that. I have a serious pre-existing condition, and from what I understand, I have another four years to wait to get insurance.

I'm talking about ending DADT, ENDA, and DOMA. I am reserving judgment on Kagan until I know more about her record. From what I hear, you are correct on that front. But what do I know? I thought Obama would be a fierce advocate.

[pnwmom]

209. There will be high risk pools run by the government until the four years is over,

at which time all the insurers will have to take people with preexisting conditions.

[treestar]

208. Well if you are that far to the edge of anything, that will be the case

And the nation will not be moved by left by this sort of complaint. They'll have to be convinced. I see no point in dropping out and acting superior.

[muffin1]

160. And I don't. n/t

[Raineyb]

197. I think it's bad for to come to THIS thread to say the original thread was in bad form.

The least you can do if you hold such an opinion is to say so on the original thread rather than doing the posting equivalent of making comments behind someone's back.

[FSogol]

8. I don't see it as relatilation of that thread. He just has a different opinion.

I agree with him. I feel the people urging purity tests and orthodoxy for liberalism are really just trying to claim, "I'm more liberal than you."

Its not a contest or race to show off liberal bonafides on a web forum. If your thinking lacks an even small element of pragmatism, your ideas won't go very far. My 2 cents.

[arcadian]

16. Don't bother

"they're" circling the wagons.

[hfojvt]

29. it's bad form to have a different opinion?

and to express that opinion in an OP?

This thread may be locked, if it is continuing a flame war, but DU used to have multiple threads on issues. There would be a debate about something and there would be threads on one side, lots of them, and then threads on the other side. DUers have the option of ignoring any thread or of going into a thread and saying "right on" or "way off".

When I read the history of the left, the historians wrote about a tragic pattern of splinterism. What needed to be a large coalition was constantly breaking up into competing groups, each with their own leader and each directing much of their vitriol and energy against the "heretics" in another left wing group.

Some parts of DU seem to want to create factions. In that thread you referenced there are many mentions of "being sick of the apologists" So who is being divisive?

Doubtless, some of the apologists want to kick out the leftists who can't seem to get away from their message of "Obama (and most other elected Democrats) sucks" and then to go on about how they feel so betrayed and they're not gonna donate, not gonna work, not gonna vote for a D, etc.

Again, I think it would be nice to focus on issues. Rather than being so much about "Obama (or some DUers) sucks because he doesn't believe in single payer" why not try to do something constructive like actually advocate for single payer (or any other issue)? There is a difference. With the latter strategy, more people might be won over to your side.

[KonaKane]

104. Never. Nor is the heresy of questioning this one.

I hear you about splinterism...its tacky, juvenile and really counterproductive. But I chaffe at the idea that simply wondering if "anyone is out there" when it comes to a basic ideological framework (I'm referencing the thread that obviously triggered this one) is equivalent to creating a check off list or a litmus test. The OP of this thread simply overreacted, and created something that wasn't there.

Yes, that is an opinion. Take it with a grain of salt or your condiment of choice.

[npk]

188. Yes, sadly those days are gone

Now as soon as somebody post a thread that offends the delicate sensitivities of some on the fringe, they immediately turn the thread into a flame war on purpose. Just as they have done this thread. It is always done for the purpose of locking the thread and silencing dissent.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

103. Exactly! Whoa! How the mighty have fallen? eom

[muffin1]

162. You know it.

:thumbsup:

[Luminous Animal]

2. I'm pretty sure nobody would make that mistake.

[grantcart]

12. so you have your list and your checking it twice?

[Luminous Animal]

43. Yes, I have an informal list. I don't have unlimited time to read every post In GD.

There are some member's OPs that, more often than not, I don't bother opening because I find doing so is a waste of my time.

[CakeGrrl]

3. Rec. I don't like compartmentalization and categorization

Life is shades of gray in a lot of areas.

And I go back to a point Chris Rock made in one of his routines about liberal versus conservative: "There are some things I'm conservative about, there are some things I'm liberal about. Crime? I'm conservative. Prostitution? I'm liberal."

I don't like the litmus test posts, such as "Check in here if you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!" :eyes: If you don't see my name there, does that mean I'm against those lofty ideals? Maybe it's fun to get people to pile onto one's post, but what's really the point?

[berni_mccoy]

I stand with grantcart.

[arcadian]

19. What if grantcart is sitting?

[dionysus]

41. we sit together, or we stand alone... or something.

[niceypoo]

159. ...sitting on the commode

You can sing together!!! (Sung to Willy Nelson's 'on the road again)

"On commode again, just cant wait to be on commode again, The life I love is making music with my friend
And I can't wait to get on commode again.
On commode again....."

[R. P. McMurphy]

4. k & r n/t

[rudy23]

5. Haha! Don't be one of those "orthodox" Democrats--join the "New Democrats!" Stand up for issues like

*torture
*perpetual war
*union busting
*free trade agreements
*warrantless wiretapping
*stripping suspected terrorists of Miranda rights
*keeping the public sector OUT of healthcare reform
*making sure Don Siegelman stays behind bars for the next 20 years

etc., etc.

[Echo In Light]

9. +1

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[rudy23]

26. My point is that you're trying to label the traditional Dem platform as "orthodox"

The OP that you're referring to described the traditional Democratic platform as

Anti war. Anti torture, Pro Union, Pro Choice, Anti Unitary Executive, Pro Consitution balance of powers

You tried to relabel that as "orthodox" in this post, as if the conservative shift should be defined as the new "normal."

I'm challenging that idea in a way Rush Limbaugh wouldn't ever dare, but if you want to throw out ad hominems to counter my supposed "straw men", be my guest.

[grantcart]

37. Anti War

The traditional Democratic platform was against World War II?

Being strongly against alot of wars doesn't translate to being against every war.

Iraq doesn't equate to Afghanistan.

Your introduction of issues like agreement on "torture" or "union busting" is the classical definition of straw man and it is exactly what Rush Limbaugh does.

Where in the OP did I say that there was any possible support for those kinds of issues.

The point of the OP is that I don't think liberals should be so insecure that they start adopting lists in the same way that Republicans do.

Do you really think that there are lots of people who support torture and call themselves liberals, is that really your position or is it in fact a straw man.

Specifically is it your contention that there are large numbers of DUers who consider themselves liberals but approve torture?

[kenfrequed]

51. Hmmph

Afghanistan does not equal World War 2 either.

I think maybe you should be a bit more specific about what this 'Orthodoxy' you are stating exists actually is. Otherwise you are arguing vague generalities which I find as provocatively illogical as any straw man.

[grantcart]

67. No it does not

I have been told, repeatedly and by many of the "big names" at DU that there is only one acceptable position on our involvement in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is not Iraq, WWII or Vietnam and all of these analogies are silly.

All insurgencies do not win. Afghanistan is no more like Vietnam than it is like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia that used three different methods to defeat an insurgency.

Afghanistan has a legitimate but imperfect government. The Taliban could, like what happened in Northern Ireland, put down their guns and compete for power in a democratic process.

Now there are times that we can and should help and other times that we shouldn't and there are people here who believe that we should never be involved, and I respect that opinion, although I disagree with it.

There are some who hold that opinion that do no reciprocate and openly state that people who support our involvement in Afghanistan are quite obviously not "progressives" or "left wing liberal" or whatever the term is.

I think that there are pretty clear areas that we agree on and some that we don't.

I don't think we should be so insecure as try and iron out every issue to a point of orthodoxy.

[kenfrequed]

86. Err..

You just spent more than three quarters of your post pointing out what I already said which was basically that Afghanistan is not the same as WW2.

Done. I did not ask for anything additional in that department, so please weight down the other posts in the thread with that kind of clock running.


If you cannot explain what this supposed 'liberal orthodoxy' is than abandon using the term. Or at least admit that it is an argumentative broadside that is comprised of an inductive generalization and be done with it.

[grantcart]

114. The most contentious disagreement is the War in Afghanistan

I guess the next area where there is an assumed orthodoxy is in the frequent labelling of a person as a "Corporatist".

There are other areas but they don't have the uniformity of Afghanistan.

Others will center on how we should proceed with cleaning up the mess left by Bush at Gitmo.

Some will get civilian trials and some will be released there will remain a third group that are clearly combatants that would have been held without trial in a conventional war (FDR, who is held up as an icon of liberalism brought 425,000 Germans to the US without trial or any legal representation). The proposition that some enemy combatants might not fit civilian trials will be seen by some as betrayal of liberal orthodoxy.

It is not particularly defined but some indicate that if you want private enterprise to do well in an ethical way that some consider this a position counter to "left wing liberal" but the policiy definitions are not very well defined.


The more relevent point is not the examples but the repeated use of "real liberal""real progressive" and so on.

[kenfrequed]

125. Two points

1) While the use of the term corporatist might seem orthodox in nature, it is usually attached to something specific such as a defense of oil companies, an attempt to insert private insurance into a healthcare crisis they caused, or when describing a defense of corporate personhood per the Supreme Court decision. (which by the way I am a bit surprised to have seen on this board)

I think what is required is not merely saying 'they use the word corporatist' but to continue into how its use suggests the existence of a liberal orthodoxy otherwise this really isn't a complete argument.


2) The requirement that enemy combatants either be treated as Criminals or as enemy POW's is not some arcane and whining bit of liberal orthodoxy. It represents the highest law of the land. The constitution requires that our country obey all treaties that we are signatories to and the constitution also supports the rule of law that requires timely trials with proper legal rights being respected. They are either POW's or Criminals. Allowing for a third status is highly questionable and opens up unfortunate comparisons to previous administrations.

[dionysus]

55. here's how it works (in their minds);

obama supports teh torture!11!!

some DUers support obama1!!

that means these DUers support torture!11!

simple isn't it?

meanwhile, i don't think you could find a single person here that supports torture...

[muffin1]

165. No, this is how it works.

Obama's smart, so rendition must be necessary now!11!! It's different than when bush did it!1!

Obama's a chess player!!11!! He'll take care of you gays when he's solved all of the world's problems!1! It's different than bush!!1!

It doesn't matter that Obama's appointing the same people that bush did!!11!! He's dreamier, so I trust him!!11!!

Look at Obama's smile!!11!! How can you not LOVE, LOVE, LOVE him??!!11!!

[dionysus]

173. i have yet to see anyone say anything remotely like that, however.

[Echo In Light]

27. Bullshit. Get over yourself & stop projecting.

[grantcart]

47. Right so where did I project such positions as "agreement with torture" with

anyone I disagree with?

[kenfrequed]

23. + 1 indeed

I find that when individuals start complaining about 'purity tests' they seem to be arguing agaisnt a progressive platform or for the status quo.

[rudy23]

32. Yes, for them being called on carrying out the neocons' agenda=purity test

Why can't we just accept Democrats of all stripes--even the pro-life, religious right neocons?

[dionysus]

42. rudy, you just made a whole lot of crap up right there. no wonder you think everything is a DLC

conspiracy!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

49. yes, you caught us, we're all following orders from karl rove!11!!

:rofl:

[kenfrequed]

59. Sure...

Of course equating the left wing of the democratic party with the right wing of the republican party, by comparison is perfectly logical and reasonable isn't it. In fact I even think I saw such an analogy up thread a bit.

No, wait, I see that absurd and illogical analogy posted almost everyday here by the defenders of the pseudo-centrist conservadem orthodoxy.

[rudy23]

62. IMITATING--not following orders. Let's be clear. n/t

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[freddie mertz]

88. +100.

But you left out blaming teachers for everything.

[tekisui]

132. Well said.

[cali]

138. how is this responsive to the OP? Clue: It's not. Not remotely

[ultracase24]

153. That would be a Republican

they are fooling no one.

I am for single payer, pro-union, gutting the military, etc. I could call myself a conservative, but I would be full of shit.

A tactic of conservatives is to call themselves "liberal" and then support and push right wing ideas and policy. You know what we call that?

A Trojan Horse.

[tango-tee]

183. Well stated, rudy!

And lets add "dismantling of public education".

[Blue_Tires]

10. ttt

[Beetwasher]

11. I'm Making A List, Checking It Twice, Gonna Find Out Whose Naughty Or Nice

Libby Klaus is coming to town.

[arcadian]

13. Oops

sorry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8311956&mesg_id=8315117

[kenfrequed]

14. yeah...awesome

You are such a free thinker.

Seriously we have a long way to go to even get close to a european style mixed system. In fact we have so far to go to get there that to castigate the left and to complain about people that put up 'I'm a lefty' check in lists or to suggest there is some sort of orthodoxy in their thinking is absurd.

There actually are liberal positions, to argue or suggest that there are not is to weaken our stance politically and embolden the blue dogs to think that they can be in favor of corporatism and raising the social security age and goign along with parental consent laws and somehow still attach the term 'progressive' to their lapels as though it were accurate.

[EFerrari]

15. I think you're pretty safe. n/t

[grantcart]

22. lol I appreciate the humor of the snark done with a light touch. Well done.

[phleshdef]

17. Too many on the left are just like the right, they let their ideology become their religion.

[Ikonoklast]

44. And like a religion, use it to exclude the 'other'.

See it here in the 'My way is the only way' dogmatic line of thinking.

[rudy23]

52. delete n/t

[NJmaverick]

21. Very well said Grant!

:applause:

[T Wolf]

24. I think you are missing the point that many are trying to make - at least, the one that is in my

mind when I think about this.

Are there any views that, if held by an individual, "disqualifies" them from (correctly) claiming the label of "true" progressive? Can a avowed racist who supports peace, environmentalism, labor, universal health care, etc. make that claim? Ever?

In addition, I think the argument is less about individual issues but the totality of positions held. Can someone who is racist and homophobic and sexist, yet supports universal health care, peace, etc. make the claim to liberalism? How many "bad" positions can one take before you lose the (legitimate) liberal label?

Or, as you hold, does it not matter or can it not really be answered?

Or, is there really no "good" and "bad" but rather, simply individual views that are all equally valid?

Or is it simply more fun to attack others?

All or none of the above? Or some?

[grantcart]

34. Let's be grown ups and not see how obtuse we can be - can we?

Of course there are absolute positions.

In my OP I state pretty clearly that the invasion of Iraq is a pretty ironclad position that we must all share.

To equate Afghanistan with Iraq is in the first hand historically weak. There are many here that do so and I have been repeatedly told that there is only one position that liberals can have on the war in Afghanistan.

So, to be clear, there are many core values that all liberals hold and some areas where we disagree on.

I just don't think liberals need to be so insecure that we have to have lists and check people on or off that list.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Progressive/Liberal IMO generally means a belief that everybody deserves a fair shot

Regardless of race, class, birthplace, etc. There's a lot of wiggle room but if you're an avowed racist then you probably can't be a progressive or liberal, but you can be a leftist on the other issues.

[HuckleB]

28. +1 Good OP.

[mmonk]

30. Usually lists are associated with the right.

They probably have a list of liberals.

[Xithras]

33. Pragmatism is the enemy of principle.

Either you have principles that you are willing to stand up for, to scream for, and to fight for, or you don't. There really isn't much middle ground here.

Liberalism isn't a checklist where you have to agree with every position before you'll be let into the club, but a lot of moderates today are missing the real difference between moderation and conservatism. When a conservative sees a liberal principle that he doesn't like, he'll oppose it and fight against it. When a moderate liberal sees a principle he doesn't like, he should recognize the validity of the difference of opinion, and let his fellow liberals fight for what THEY believe in.

There are far too many "moderates" today who fight AGAINST liberal positions, on the side of conservatives, in the name of "pragmatism". That should NEVER be acceptable.

Socially and environmentally, I'm about as liberal as it gets, and I'm not afraid to speak up to those beliefs. Economically, I probably trend a bit further to the right than some of my liberal compatriots (I'm not anti-capitalist by any stretch, and am not a promoter of outright socialism). I don't work against those who have more leftward positions than I do on those topics, but simply acknowledge their position and resign myself to "silent majority" status. I would never think of joining ranks with the conservatives to oppose them.

[mike_c]

35. liberalism is like pornography....

Difficult to define but easy to recognize.

First and foremost, I think liberalism informs one's world view. It's a mistake to think of liberalism and conservatism as specific positions on specific issues. More often than not, doing so is just another rhetorical device used to attack the position and the issue, and the liberalism becomes confused with the target.

Every political and social issue engenders a nearly infinite continuum of possible responses. We can classify some of those as "liberal responses" or "conservative responses"-- a more intelligent continuum would probably include "authoritarian" and "libertarian" dimensions too, and likely others. Every position falls somewhere along those continua, but liberalism, as a philosophy, isn't the set of positions-- it's the worldview, attitudes, education, etc that contribute to everyone figuring out where they fall on those continua.

I call myself a political liberal as a matter of convenience, because my experience tells me that more often than not, my responses to important issues will reflect the liberalism that underlies my perspectives, and will likely fall toward the "liberal response" end of the range of possible responses.

[brendan120678]

39. Excellent post.

I'm smart enough to admit that I'm certainly not the most liberal person on this site.
And I don't pretend to be.

And I don't really care. It's not like there's a prize awarded by the Mods to the "most liberal person on DU."
If people call me out on my "not-liberal-enoughness," well...screw them.

[zipplewrath]

46. No list, but there have to be some points of agreement

So while I think that we should nationalize our health care system and nationalize our oil extraction system like Norway I also have lived in communist countries and realize that the profit incentive has brought tremendous innovation (like the computers we now use to argue with each other or the cocktail that keeps hiv folks living long lives) even as it is destructive and destroys peoples lives. So I want a mixed system, like most of Europe has developed.

Regulated capitalism is what you are trying to describe. Sounds like you'd like a little socialism mixed in. Nothing wrong with that in general, although we might argue about the specifics.

Organized against the Vietnam War, filed for CO status and spent 8 years in refugee camps. Am I AntiWar? Well I celebrate FDR bringing on the defeat of the facist forces and I celebrate the armed invasion by the Peoples Republic of Vietnam to defeat the murderous regime of the Khmer Rouge so there are some things that are worse than War.

Yes, although I think we might agree that war is what you do after you missed all your chances to do the right thing. And the peoples republic had a little murderous phase of their own. Hitler was CREATED by war. War doesn't solve anything. It most frequently just sets up the opponents in the next war.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Iraq was a war of aggression and while there are some situations where a war of aggression is acceptable (see PRV invasion of Cambodia above) the US invasion of Iraq was an absolutely vile event. Even if the Iraqi's laid down their arms and welcomed us it was wrong.

We had Sadam under control externally, and internally there were no forces with which to ally ourselves. Given half a chance, there were many countries in the area that would have helped such forces if they existed. But as we saw, that was a country ready to turn on itself. They have, and I suspect they will again soon.


Afghanistan is more complicated and those that equate the Iraq War and the Afghan War acutally are undermining the case that Iraq was especially criminal in nature.

There are good reasons to be concerned about the War in Afghanistan. I support the war with reserverations. I appreciate those informed voices who are against it. I don't think there is a single orthodox left wing liberal position. I know Pakistanis and I like Pakistanis. I know Indians and I like Indians and I know a lot of Afghanis and I like Afghanis. The fact is that this area is a much more likely candidate for a massive conflict costing millions of lives than either the DMZ or Israel and Palestine. Simply drawing the line between Pakistan and India setting up those two governments cost more than a million innocent lives. That is the chaos that AQ and the Taliban would like to create. There are some very well informed people who see it differently. I don't care to put them on a list. I value the debate.

I guess I'd have to say you made the progressive case about why we shouldn't be there at all. It's one thing to want to help, but we're bombing huge numbers of innocents, for results that remain ellusive at best. I'd be interested in seeing ANYONE make a liberal/progressive case for staying there.

I don't want the government limiting my wife or my daughters access to full medical treatment, but as a parent of an adopted daughter I am thankful to those mothers who are able to bring their children to term and share the blessing with another family. What list does that put me on?

Devils in the details. Late term, federal funding, mandatory ultrasound, etc. At some point you're not a liberal anymore. We could probably argue long and hard about where that point is.

[grantcart]

54. Saying that we don't need lists is not the same as saying there aren't

alot of things that we do agree with.

Iraq - criminal - we should all agree

Full civil rights for GBLT - we should all agree.


I just think that we should be adult enough to know that there are things that we all agree on and other things that we disagree on and we don't need a list.

It has been repeatedly stated by many at DU that there is only one acceptable position on Afghanistan.

I find that position against liberal philosophy and would hold that position even if I was totally against the war in Afghanistan.

[zipplewrath]

66. Various values of "one"

Between white and black are alot of shades of grey. Between dark and light are many colors. At some point though it is sufficient to call it "black". And some point, it's not red any more, it's blue. I think we can both agree that there are many positions on Afghanistan, but tripling the troops and killling vastly more innocent Afghans isn't a "liberal" solution.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

50. I think I signed up on that list. I got my card to carry.

And I got the wall plaque, the bumper sticker, and the decoder ring.

I don't mind being called "liberal". Or on some issues, "radical".

Just don't call me "orthodox", please. Liberal democrats are way too disorganized for that sort of label.

:hi:

[PassingFair]

53. Did you support the Russian "effort" in Afghanistan?

Or did you support our efforts in the creation of the Taliban?

[HughMoran]

57. WTF?

:wtf:

[dionysus]

106. it's a perfect example of what grant is talking about, isn't it?

[HughMoran]

121. I can't honestly comment in response

...or my post will be deleted.

[grantcart]

60. See this is the kind of bullshit straw man that is so typical of the right wing

Now to answer your question. No I did not. In fact from 1980 to 1982 I made several trips to Pakistan to set up the logistical network to move qualified refugee Afghans who fled from the Russians to the US and other countries where they qualified for family reunion visas. After I left the program continued to resettle and approximately 100,000 Afghan refugees were settled.

I did applaud the troops of the Peoples Republic of Vietnam invading Cambodia and ending the nightmare of the Khmer Rouge. Frankly I have yet to meet an informed person who doesn't applaud it.

[PassingFair]

65. Are no Afghans fleeing our drones?

Can you tell me the difference between the Soviet reasons
for being in Afghanistan and ours?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[PassingFair]

93. No, I still don't understand what the difference is.

"The Soviets were worried about the long term effects of having
an increasing (and eventually majority) Muslim population and wanted to control countries on their southern border in the same way that the did on their western border in Europe."


We don't have a BORDER with them, so I guess THAT'S the difference?

So it's patriotic for us to kill Taliban (and anybody who happens
to be in the way)... but it wasn't OK for the Soviets
to kill mujahideen?

Who, by the way, leave nasty corpses as well, though I WON'T be
a total asshole and post one of them.

[freddie mertz]

56. I'll take your place, then.

Orthodox, knee-jerk, PC, tree-hugging, blame-America-firsting, French-loving, pinko leftist liberal here.

Damn the DINO-crats! Full speed ahead!

[SidDithers]

58. Kick and fucking rec...

thank you for saying what needed to be said.

Sid

[NeedleCast]

63. Excellent Post

[Scurrilous]

64. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Codeine]

68. What you said took some guts,

and you'll get flamed mercilessly for it. Hell, I don't agree with much of what you posted, but I'm bothered by the mentality that we all have to agree on everything or get accused of spouting "right wing talking points." That sort of behavior is childish and ignores the reality that any political grouping is inherently composed of coalitions of folks who band together because they agree on enough issues that it becomes in their interest to do so.

My +1 to you, sir. :applause:

[tammywammy]

71. +1 You said it better than I could

Liberal Purity Tests were sooooo 2004.

[grantcart]

81. thanks and the irony is rather rich isn't it.

Group think, purity lists, and all used to be so hated by the liberal left.

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Exactly. n/t

[Whisp]

127. that other thread...

no surprise. that poster is from 'another site' that thinks Obama is as evil as all the Bush's rolled into one.
that site is pure slobbering frothing hatred. and it's not rightwing.

[redqueen]

193. Interesting.

[boston bean]

161. wrong place, sorry

[Number23]

191. I see your "My +1 to you, sir" and raise you another +1

Rec'd.

[provis99]

69. retaliatory and calling out OP. Unrecommended. n/t

[redqueen]

70. Nice...

kind of a waste of time though, I think.

[Arkana]

72. Add me to the list of people

who think the idea of "purity tests" for Democrats is a sickening idea.

We're liberals--we're the ones who are SUPPOSED to think, remember? It would follow that a broad spectrum of ideas would fall under the "liberal" banner.

Our one thing in common should be this: We don't practice "big" or "small" government. We practice SMART government.

[rudy23]

73. Why can't there be a pro-life, war-hawk, supply side, anti-union Democrat then?

I'm against purity tests too, but there has to be a line somewhere, right?

[Arkana]

76. There are already pro-life war hawks among us.

I guess I should have included that Democrats should believe that little clause in the Constitution that says the government should "promote the general welfare".

Supply-side economics are inherently anti-government, and if you're anti-union you're really just not a Democrat period.

[grantcart]

78. Really don't you think it is a little childish to

say that since we don't agree on everything that we don't agree on anything?

[Arkana]

83. Um...yes?

Dude, I AGREE with you.

[grantcart]

92. lol sorry trying to keep up with the responses

didn't really think it would get much of a resonse lol.

[rudy23]

96. Childish to twist words---I said there has to be a line somewhere. Would you accept Rush Limbaugh?

What if he just changed party affiliations, but kept his ideology wholly in tact? Would you accept him and his ideology as part of our party, then?

[dionysus]

112. how many strawmen are you going to toss out here?

:rofl:

[rudy23]

150. A hypothetical differs from a strawman in that I did not accuse him of saying he would include Rush

but nice try.

[freddie mertz]

85. Anti-union, anti-teachers too.

Which still amazes me.

[rudy23]

97. What about ALL the things I listed? If someone believed ALL of the above, would they still be Dems?

Of course I know we disagree on some.

[Arkana]

111. No, but the probability of someone claiming to be a Democrat

while simultaneously believing all those things you mentioned is very, very small.

[WeDidIt]

79. I consider myself a left wing liberal

and defy anybody who would claim otherwise. My stances are to the left on nearly any issue you care to name and I take a pragmatic position politically because politics is the art of compromise in order to advance your agenda.

Demanding ideological purity is NOT a Progressive Value.

[Codeine]

87. Fuck yeah.

I'm a super-lefty compared with anyone I've ever met; I want socialized medicine, an end to war, full public financing of education, and progressive tax policies. But my support for nuclear power, distaste for pot smokers, and dislike for quackery and woo gets me branded as a winger and a shill from the Purity of Essence camp every time.

[PassingFair]

100. Really, you've NEVER MET anyone who:

...wants socialized medicine, an end to war, full public financing of education, and progressive tax policies.

Really? Where do you live, Wasila?

I suggest it is your rude, aggressive manner, and not your distastes and dislikes,
that brand you as a winger.

[Uzybone]

130. clear example of an internet "liberal" completely out of touch with the real world

Come to Texas and there are millions of people who have never met anyone who wants socialized healthcare, end to all wars and free public education.

Some people don't have an idea of the country they live in.

[PassingFair]

131. Dear internet "moderate corpo-dem" and Texan:

Come to Michigan and meet millions of people who DO want socialized
healthcare, end to all wars and free public education.

Some people don't have an idea of what a beautiful country they COULD live in.

[Uzybone]

133. Point remains, there are many Americans who don't want such things

and who don't know anyone who wants them, no matter how much we wish to believe the opposite.

Continue to live in the clouds.

[PassingFair]

136. Point remains, the poster said he/she had NEVER met someone who wanted those things.

Continue to live with your head up your....nevermind.

I know people who don't want those things. I know
many more who DO.

[Codeine]

182. I phrased that poorly.

Those were top-of-my head examples and do not - obviously - represent the totality of my philosophy. Of course I've met people who hold some or more of those views. Not well-written, and totally my fault. :hi:

[PassingFair]

189. OK...I'll totally go back to grudgingly admiring you...

:hi:

[dionysus]

110. "dislike for quackery and woo"

:rofl:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

117. Whoa! For the first time at DU, I'm honestly at a complete loss for words.

[pnwmom]

90. "Demanding ideological purity is NOT a Progressive Value." Damn right. n/t

[kenfrequed]

94. This is a trap

I need someone to define what this 'ideological purity' is and where it stands on the issues and how another position on the issues is somehow better or worse.

I find that spouting about 'purity tests,' 'ideological purity' and other inductive generalizations does the opposite of what those people using those terms claim to support. Informed debate.

[Tailormyst]

89. I am a leftie and I think ALL such lists suck.

[KonaKane]

107. WHAT lists? I'm still trying to find the source of all this ire.

.

[dionysus]

113. there was a thread something like "check in if you're one of the remaining REAL liberals here" you

should be able to find it

[KonaKane]

128. No such call. There is one wondering how many left wing liberals are still here

which of course set off this thread. But that's not an attempt to cull people into an orthodoxy. It's a loose call for solidarity, which is an entirely different thing. I still haven't seen a solid example of what so peeves the OP.

[Echo In Light]

119. A brief call for a show of solidarity among the deluge of rabid Con Choruses

Not really anyone hung up on lists, per se

[Raineyb]

199. There was no list. THis OP is a bloody straw man to begin with.

Too bad it's too late to unrec.

[superduperfarleft]

101. I'm probably further to the left than most of the people on this site, and I think those lists suck.

Although I don't think it's an attempt to enforce some kind of ideological purity, I think it's just "rah rah look at me I'm so uber liberal rah rah" attention-whoring.

[fascisthunter]

115. Nobody asked to sign you up

trust me on this

[grantcart]

118. apparently I wasn't on the invitation list.

[Vinnie From Indy]

116. WTF?

Your OP is disjointed and rambling. I will add this post to my "Bizarre Posts on DU List".

[CBR]

122. Outside of the DU bubble, we on DU are all liberals.

I am at a liberal university in a liberal department and I am still one of the most liberal people here.

[cliffordu]

123. MEE TOO,

[azmouse]

124. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[Bluenorthwest]

129. I'm a show biz liberal, no less.

Which means that I have a distinct cultural dislike for lists of names in politics, but it also means I have that same dislike for this OP, for the same reasons. It is in fact a prose version of a list of political enemies, not of political friends.

[tekisui]

134. Copycat thread.

And, noted you will appear on no left wing liberal list.

[PassingFair]

140. Look at the Rec's!!! 10 for this sop, and over 300 for the original.

I NEVER unrec, but for the un-ideologically pure, I'll make
an exception...

:rofl:

[Scurrilous]

158. If you check the 'Just Recs' column on the Greatest Threads page..

...you'll see that this thread has been rec'd 64 times (as of this post).

The unrec's (currently 62) have knocked it down a bit.


:P

[PassingFair]

166. What is the other thread without the unrecs?

Probably 64 more than recorded.

:rofl:

Do people really care about the "greatest"
enough to waste their time poking around
there?

[Prism]

139. The Democratic Platform - the ultimate purity test

It's a sad day when that's occurred, but here we are.

I've said it many times before, but I think it's so strange how, in less than two years, I've shifted from left-of-center to some kind of radicalized left-winger in the view of the party establishment. I don't believe much differently now than I did on Jan 19th, 2009, but the partisan orthodoxy has certainly spent a lot of time shifting labels in defense of the President.

The problem with these "For verily, I am an independent thinker who will be cowed by no ideology!" is that principles are only so flexible. They can break, and they often do when you're not looking.

For whatever reason, Grant, I still remember how you said quite confidently how DADT was going to be this great early accomplishment of the administration, and that any repeal after April, 2009 was far too late and unacceptable.

Then the Obama administration went and made a liar out of you.

Where have you been on this issue? Standing with the LGBT community as you did during the campaign? Because it matters now, and you're utterly MIA. Instead, you're all about defending the people in power against, what, second class citizens? Do you know the precise moment you crossed that line? Do you regret it? Do you look upon it fondly? At what point was power over principle the conscious decision after the unconscious effecting of it?

I don't expect everyone to be the life of the party, but I do at least expect that we all have invitations.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[ultracase24]

142. Pretty new here

but I guess you can call yourself anything you want. I could call myself a rabbit, it doesnt make me a rabbit. People call themselves liberal but really arent. I think that defining "liberal" any way one wants, opens up the possibility that they could do very right wing/conservative things and then call themselves a "liberal".

That would smear and distort what liberal values are. Its called a Trojan Horse and its a pretty common propaganda tactic.

A sheep usually doesnt have to argue and try to convince others that it is a sheep. Its usually pretty obvious, unless they really are a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[QC]

143. +1

[tnlefty]

151. Welcome to DU, ultracase24!

:hi:

[ultracase24]

155. thanks!

[Flaneur]

145. Okay. Your name has not been added to the list.

Feel better now?

[rudy23]

149. Surely there's a happy medium between "purity test" & "sure, Buchanan can run as a Dem if he wants"

And i'll call you Shirley if I feel like it :p

[saracat]

152. Actually there is a check list. it is called the party platform but for many it is just a suggestion

[NanceGreggs]

154. Agreed 1,000%, grantcart ...

I think a lot of us are tired of the "if you were really a left wing liberal, you would DO the following, THINK the following, and SAY the following ...," whereby your inclusion into "the group" will be evaluated by self-appointed arbiters of such things.

As we always said back on the block, "Who died and left you boss?"

:kick: & REC'D!!!



(That being said, I'm glad to see you edited your piece - a faulty preposition is always a dead giveaway that you aren't really a liberal. ;-))

[boston bean]

164. yes, it's so much easier to just call yourself a liberal because you support every move obama makes.

duh!

[NanceGreggs]

174. Never said I support every move he makes ...

... but facts don't matter to some people.

And one might look to the opposite side of that coin - declaring everything Obama does as wrong-headed, the act of a corporatist sellout, etc., does not a liberal make.

But, of course, I do not hold myself out as the judge of who is a liberal and who is not. I leave that to those who think they are the final arbiters of such things - and then laugh my ass off at that incredibly ridiculous concept.

[Egnever]

184. You just rock Nance

you commie pinko you!

[AllentownJake]

156. Where do you draw the line Grantcart?

After a year and a half of nonsense where do you draw the line.

Remember telling me how the Specter thing was the end of the GOP in the northeast, you were wrong. You traded a contested GOP primary for a contested democratic primary for that bill? A weaker version of the bill Senator Obama trashed in the primary mercilessly.

Public option, wrong, didn't happen, not even a real fight put up for it by the Rahm wing of the administration.

War in Afghanistan, seeing that the appointed puppet king threatened to join the enemy last month, I think you are wrong there.

The foreclosure crisis is very much with us, unemployment, and the jobs being created pay less than the ones destroyed.

Nafta, free trade with china, the defense budget, all off the table for discussion in looking at our societal problems while teachers and nurses are being laid off.

Record bonuses on Wall Street, even though under the old rules, the firms are bankrupt. You can report a hell of a profit when you don't have to report losses.

Watered down financial reform, and the Chief of Staff going on the record against accountability for the Central bank?

I am by no means a socialist, however, this administration is by no means liberal. They are to the right of Nixon on most issues, except a few contemporary issues that weren't even thought of in the 1970s.

27 rigs authorized after this disaster, where do you draw the line sir...when do you draw the line.

You were a friend during the primary, I certainly didn't think I was fighting for this....is this what you were fighting for?

[waiting for hope]

169. +1 Zillion

[niceypoo]

157. The strawman...

...rides again

[boston bean]

163. You are missing one huge point

No one is claiming we all have to think alike 100% or hold the exact same position on a given issue.

Many do however believe that if you now support bush policy xyz that you were against 2000-2008, you are either a hypocrite or possibly not the liberal you may claim to be.

And that is a fair assessment, imho

[muffin1]

167. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

:woohoo:

[grantcart]

170. To the contrary it has been often stated here that there is, for example,

only one acceptable position on the Afghan War, the most contentious example.

[AllentownJake]

171. How is that working out for us?

I guess the puppet king didn't defect last month and decided to play nice for a little while.

[Echo In Light]

195. +1000

[muffin1]

172. Get over yourself.

There was no list - orthodox or otherwise - in the original thread. Lerkfish mentioned a handful of principles that he believes in. He merely asks how many left-leaning liberals are still here at DU, as many of the lefties have left - either of their own free will or not. There was/is no purity test.

Unrec.

[QC]

177. I strongly doubt that anyone was planning on it, but thanks for sharing!

[Forkboy]

179. This is a pretty big overreation to that thread, imo.

:shrug:

[grantcart]

194. Obviously it is not in reaction to a particular thread but a larger pattern of expression

[EFerrari]

201. You mean like labling people as Obama haters

because they post a headline, the first four paragraphs and a link to a story?

Like that?

I think this thread has to get some kind of Irony Award.

[KonaKane]

204. Which you still haven't shown any proof of.

Even if there is a concern about the rules.

[trotsky]

180. I appreciate you starting this thread.

And I'm sorry for the abuse you are taking, and will take for it.

[LWolf]

181. Okay. No problem.

duly noted:

grantcart is not a left-wing liberal.

[G_j]

198. lol

:hi:

[Texasgal]

185. I'm tired of being labeled constantly

I don't fit in anyones "pure" political ideology.

*sigh* this place gets tiring sometimes.

I agree grantcart... I agree..

[Egnever]

186. Me either!

Well said as usual Grant.

K&R

[npk]

187. I agree with with you

I feel much the same way you do. I have basically come to the belief that I will not worry about some of the people on DU, they know who they are. They decided to ignore me, so I did the same. Funny thing is since they started ignoring me, my time here on DU has never been better. I no longer concern myself with people who wish to silence the non-rank and file liberals. They no exactly what they can go and do with themselves. My book aint long and it's open.

[MilesColtrane]

190. Too subtle. Not black-and-white enough.

Requires critical thinking instead of pack mentality.

Please try again.

[butterfly77]

200. Kicked&Recommended!

[jonnyblitz]

205. heh, it's obvious to many of us what "list" you DO belong on.

:D :hi: