I would take a moderate any day , over a one issue voter.

[Peacetrain]

Given time, the one issue voter will go away That is all they have.
They either will get their issue passed or not. But they will not support the party and a larger sets of policies and programs.

Give me a moderate, centrist, leftist the whole range of the party who are committed multiple issues and needs, and will not leave when the going gets tough

[IndianaGreen]

1. War is a one issue, and a very important to many voters which trump all others

but if you want to continue to believe in Big Brother's lies, be my guess.

Haven't you realized by know that the American people count for nothing, and that elections are just a sham!

The great Emma Goldman said almost a century ago that if elections really changed anything, they would make them illegal.

[Peacetrain]

5. Emma Goldman tried to kill somebody over her politics.. she does not impress me

[IndianaGreen]

7. Really? Where did you get that brilliant piece of information?

[Peacetrain]

9. Interesting.. look up the name Frick..

[Teaser]

12. frick

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/99/

[IndianaGreen]

14. I would side with the strikers against the industrialist as well!

Just as I would have sided with the Ford strikers against the Pinkerton strike breakers.

[Peacetrain]

15. Planning to assassinate someone is not part taking up the union side..

Union membership is not about assassinating people, even if they are scum buckets. It is about workers rights.

[IndianaGreen]

17. You know very little about fascism and the bloody history of this country

[Peacetrain]

18. Apparently I know a hell of lot more than you do..

[IndianaGreen]

21. You would die without firing a shot

Believe me, the other side has no constraints when it comes to power.

[johnaries]

30. So you are anti-war but pro-assassination?

Very interesting. Good to know.

[proteus_lives]

82. She's a commie.

They think their violence is "different".

[dionysus]

90. our violence is noble comrade!! kill the capitalist pig-dogs!

:rofl:

[jaxx]

2. Yes the one issue voter loses perspective.

It becomes my way or the highway and we all know that leads nowhere.

[IndianaGreen]

3. So when a Democrat endorses rendition, that makes it okay because there are other issues?

You know, killing civilians is always wrong, it doesn't matter who is doing the killing.

[jaxx]

11. I don't think democrats endorse rendition.

Killing civilians isn't right, it is still sometimes unavoidable.

This is the one issue thing, it goes from one area to another in trying to justify the issue.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Rendition began under Bill Clinton

and continues under Obama.

[jaxx]

16. Really? Please provide a link.

[IndianaGreen]

19. You can google as well as I can

I didn't need google to know that rendition began in response to the 1993 bombing of WTC, but for the benefits of others, here you go:

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_98/appd.htm

[jaxx]

26. I am not seeing where Obama is using rendition to send prisoners to a 3rd country.

Got another link?

[Smashcut]

73. Here you go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

[jaxx]

83. Ok, he says they can.

--But he praised the Obama administration’s overall approach to difficult counterterrorism issues, saying the government had adopted “some of the most transparent rules against abuse of any democratic country.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?_r=1

In the article to prove the point, citing a 2002 case doesn't speak for today.

[HughMoran]

22. They provide a link with 12 year-old data

:rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

25. Why is 12 year-old data funny? nt

[boppers]

56. What was Obama doing 12 years ago? eom

[ZombieHorde]

76. They are not discussing President Obama, they are discussing President Clinton. nt

[boppers]

77. '...and continues under Obama'.

Both are being discussed.

[ZombieHorde]

80. OK, I missed that important part.

I do agree the link providing reply would have been improved by including the New York Times link as well, but I still wouldn't call it laughable, just incomplete.

[IndianaGreen]

81. Obama Lets CIA Keep Controversial Renditions Tool

Published on Saturday, January 31, 2009 by the Chicago Tribune

Obama Lets CIA Keep Controversial Renditions Tool

by Greg Miller

WASHINGTON - The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these discredited programs, President Barack Obama left an equally controversial counterterrorism tool intact.

Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism-aside from Predator missile strikes-for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.

The European Parliament condemned renditions as an "illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/31-3

U.S. Says Rendition to Continue, but With More Oversight

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: August 24, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.

Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called “diplomatic assurances,” were no protection against abuse.

“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

Ms. Singh cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, where he was beaten with electrical cable despite assurances against torture.

The announcement, by President Obama’s Interrogation and Transfer Policy Task Force, seemed intended in part to offset the impact of the release on Monday of a long-withheld report by the C.I.A. inspector general, written in 2004, that offered new details about the brutal tactics used by the C.I.A. in interrogating terrorism detainees.

Though the Obama administration previously signaled that it would continue the use of renditions, some civil liberties groups were disappointed because, as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama had strongly suggested he might end the practice. In an article in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 2007, Mr. Obama wrote, “To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

[boppers]

88. There ya go! (Yay for recent links!)

Is there a bright line between "rendition", and "extradition"? US treaties exist with lots of countries to send prisoners to their native country for trial, so, I'm wondering what the distinctions might be. Should we not have reciprocal extradition treaties with countries that are suspected of torture, for example?

[IndianaGreen]

92. Rendition is kidnapping without the knowledge of the host country

and it culminates with the person being kidnapped being sent to a third country where he is torture by people under contract to US.

[elleng]

79. I suggest that the one-issue voter HAS no perspective to lose.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Assuming that this post relates to health care, I'd say you're making a gross oversimplification

It's easy to say that people who are upset with the outcome of the health care debate in Congress are one-issue voters, with that one issue being health care. But it is really so much more than that. This bill and the discussion surrounding it touch on multiple issues, all of which are at the core of what we are supposed to stand for as Democrats and liberals:

1) Health care - will everyone in this country have access to reliable, quality care that they can afford?
2) The role of corporations in society - are they going to be held accountable?
3) The role of government in society - how far does the social contract extend? Does it extend to universal health care or not?
4) Taxes - who pays what share of the costs? This is closely related to...
5) The concentration of wealth in society - this is more slanted toward the super rich than at any time in our history. How will this bill and the means of paying for it effect this problem? Will it make it better or worse?
6) Economic competitiveness and growth/saving American jobs - health care costs borne by private industry in this country are higher than in any other developed state. Will we address this problem or just perpetuate it with this bill?

There are many issues underlying the debate over this single bill. So in formulating one's stance on it, an individual is actually responding to at least these six matters which I have come up with here, plus probably a bunch more I can't think of right now. Endorsing or rejecting this bill and the politicians and party which have formulated it is not a one-issue stance. It's reflective of a lot of big questions and shouldn't be dismissed.

[Peacetrain]

6. Any one issue..Running a goverment includes multiple issues..

[IndianaGreen]

8. Running a country into the ground, is also one issue

Keeping a war going to keep MIC happy is also one issue.

[Fire1]

10. That's because you're intelligent and a informed voter. n/t

[timeforpeace]

20. Your title says moderate or centrist but your posts say leftist. Only a leftist fits your criteria.

[Phx_Dem]

23. Me too! Absolutely and completely agree with that statement.

One issue voters and politicians are worthless.

[ZombieHorde]

24. If the issue is civil rights I would prefer the one issue voter.

Being wishy-washy on civil rights does often work out very well.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Not me. "A Moderate" = "A Corporate" democrat = promotion of fascism. No!

The last "moderate" I voted for was Creigh Deeds for Governor.

Never AGAIN! I'm done with Corporate Democrats = MODERATES. :puke:

[Peacetrain]

33. I will take a moderate any day.. any day over the one issue person

The one issue voter is in for just that one issue.. and hell they may vote republican next time.. I may not agree with everything with the moderate, or the centrist or leftist.. but those in for the long haul and not one issuers are the ones I want in my fox hole

[ShortnFiery]

38. Then you are not a liberal. Supporting President Obama's occupation of two Muslim nations

is NOT, I say again ===> NOT liberal.

You misrepresent yourself from the onset. Someone who constantly PROMOTES a "corporate" centrist ... oh hell, a MODERATE Democrat who is our President is NOT, in any way, shape or form, a liberal.

With respect, get real? :(

[Peacetrain]

41. We were in Iraq and Afghanistan when the President took office.

get real

[David Zephyr]

28. Sweetheart, you "would take a moderate any day" over a progressive.

No need to hold back. Just say it the way it is. You'll feel better about yourself.

[Peacetrain]

29. You can disagree with anything you want..but you do not get your own special set of "facts"

this op was about the one issue voter.. if you are saying progressive voters are all one issue voters..then I will let the progressives take that up with you.. I am a liberal.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Really? You are a liberal? Then count me as astounded.

:shrug:

[Peacetrain]

34. Always have been.. I never took the "progressive" label ..

and never will take it. I am sure it a different meaning for younger people.. but alot of so called liberals could not take the heat and started calling themselves progressives. I do not let other people define me.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Then you are Anti-WAR and Pro-Choice? Right? eom

[Peacetrain]

39. I am pro choice.. have never been anti war.. in the 60's or now..

I am against stupid wars.. I am for getting the heck out of the middle east.. but in a way that does not put the population at risk like we did to Cambodia post Vietnam and left the populace to the killing fields.

We should never been a Vietnam.. and once you have done something like that.. it is a complex series of dictatorships when you pull out like Nixon did.

[ShortnFiery]

42. Then you are NOT "a liberal" = Occupying two sovereign nations in order to gain geopolitical ...

advantage is not A LIBERAL stance. Perhaps you could term such ambition "Neo-Liberal" but NOT "Liberal." :shrug:

[Peacetrain]

43. I am not going to play post games with you.. you might want to look up what a liberal is

[JVS]

46. I'm sure Yusuf Islam is rolling over in his bed as we speak.

[David Zephyr]

50. I think you are right. Cat Stevens probably should file an abuse of copyright, huh?

JVS, you are brilliant. ;-)

[Peacetrain]

55. You cannot get over my name.. You sort of stuck spinning your gears on that..

well my name is Emily.. maybe you can get you head around that.

[Peacetrain]

59. You know the history of Cat Stevens right? The guy called for the death of Salman Rushdie

He was a real piece of work.. I happen to like the song..but Cat Stevens.. is a brick short of a full load..

[David Zephyr]

60. If you so loathe Cat Stevens, then why did you choose his brilliant song title for your DU name?

I mean...

[Peacetrain]

64. David, get a grip on this.. he wrote a great song, that I love and was

part of my younger years. It was my husbands and mine favorite song before we were married.. I had it at my wedding.

[David Zephyr]

65. Maybe you should get in touch with that younger spirit of yours.

.

[Peacetrain]

68. Are you always like this? You really need to stop obsessing on this.

I am just fine with my spirit as is right now

[boppers]

58. True scotsman. eom

[David Zephyr]

32. I get it. It's sort of like how you call yourself Peacetrain even though you support war escalation.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

37. LOL!

[ShortnFiery]

44. Yes, both Peacetrain and this Administration use the same instruction manual to fool us

unwashed peasant folk of modest means and average intelligence. :evilgrin:

[Peacetrain]

45. God it must be good to be you..

[dionysus]

91. those bush-era cards are both childish and cliched by now. don't you have random pics of war dead to

post?

[treestar]

62. That's ridiculous

You're taking your own strained opinion and substituting it for fact and believing you can judge everyone else on your "fact."

[Jamastiene]

52. +1

The original post in this thread looks exactly like what the GLBT community has to hear for ages now. Single issue, my ass.

[Peacetrain]

53. What the heck are you spinnning about

"Give me a moderate, centrist, leftist the whole range of the party who are committed multiple issues and needs, and will not leave when the going gets tough"

[David Zephyr]

61. Exactly. Our "single issue" of our fucking civil rights.

Thanks for keeping it real here, Jamastiene. :)

[Peacetrain]

67. Civil rights are not a single issue.. they involve economic rights

voting right, marriage rights, military issues, housing issues, people have died because of their color, religion, sexual identity, culture.

What is wrong with you

[JVS]

40. One issue voters are easy to keep happy. Those "moderates" on the other hand can be squirrely

[Posteritatis]

47. Single-issue voters are the angriest voters I know of, generally. (nt)

[JVS]

48. Give them their issue and they're in the bag.

Single issue abortion voters are why the Republican party doesn't even need candidates capable of speaking coherently.

[Posteritatis]

51. The problem is they'll never ever get their issue the way they want it

Generally they're the worst combination of shortsighted and perfectionist. I don't know many single issue abortion voters who are happy, for instance, because we're not executing enough people who are in favor of it. It's that kind of inanity for pretty much any issue.

[NJmaverick]

49. K&R

[bvar22]

54. I will take a one issue voter over a NO issues voter.

THAT is the BIGGEST complaint I have with the dogma of "Centrism"...No issues :shrug:

Do you have any single issue where you will take a STAND?
or is everything "negotiable" for you?

Is there anything you will fight for?

Do you BELIEVE strongly in anything?
or is everything just For Sale?



"Centrism"....because it is SO EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!!!
:party:

[Peacetrain]

57. Let me give you an example.. one issue..

We had caucuses in 2004, and republicans came to the Democratic Caucasus because the were upset about the deficits Bush was running. That was the be all, end all to them. They made their mess and then were not there when the real work started. They fell back into the woodwork rather than stand up for Kerry and take a little heat at meetings.

[Sebastian Doyle]

75. We know what the Republicans did at the 2004 caucus

Left us stuck with a weak ass candidate who didn't fight back. They weren't there to support Kerry. They were there to rig the primaries against the only candidate who could have beaten the Chimp.

<----- and we all know who that was.

[treestar]

63. There are very few things that shouldn't be negotiable

if you want to live in a society with other people.

In spite of exaggeration, the U.S. is not Nazi Germany. It isn't the country the neocons wanted either.

[IndianaGreen]

70. In theology, it is called moral relativism

This is the sort of nonsense that formulates the belief the idea that killing civilians is deplorable when the other side does it, but it is collateral damage when our side does it.

[Smashcut]

74. +1000

[treestar]

66. Kick

One issue voters are horrible.

The repukes get so many votes because of the abortion issue. No way to convince those looney tunes they are voting for war, no help to the poor, etc., just so long as they are saving them babies!

[cliffordu]

69. Woops, there it is....

exactly.

[bvar22]

71. Centrism....

...for those who believe that its OK to let Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snow call all the shots!

[Smashcut]

72. This is absolute BS. A lot of leftists are painted as "one issue voters" to delegitimize us

when we stand up for a core progressive issue the Democratic leadership is shitting on.

It has nothing to do w/ not caring about multiple issues. It has to do with not compromising on bedrock liberal principles.

See if wishy-washy "moderates" will be a reliable voting bloc and donate their time to GOTV. Why should they? People like you and the Dem leadership are always sucking up to them, apparently as a reward for not being able to make up their minds.

Feh.

P.S. There are plenty of people in your home state of Iowa who probably call themselves "moderate" and are currently trying to kill marriage equality there.

[shadesofgray]

78. LOL! Like "moderates" or "centrists" are committed to anything!They are all

whores for sale to the highest bidder.

[ClassWarrior]

84. No Center, No Centrists.

No Center, No Centrists
By George Lakoff
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Wednesday 15 August 2007

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate, self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left-to-right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought - call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy, and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed, many such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas on which this country was founded and which carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.truthout.org/article/matt-renner-interview-with-george-lakoff

NGU.

[blogslut]

85. Unlike certain "progressives"

...who are willing to side with the likes of Grover Norquist in order to get their way.

[ClassWarrior]

86. That just proves the concept of biconceptualism. See "No Center, No Centrists," above.

NGU.

[LWolf]

87. I am neither.

I'm a 5 issue voter:

1. War and Peace: I don't support the war on terror, never have, never will, and don't support military action as a tool of international relations.

2. Health Care: I don't support privatized health care. Period.

3. Education: I don't support the "business model;" I don't support union-busting or privatization of any kind. I don't support putting non-educators in charge of education policy.

4. Labor: I don't support NAFTA/CAFTA. I don't support free trade.

5. Civil liberties: I don't support the Patriot Acts. I don't support DOMA or DADT.

I could go on. And on. And on. But why? It's obvious from the list above why I don't support some mainstream Democrats.

[quakerboy]

89. Define a one issue voter.

I suspect you would qualify me as a one issue voter. Right now my support, be it moral, oral, monetary, or at the voting booth lives or dies on health care.

I would say this has nothing to do with being a one issue voter though. It has to do with the fact I will not be distracted by shiny things. I have priorities. And there will always be one or two things that have a higher priority than others. Doesn't mean I won't be here after that is dealt with. Health care is the thing, until we either get a real victory, or till we are so fucked there is no chance. I will do what I can in the mean time on other issues, but none are top of the heap until this is dealt with..