Our job at the DU ...

[kentuck]

...is to promote the rights that are in our Constitution.

We believe we should elect people to office that will protect those rights.

We believe in the power of debate and our right to speak freely. We exercise that right quite liberally.

We believe that spirited debate shows the true direction we should go. We believe that debate will eventually separate fact from fiction. The true challenge is about educating people to know the difference.

Many of us come and go at DU. Some of us are remembered and some of us are not. But we continue. Because we believe in the power of the people to make everyone's lives better. We call it government. Others may call it something else?

We do this for a reason. Perhaps we want to be more educated? Perhaps we want to pass that education on to others? Perhaps we truly care about this country? Perhaps we truly care and are vigilant and protective of our Constitution?

Sometimes it's a tough job.

peace

[Tiredofthesame]

1. I'll do some work! Nice post.

[Squinch]

19. Welcome!

[DeSwiss]

2. ''...is to promote the rights that are in our Constitution.''

- Agreed. As well as to advance the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.....

K&R

[font size=4]W[/font]hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

...

[PowerToThePeople]

3. rec

[NYC_SKP]

4. Yes, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are under attack lately.

K/R

[hfojvt]

5. Will this message self destruct in 60 seconds?

BTW, I do NOT accept this Mission Impossible.

I did not join, nor do I participate at DU primarily or even incidentally to "promote the rights that are in our Constitution".

To be honest with you, I am not even sure what that means.

"We believe we should elect people to office that will protect those rights."

Uh, yeah, but EVERYBODY who votes probably believes that. By which I mean, people who voted for Bush believe that and so do people who voted for Gore.

"We believe that spirited debate shows the true direction we should go. We believe that debate will eventually separate fact from fiction. The true challenge is about educating people to know the difference."

I am not sure if it is debate that separates fact from fiction. People seem to tend to listen to and cheer the arguments they agree with and scoff and insult the arguments they disagree with, pretty much a priori.

Like the quote says "Given a choice between a) changing their mind and b) proving that there is no need to do so, most people will get busy on the proof.

What I hoped for in DU was allies, co-workers, friends. I joined after the devastating loss of Kerry in 2004. I hoped for a support group. A group of people dedicated to opposing and defeating the Bush administration and also future Republican candidates.

As an internet site, I hoped we would be an alternative to the B.S. and shiny things put out by the M$M. A place where the conventional wisdom would be debunked. A place where people could come to learn and also find friends and allies.

And by allies, I was thinking we would all be Wellstone's "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party". That we would be united in taking our party back from "Rubin and his allies" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022085948

For a time there, it seemed like DU WAS such a place. Not a perfect place, but a pretty darned good place. A place that would help progressives win in 2006, 2008, 2010, etc.

Now it seems like the DLCers have taken over, but also that the other faction here is not the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, but a wing that has broken away and wants to fly on its own to some 5th. party paradise.

But also, rather than being a progressive alternative to the M$M, it seems to be a place that just plays tug of war with every dirty piece of string the M$M throws at us.

And in another regard, well I feel a little bit like the Dread Pirate Roberts. "I coulda give you my word as a progressive" ...

Meaning, that unfortunately, if a person visits here for a few months from the outside world, they will not learn things like "Republicans are wrong". Instead, they will learn by hard-won experience "those on the left - are not very nice people."

[mimi85]

6. Excellent post!

DU has changed, and not for the better. Damn shame. Although I suppose it's better than nothing. Your last paragraph sums it up well.

[railsback]

7. I resemble those remarks

Sometimes I have to step back and take a long, long break after getting banned from numerous threads for not toeing the line. I do find this 'mission statement' rather absurd. Other than that, the DU is a good aggregate, which I tend to use on a regular basis. That's about it.

[hfojvt]

10. I find DU to be informative

A month or two ago, I actually quit DU for about four days. Tired of a seemingly endless barrage of personal attacks on the one hand and pretty much being ignored on the other.

Then I popped in for a visit and right away found a thread about the election in Missouri. The local news had told me nothing about that.

The same would be true about he primary election in New Jersey. Neither the local, national or newspapers would tell me that, but I found it on DU.

Another time I remember visiting my sister and we were talking about various things happening in the world and mentioned Bea Arthur and I related a video which I had watched from DU (among other recent news items) and she said something like "you are certainly keeping up on the news". Yes, I was, courtesy of DU.

GD has always been a bit of a moshe-pit of "debate" - bare-fisted debate, as it were. I miss the days when the lounge was kinda GD-lite. At some point Skinner announced "the fun is over!" meaning no more sex threads could be posted in the lounge. So there was actually a time of political discussion in the lounge without all the "try to kill the people on the other side" mentality. The the lounge kinda found other ways to be silly and most of the political discussions stopped there and it was all about the cats and such. Plus, primary 2008 was heating up and I thought it was time to get more serious about the politics, so I moved away from the lounge.

[delrem]

8. Nice post, except I disagree with this:

"I am not sure if it is debate that separates fact from fiction. People seem to tend to listen to and cheer the arguments they agree with and scoff and insult the arguments they disagree with, pretty much a priori. "

What separates fact from fiction is truth. So I depend on real time reporting of fact. If a fact is that a politician lied, that fact doesn't have "equal value" to the lie (or "fiction&quot ventured by the politician.

[hfojvt]

12. it is kinda hard to get "real time reporting" of facts

I kinda like to wait a few days - for the dust to settle, for the truth to come out.

Further, how does one determine the truth. Here's an example.

Suppose you read this piece in The Nation which is linked to, quoted and discussed here http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/08/dubliners-too-liberals-this-time.html


When Professor Williams writes this " in a fact-free “demonstration” during final argument, O’Mara-as-Martin dropped a huge chunk of concrete, bigger and more jagged than a cinder block, in front of the jury box—as though onto Zimmerman—from a great and death-dealing height."

How do you know if that is true or not, unless you watched a bunch of the trial?

People state things that they think are fact from sources they think they can trust. When lots of sources really cannot be trusted.

Another example, my little dispute with the great Krugman. Krugman has written that ATRA decreases inequality and I dispute that. Rather than argue with logic or facts, the two responses I got were name-calling and mockery. Who am I, one wrote, to think he could argue with an expert like Krugman? If Krugman says that permanent tax cuts for the rich reduces inequality then by God, it MUST be true. He oughta know. He's a perfesser, for God's sake.

Again, people seem to get their "facts" from sources, from "experts" rather than doing the math themself.

[delrem]

13. Bullshit. People distinguish fact from fiction after experience

and your anecdotes about Zimmerman are meaningless.

[hfojvt]

15. well thank goodness

I was afraid that people stubbornly clung to what they already believed and just responded with insults to anybody who tried to change their mind.

[mick063]

11. The board reflects the state of the party.

It is one thing to gang up on the Republicans and feel unified, even if they are in power.

It is another thing to feel betrayed when your party is in power.

I disagree with the premise that people are threatening to abandon the party for "fifth party paradise" because quite frankly, it is the party which is doing the moving.

There is a void that must be filled. The party can either fill that void or it can choose not to. That, and only that, is what will determine who stays and who goes. Loyalty is a two way street.

I have voted for the Democratic Party in every election since 1976. I will not vote for what I have experienced for the past four years again. Ever.

I'm not looking for "fifth party paradise". I'm looking for the Democratic Party that I remember from long ago. I have been loyal in the hope that it may return. Instead, it has moved further away.

I await to see what the party deems most important. If it is not personally satisfactory, I promise I will not disrupt DU again. There will be no point in visiting because I respect the fact that this board is for Democrats.

[hfojvt]

14. funny that you mention 1976

because in 1980, Ted Kennedy ran in a primary against Carter - apparently upset about Carter's conservative ways.

I voted for Democrats in 1984 (because I flipped a coin in the voting booth) and in 1988.

In 1992, I voted for a 5th party candidate, because Clinton sounded like such a Reaganite. In 1996, I did it again because I was still unhappy with Bill and because the media assured me that Dole would lose anyway (and I certainly wanted Dole to lose)

Not sure about all the other non-presidential elections, but I know I have not always voted straight ticket D. In 1994, I voted for the moderate Republican Scott Klug over Ada Deer. During the radio debate that I heard, he seemed intelligent and decent and she seemed like a Deer in the headlights. Her campaign also semed to be only "vote for me, I am a woman" (at that time, amazingly enough, Wisconsin had never elected a female to Congress (something it did in 1998 when Tammy Baldwin defeated Jo (Ann) Musser. Tammy is now a Senator, but I think she is STILL the ONLY female Wisconsin has elected to Congress. She was the first candidate I donated money to in 2002)).

In 1996 I again voted for Klug over former Madison mayor Paul Soglin. As a candidate, it seemed like he blew off my little town. I never saw him and Klug was all over the place - on the radio, in parades. Further, I heard from my dad, that the city government under Soglin had hassled my grandmother about some code or other. Now I am not against codes or laws, per se, but if your government is picking on a 93 year old woman who had lived in that house in Madison for 65 years, that does NOT play well with her grandson.

So my loyalty is not lockstep.

But since the victories in 2006, it seems like there has been a contingent here that only likes to see the flaws. The glass is always more than half empty. Democrats NEVER do ANYTHING right. It reminds me of Counterpunch circa 2004. I read Counterpunch from perhaps January 2003 and they seemed excellent at opposing Bush. But then the Democratic Primary began, and suddenly they only wanted to punch at Democrats. Oh those Democrats, they were all just awful. It was like they had joined the Committee to RE-Elect the President. What a bunch of CREEPs they became.

Truly though, I am sickened at the thought of President Hillary, but I also don't see how it can be stopped, barring a miracle. Yet for all that, I still think that Congress is kinda important, and as far as I am concerned the Democratic Party here could even run a piece of human excrement against my Congresswoman and I would vote for the excrement - happily. They could even run Raj Goyle whose campaign in 2010 seemed to be "vote for me, I am practically a Republican" and I would be happy to vote for Raj (although I did quit my monthly donation to DFA after they endorsed him - supposed to be supporting progressives there guys).

The bottom line though (and shoot, is ANYBODY still reading this stream of unconsciousness?) is that you can NOT make the Democratic Party more progressive by abandoning it. That VOID has not proven to be influential to do much more than shoot itself in the foot by electing George W. Bush. Gotta show you can win the primary if you expect the party to care.

[mick063]

17. I respect your opinion and I fully realize your point.

In effect, you are calling it a wasted vote.

This is not an easy decision. I have been very, very loyal for a long time.

I have come to the following conclusion:

A vote for a person that supports collective bargaining to have a political voice is not a wasted vote.
A vote for a person that wishes to strengthen social security, as opposed to weakening it, is not a wasted vote.
A vote for a person that doe not elevate the terrorist threat to cold war level spending and infrastructure is not a wasted vote.
A vote for a person that will take concrete action to mitigate climate change is not a wasted vote.
A vote for a person that does not treat ordinary citizens with undue, institutionalized suspicion is not a wasted vote.

The list could go on if you ask for more.

I will go to sleep at night knowing my vote has not been wasted.

In my mind, those that have chosen the current path are the ones that have wasted their vote.
I was one of them. My last vote feels truly wasted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. I agree ...

with all of your conclusions ... with a single caveat ... that you are talking about your vote in a primary.

I have always worked for and voted my conscience in the primaries; but will ALWAYS vote for the Democratic nominee/candidate in the General. And I will continue doing so, as long as the electoral system is a two party system.

Bottom-line (for me) a Democrat in Congress and/or the White House is ALWAYS better rather having a republican in either, as even the bluest of the Blue Dogs, votes with the Democratic caucus better than 70% of the votes; whereas, the most moderate of republicans vote with the Democratic caucus, maybe 2% of the time ... &0% of what I want, even if not eaxactly what I want, is better than 2% of what I want.

[Jakes Progress]

42. Here too.

My last two votes were wasted. Not locally, I did better. And my money this last time didn't go to pleas for $3 that fill my email without every listening to anything I want. It went mostly to a candidate out of my state - Elizabeth Warren.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. I'm sorry but I am tired of that you have to prove you can win a primary bit.

The biggest reason we are in the state we are in is because of money. Big, big money. Money that pays for campaigner's salaries, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advertisement, money to get exposure to get name recognition. Money, money, money. Frankly, I don't care if a candidate can prove they can win a primary. The fact is, there is a vacuum and eventually there will be enough voters to get a progressive to a general election. My contribution starts next year. My first time voting as an independent. My vote will only go to liberals.

[hfojvt]

21. that's kinda the point though

if you cannot defeat the big money in the primary, how do you expect to defeat the big money in the general?

The old standby of "if we just let Republicans win for a time, eventually there will be enough voters to get a progressive"

That hasn't exactly worked very well since 1999. We have taken huge giant strides backwards and have maybe 500,000 dead in Iraq thanks to THAT SNAFU.

And in order to get anything progressive into law, we apparently need 60 senators. And consider this
Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri, Virginia, Indiana,West Virginia, Louisiana, and Alaska

There's 25 conservative states. Are we gonna elect 6 progressives in those states? And nevermind too that we currently have a Republican Senator from supposedly solid blue states like Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maine, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

And what about the House? Since 1994, Democrats have only controlled the House for a very brief span from 2006-2010. That's 20 years with 16 years of Republican control. Do you think all those Republicans are getting elected and re-elected because the voting public wants more liberal representation?

Winning those election things is kinda important and my side has not been doing it. The conservative side has. Letting that side win more, just gives them more control over the narrative.

[liberal_at_heart]

22. Just not being the other guy is not enough anymore. I need someone to vote for.

If I don't have anyone to vote for then I will just give up voting all together. I saw a thread earlier on Philadelphia borrowing money to open their schools this year. I am in tears just thinking about it. DLC dems are doing nothing. They are letting the corporations destroy everything we hold dear and I will not stand for it anymore.

[hfojvt]

31. so by not standing it

you will enable those who are actively pushing for the corporations to win.

I mean, it is frustrating as hell for me how useless even supposed progressives are many times http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3465507

but there needs to be a better answer to that than to let or assist Republicans like Tommy Thompson and Scott Brown, et. al. to win those elections. Because those election losses would not make anything any better.

[liberal_at_heart]

32. I have seen my son suffer under Race to the Top. Education was the reason I became an independent.

Now I read that Philadelphia schools are borrowing money to open public schools. I don't care what you think of my vote. You can vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want. I will only vote for liberals.

[hfojvt]

33. if you are determined to help conservatives win

then I guess you are determined to help conservatives win. I don't have any magic words to make you see reason. Although just as a Hail Mary I will try ooh, eeh, ooh, ah, ah, ting, tang, walla-walla, bing-bang.

Nothing?

Oh well.

I hope Karl Rove at least sends you a thank you note.

Simple fact, in an election 4 is greater than 3 + 2.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. You can't bully me. You're going on ignore.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Continuing to discuss ...

continuing to explain the disconnect in your thinking is now bullying?

{But then ... I'm probably already on ignore, so you probably won't see my question}

[hfojvt]

48. well it is insulting

to tell people they are helping conservatives to win

even though that is what they are doing.

And the thank you note from Karl Rove bit was a deliberate poke in the eye.

But I thought the Chipmunks thing would at least be funny - the magic words from the witch doctor. That was supposed to make the reader smile.

Some people are just determined that "I will never vote for a conservadem again" and you cannot convince me to, again, by telling me how much worse the Republican is.

Okay, I get the anger at conservadems. Some of them tick me off too, but I don't understand why, if you really do not want a conservadem for your state representative, congressperson, governor, or President that you would prefer a Republican to that just to teach the DLC or the DNC a lesson or something.

Especially since that noble experiment was tried in 2000 - and it failed miserably. The Bush Presidency was 8 years of disaster and the Democratic Party has shifted to the right because of what happened in 2000.

I mean, isn't it insanity to try the same thing and expect different results?

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Well ...

Okay, I get the anger at conservadems. Some of them tick me off too, but I don't understand why, if you really do not want a conservadem for your state representative, congressperson, governor, or President that you would prefer a Republican to that just to teach the DLC or the DNC a lesson or something.

I couldn't begin to tell you ... and, apparently, neither can they!

The conservadems anger me as well; but only 30% of the time ... the other 70% of the time, they vote with the Democratic Cuacus. Whereas, the most moderate of republicans vote with the Democratic Caucus only 2% of the time, thereby angering me 98% of the time.

That would seem to be a no brainer ... but then again, I have a sibling and paid attention in kindergarten when the "strive for what you want, then choose the best available option" lesson was introduced.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. +1 ...

Exactly!

[Cryptoad]

38. If you had to

flip a coin to not to vote for Reagan back in 80's, you may be anything but a progressive liberal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

geeez!

[hfojvt]

39. I was not all that progressive in 1984

be interesting if I could get a time machine and go back and argue politics with my young self of 1983. Quite possibly we would not like each other.

It was almost 30 years ago, after all.

[Jakes Progress]

44. But

he would have liked the job this administration is doing.

[joshcryer]

55. You should look up "active measures."

This tactic I think is being employed by the increasingly relevant Libertarian-right. The Republican party and is cohorts know that they are a dying breed so the last remnants, the economically far right socially left (really middle) are taking over.

The downfall really started after Warren gave the inauguration speech. It certainly hurt a lot of progressives (I was one of them, I got my first post in 6 years locked for pointing it out).

We are at a time in US history where the far right economically speaking is trying to take over the country, they want to replace government with corporations while allowing people to have "freedoms" that they don't currently enjoy. For instance, they want people to be able to smoke pot, but they would never stop a company from refusing to hire someone with high THC levels in their bloodstream. They want people to be able to be openly gay, but they would never stop a company from firing someone who has a hairstyle that doesn't meet corporate guidelines. See how this is going?

This is the future if the far right Libertarians are allowed to win. Are allowed to take over.

Yes the Democratic Party has a lot of work still left to do. A lot of the party is still stuck in red territory trying to compromise where it can. The reality is that American demographics are changing, rapidly, and this isn't going to be the case forever. Thus the Democratic Party can't magically be abandoned just because some right wing Libertarians sound like they support progressive ideals. In the end they don't.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. Some of us come here for the cat pictures.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. come election time liberals will be censored on this website. But that's okay. Those who would

silence my voice on this message board still can't control who I vote for.

[PowerToThePeople]

23. That is why the "real left" is growing

Why the media and the "moderate" Democrats have it wrong.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023461193

[liberal_at_heart]

24. That thread on Philadelphia schools has me in tears. I am more resolved than ever.

The real left is growing.

[brooklynite]

26. Nobody gets censored...if they remember that the first word in DU is DEMOCRATIC...

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

If that's too oppressive, plenty of other blogs to go to,

[liberal_at_heart]

27. after reading the thread on Philadelphia schools having to borrow money to open their

public schools there is nothing you can say to insult me. My resolve is stronger than ever now. I will vote for liberals in the primary, and if a liberal does not win in the primary I will re-evaluate my options from there.

[brooklynite]

28. I'm not insulting you.

I'm just reporting the rule that you -- and I -- are expected to live by if we want to participate in this forum.

[liberal_at_heart]

30. thanks for the warning.

[rhett o rick]

35. And I would point out that DU is intended for the "politically liberal". IMO authoritarians do not

meet that standard. The definition of authoritarian:

“Characteized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.

Of or relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite.”

I am just pointing out a rule.

[kentuck]

36. Mission Statement:

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!

[Jakes Progress]

46. Load of crap.

Love the rules when you get to interpret them. I joined a liberal, progressive site. When DU decides that it wants to say that it doesn't support liberal views and progressive, people-centered policies, then I will know you are right.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. And NOT voting ...

for Democrats is going to help, or change, that how?

[Squinch]

20. Kentuck, I liked your thread. I've only been here a couple of years and don't

hearken back to the golden days of yore. I find it hard to believe, given the unnecessarily snarky tone of the hearking, that it actually existed.

And each of your points is valid. Thanks for posting.

[bemildred]

25. Is to make noise and disrupt the media narrative.

As best we can.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. In a democracy, it is the peoples' responsibility to hold public servants accountable.

Even Democrats.

[cantbeserious]

37. Kick And Recommend

eom

[Rebellious Republican]

40. Bravo kentuk, Will Pitt I think you have some competition with well posted prose!

Lets quit burning bridges and start building them, we all need to come together. I stand for the UNITED states of america.

[JNelson6563]

50. I guess I am too slow witted.

After all these years I noticed a pattern and reached the conclusion that many here at the DU see their jobs as discouraging voting in the mid-terms so R's can win.

Julie

[B Calm]

51. I feel the same thing!

[bobGandolf]

52. Love this forum, and its goals.

Our country is in a serious decline, constitutionally speaking. They are chipping away at our rights on a daily basis. This forum works towards stopping the erosion.

[bobGandolf]

60. Old member, new name

I was gone from the group for about a year and just re-registered under a new name. I used to be Bobburgster.....its a real pain in the butt starting over with all the safeguards in place. I understand the reasoning, but it would be nice if a former member coming back under a new name didn't have to wait before he could start a discussion.

[DrDan]

54. "We believe in the power of debate and our right to speak freely."

Not everyone here believes in this. Try to speak freely in the BOG.

More respect for free speech in the gungeon than you get from boggers.

[Motown_Johnny]

56. That is what the Ignore button is for.

[DrDan]

58. yep - "freedom of speech" and "freedom to not listen" go hand-in-hand

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. thanks

Like your sig.

[davidpdx]

59. I agree with what you are saying

But spirited debate does not include name calling which is unfortunately what has seemed to get worse lately. The divisiveness on DU is sickening.

The one that particularly is troublesome to me is the shill/paid shill one which even Skinner has said is disruptive BS.

To be clear this isn't aimed at you, but at DU in general. Those who are guilty know who they are.