I don't like purges.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Do you know who liked purges ? Stalin and a lot of the people purged didn't do anything to warrant being purged, He just saw them as a threat... He would have purged Trotsky who was to his left but Trotsky escaped. Stalin solved that problem by having his goons, errr agents chase him down to Mexico and put a pickaxe in his head.

Count me as a unhyphenated Democrat.

[JI7]

1. why don't people just start their own party, as you say purges are for totalitarian type places

Stalin, SAddam hussein etc.

i don't get why people don't just start their own party. other than it being hard work and would take away time from rants on the internet.

[LeftInTX]

2. But starting a party would require donor$

[JI7]

3. the claims are that the many who don't vote is because they agree

what the "purge" types are saying. so the purge types can start another party and get money from these many people who agree with them.

[sabrina 1]

37. The Third Way HAS donors, they infiltrated our party for a reason. The goal is to

purge what they call the 'LEFT' because the Left is way too smart to go along with Right Wing propaganda. They COULD form their own party, but that would leave a Real Dem Party to fight the Right, and that is definitely not what they want.

I hate purges also, but they don't, they are trying desperately to purge the Left from the Dem Party. Look at the money that is put into fighting every Progressive Dem who dares to speak out against the takeover of our Government by Corporate Power.

STOP TRYING TO PURGE THE LEFT FROM THE DEM PARTY. We are going nowhere.

[wyldwolf]

97. "infiltrate." LOL. Hey, why don't you and I have a serious historical discussion?

[sabrina 1]

132. Sure, any time. I know the history of the DLC/Third Way and will be happy to share it with

you. If Dems supported Republican policies, they would be Republicans. They don't, and they are saying so and the pushback from Wall St., the attempt to 'purge' (to use their latest talking point, they have dozens of talking points btw from Think Tanks, mostly aimed at Liberal Dems) Liberals from the Party, or to marginalize them, is now obvious.

This country doesn't need one Right Wing party with two wings, Republican and Republican lite. I would think any Democrat would agree with that, in fact I know Democrats agree with that.

[wyldwolf]

133. I'm game. Just make sure the 'history' you tell is sourced from places other than anti-DLC sites

[treestar]

100. If there is a third way, as you call it, why should they not work for what they want?

And if they are successful in a moderate political stance, why should they change it because others want something different?

If you want something else, start another party. Why do you insist you are entitled that people who don't agree with your exact stance on things do things your way?

This "purge" word reveals the true mentality. We are talking about would be tyrants. Entitled ones, at that. Stalin didn't do what people wanted, he did what he wanted. Some people wish they were him.

[MADem]

107. Well argued!!! +1! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

125. Third Way most certainly exists. It is a 'think tank' organized by centrists in 2005

The say they are
"Highly allergic to the orthodoxies of both the left and right, we believe America is best led from the center."

Love them or hate them, claiming they are not an actual group of people is absurd and pitifully uninformed. McCaskill, Hagen, Udall (Mark), Shaheen, Chris Coons, Jerad Polis....all co-Chairs of Third Way.
http://www.thirdway.org/about

[sabrina 1]

130. Oh there has definitely been a purge, (latest 3rd Way talking point now all over the place

since they have been exposed so thoroughly) of the Dem Party. The purging of Liberals has been going on since the DLC now the Third Way, began the takeover of the Party.

If Dems supported Republican policies, they would be Republicans, no? Liberals, despite the attempt to purge them from the party, are going nowhere, sorry.

Undoing the Dem Party's New Deal policies is a Republican goal AND a Third Way goal.

Forever War is a Republican policy AND a Third Way policy.

Protecting Wall St. criminals is a definite goal of Republicans AND of the Third Way.

I do not support Republican policies. If you do, to ask the question YOU asked, why not be a Republican? What about the Third Way policies do you support regarding Social Programs, War, Wall St??

I am a Democrat and will never support Right Wing policies. Ymmd.

[treestar]

141. There isn't any purging

this is the US. You are free to leave any party when you don't want to work with the others in it.

If you discourage Democrats more than you discourage Republicans, that tells us we can't work with you and you will never be happy.

If the Democrats are not liberal enough for you, found or join a party that is.

No one is forced to be a Democrat. It's an old party long existing with a long existing base. You aren't entitled to come in one day from the left and dictate to others, nor can you, since the rest of the people in the party have freedom of speech too.

[sabrina 1]

142. Oh yes, there has been a purge of Liberals from the Dem Party. Name one real Progressive

Dem who is in this president's cabinet eg.

Democrats are Liberal enough for me. That is not who I am referring to. I am referring the Third Way that has gained so much influence over OUR PARTY and I am going nowhere.

I'll wait for a list of Liberal Dems who are currently serving in the WH Cabinet. Thanks.

[treestar]

99. Then they'd have to get some

That's part of the work they'd have to do.

[Rex]

5. Are you kidding? That happened in 2000 with Nader and we will never hear the end of it!

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

But you know rants etc..

[JI7]

6. Nader only ran so Gore would lose

what has he does in the 14 years since to build up the party ?

the attacks on Nader are because he ran just so gore would lose and he lied by saying things like Gore and Bush were the same.

that's why people bring it up.

so what i mention about starting a new party is not at all what Nader did.

[Rex]

8. It was another party and whats to stop them from doing it again?

And again?

[JI7]

9. so you are saying they should not be criticized ? i'm not really understand your point

do you think Republicans should nto be criticized ?

and i'm referring to those who talk about wanting purges. in some places like California there is little chance of republicans getting into office . it's often democrats who are up against each other.

the los angeles, new york , chicago and some other mayors races are open elections involving run offs. there is little chance any republican could win because a candidate needs majority or else the top 2 have a run off . so why not get involved in something like this.

for all the anti rahm emanuel posts on DU there was no effort at supporting any opposition to him in the chicago's mayors race.

[Rex]

11. You said people should make their own party, the Greens did just that and cost us dearly.

Think about it.

[JI7]

13. they didn't make their own party, their purpose was for Gore to lose

if it was about their own party where is their involvement in all the local and state races ? and for any serious party that is where you would start because that's where you would get candidates who can be taken seriously to run for office .

would you support a candidate who never held elected office for President ?

[Rex]

15. Not me, but the Green party did NOT form in 2000 just for one purpose. Been around since 1984.

So throwing a wildcard in the mix can really screw things up. As we watched happen.

[JI7]

20. the 2000 presidential run WAS about wanting Gore to lose

and that's the one people complain about .

people aren't complaining about the party existing in itself. just like people don't complain just because there is a republcan party in itself or any other parties.

[Rex]

21. And it can happen again is my point.

5 or 6 small groups maybe even a secret cartel deciding which of the two majority parties they want in office that year?

Chilling.

[JI7]

24. a serious political party would actually want to win themselves

[Rex]

26. Not if they made a deal (profit) with the GOP. You just said so yourself.

And the Green party was serious at one time.

[JI7]

28. yes, but that can happen in any case

[Rex]

29. Then we should just stick with two parties.

[JI7]

35. we did, even in 2000 the dem and rep were the major parties

we had many third parties on the ballots all the time.

as i said, the problem with the third party and in this case the green party specifically was not that they would run and get support in itself. it's that the entire intention was for Gore to lose so bush can be president .

perot had more power with the reform party or whatever the fuck that was. but he actually wanted to win . he wasn't running just so bush could lose.

[Rex]

36. But he could have, so you are putting your faith in it never happening again.

Which is your right.

[JI7]

42. you don't need a third party for it to happen again

you are claiming support for a third party would result in 2000. when 2000 was not an example of a third party with serious support . the green party never had much support and they didn't have any members in congress.

when i talk about starting a third party i'm referring to those who are seriously concerned about issues which they feel the existing parties are lacking . i'm talking about running candidates at local and state levels first. the green party did none of this.

it was one guy who ran on the green party but could easily have been another party and who only attacked Gore. he could have done the same as an independent .

[Rex]

45. Well serious enough to throw an election, so I guess your definition of serious

is different than mine. YOU said people should start their own party, the Greens did just that and look what it got us in the long run.

The Green party didn't run candidates? Really?

http://gp.org/elections/candidates/index.php

[JI7]

52. yes, just as others ran candidates, but they never won much

and nader could have done what he did as an independent.

so again, my point is that it's not the green party itself which hurt gore. it was someone who ran and lied about him and that could have been done as an independent or another party.

[Rex]

55. A third party was the Green party, so now what?

So we should have more groups, but when they screw us over in the long run we can complain about them for decades? Not my idea of a great system.

[JI7]

57. screwing was done by one person who ALREADY COULD do what they did

without building up the party.

[Rex]

60. No he needed a big party to get the numbers to screw over the system.

So then you are saying one man would what? Pay thousands of people to vote for him in a phony political party? That's not possible.

[JI7]

62. green party wasn't a big party

which congress members had they elected ? how about senators ? how about state legislatures ? mayors ?

[Rex]

63. Um big enough to throw the presidental election or did you forget?

So the Greens are a threat, but not really. Has to be one or the other.

[JI7]

65. that would have been done if Nader ran as an independent

[Rex]

66. Which would have been another party, gee a fourth party.

Okay so now what?

[JI7]

68. and we STILL have these parties , do you think there are no other parties

on the ballots ? and Obama still won with all those third/fourth etc parties on the ballot.

[Rex]

71. Yet one had the power to throw an election in 2000, so we are back to you

having faith it will never happen again.

[JI7]

94. it wasn't the party, it was Nader himself, it wouldn't have happened

if just anyone who was the green party nominee.

and it would have been the same if Nader was an independent .

[Rex]

111. Sure it would have been, a third party or fourth party

gets enough votes to change the outcome. Like we saw in 2000.

[JI7]

138. There were third parties when Clinton and Obama

Ran for president. It wasn't only the dem and rep candidates on the ballot

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. Perot.

There's just as much evidence that Clinton won in that election as a result of the votes Perot grabbed as there is Nader causing Bush to win. Perot grabbed something like 19% of the popular vote too, far more than Nader. And only hardcore political junkies even remember what party Perot was supposedly in.

Third parties are, of course, a danger to the entrenched 'top two', which is why they make it so hard for anyone else to even get on ballots. But they're more a danger to the parties than to the people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. New York hasn't had a Democratic mayor in over twenty years

Something to think about...

[sabrina 1]

41. The SC stole that election, Nader was a legal candidate running for office in a Democracy

which every American has a perfect right to do. We need MORE choices, not fewer IF we truly are a Democracy.

I find it incredible to see a few people here of all places have more of a problem with Democracy in action, than they do with the outright TREASON committed by the USSC. There is something very strange about that disconnect.

Or is there?

[Rex]

51. Evidently said poster doesn't realize the Green party is a viable party.

Pretending it is ALL one person.

http://gp.org/elections/candidates/index.php

[sabrina 1]

86. Yes, the Green Party is a viable party and Nader had nothing to do with the theft of the

2000 election. But there appears to be a vested interest in letting the treasonous SC justices off the hook by pointing 'over there' for some reason. I can understand eg, how angry Scalia becomes when he faced, as he often has been, with citizens asking him to explain the SC's interference in an election when they clearly had no right to do so. What I cannot understand, considering the more or less consensus, at least among Democrats, that that election WAS stolen, with the help of those five felons on the SC, any Democrat going along with the obvious attempt to distract from that crime by pointing at Ralph Nader while ignoring the REAL REASON for that crime.

Some day maybe we will find out who began the spread of this lie.

[Rex]

88. Yeah it was fun twisting that ones own words against him.

"People should form their own party, unless it threatens the bicameral system - then we blame it for our losses and have faith it will never happen again".

Sad really, but amusing.

[JHB]

106. Did he run in '96 so that Clinton would lose?

There are many legitimate criticisms of Nader, but "only ran so Gore would lose" isn't one of them.


Did Perot run in 92 only so that GHW Bush would lose?

[Rex]

121. That is a certain narrative shared by a tiny clique here.

They carry water for the BFEE, even to this day.

[treestar]

102. Did he start a party with a clear platform?

If so, it has not lasted.

Voting for a spoiler out of spite is not starting a real movement.

And then why not blame Nader for not following up? Where was he in the subsequent elections? Why does a party he spoiled things for have to do what he wants?

[Rex]

113. Yes yes your tiny cliques narrative is full of holes as I showed above.

Seriously you guys need to get some new material.

[Cleita]

38. I have my own party.

But how many people want to follow me?

[KMOD]

44. I dunno. What's your message? lol

[Cleita]

48. My party is the one of common cause.

Think about common, like the commons, community, the common working class person and even some communism. Nobody is really into it though.

[KMOD]

53. You should call it ..... The Commoneers! I might be on board with this.

Go for it, Cleita!

[Cleita]

61. Not too many will join. Trust me. n/t

[treestar]

98. You got it

Hard work. They don't want to do it as Democrats, but sit back and demand the working Democrats get them what they want. They are free to start or join any other party.

They could support the Greens. All third parties remain marginal until they get enough support.

[NanceGreggs]

4. Those in favour ...

... of "purging" he party of everyone they don't like are too stupid to realize that if they did so, the "party" would be down to six DUers - if that - who would have no way of knowing they're the only "Party" members left, being as they all have each other on Ignore.

[shenmue]

32. Yeah

but try talking to the people who think only they are pure.

[NanceGreggs]

77. But you CAN'T talk to them ...

... they're too pure to have a conversation with.

[Major Hogwash]

50. Well, frankly, to be honest with you, I'm tired of hearing all the 3rd-way talk.

I think we should just leapfrog the 3rd-way and go straight to the 4th-way.
I have a lot of trouble focusing on what they are talking about whenever someone says they are for a 3-way, anyway.

[NanceGreggs]

67. Be careful.

Talking about having a three-way is likely to set off alarms among a certain contingent here. They don't miss a chance to alert on something that might have a sexual connotation - and whether it actually does is of no bearing whatsoever.

[Odin2005]

85. NO SEX THREADS!!!

[NanceGreggs]

87. ...

...

I am justifiably chastised for my wanton behaviour. I should have restricted such discussion to where it is welcome - like ChristianMingles.com.

[Cleita]

58. About four Thanksgivings ago, I argued with a guest at the table who insisted that

we only needed one party, the Republican Party. He was an affable dummy so I pointed out to him all the one party states I could think of, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and some more. I asked him it that was what he wanted. He didn't think Republicans would be those people. Well, he got his wish now and we shall see.

[NanceGreggs]

74. I love the term "affable dummy".

It describes so many people I've encountered over the years.

It will take a while before the buyer's remorse kicks-in - but it will. And it will be all Obama's fault when it does.

[Cleita]

78. This time I don't think they can dump it on President Obama as much as they might try.

The chickens will come home to roost, I believe.

[Rex]

80. The M$M will hammer home whatever message their paymasters wish.

And of course the message will be Blame Obama.

[NanceGreggs]

81. Yeah, but ...

... it will turn out to be all Obama's fault for not showing up at their homes personally to explain to them what a bad idea this all was.

[Major Hogwash]

83. They have put all of their eggs in one basket.

To continue with the chicken theme.

[stillwaiting]

109. The Republicans will aggressively paint Obama as the Obstructionist over the next 2 years...

... if he vetoes a lot of the legislation they pass. And, the media will amplify that message over and over and over again. You see things aren't getting better for everyone because Obama...

As things continue to get worse economically for 90% of Americans over the next 2 years, that message could very well resonate in a majority of Americans' brainwashed minds. It could set the table for a very bad 2016 election year.

It's infuriating how elected Democrats refuse to properly blame Republicans for their historical levels of obstructionism. Almost everyone I know has/had no idea that the past 2 Congresses were the most obstructionist in history. Too many blamed Obama for things not getting better in this country for them economically (and things just haven't economically recovered or improved for 90% of Americans) over the past 6 years, but Obama and Congressional Democrats have done a piss poor job of attacking Republicans for legitimate reasons. It's so important that Republicans not have power in this country, and elected Democrats simply refuse to effectively attack Republicans in a way that resonates in Americans' minds. That is simply unacceptable to me. They simply must fight for the interests of average Americans, and the only way to do that is to fight the Republicans (who have no problem fighting the Democrats and successfully painting them in a way that makes them look very, very bad to many Americans). But, elected Democrats are ensured massive wealth and riches if they don't attack the corporate agenda that is openly espoused by Republicans.

[freshwest]

95. Yeah, but they're all into the French Revolution meme. Their heads will be lost later in the purge.

They also forget that FDR, who they claim to love, made a Democratic majority with groups and policies we'd disdain today, like the Jim Crow loving Dixiecrats.

We still won't go back to what they want, so they'll be GOP until Hell freezes over. Hope to see them finally embrace true American values such as Obama has represented, in my lifetime:

[GeorgeGist]

96. Rubbish.

[JI7]

10. why are you in a party with that type of leadership ? is it so you can continue to post on DU ?

[JI7]

14. i'm all for banning those who don't support the party from this website

[JI7]

17. it's the rules made by admin

[AgingAmerican]

43. Nothing in the rules say we have to support right wing corporatists

...in the Democratic party

[JI7]

56. you could describe the admin that way

but it just makes you look like you are going for drama. and it's hard to take seriously .

[AgingAmerican]

59. The Obama admin is riddled with corporatists

...investment bankers and Republicans.

[JI7]

64. again, this is why i can't take you seriously

because if you really feel that way why come on a site like this that supports the democratic party including the obama administration ?

it's a lot of talk , but that's all it is.

[AgingAmerican]

69. Show me where in the rules

It says I have to support Republicans and investment bankers? I can support, or not support, any DEMOCRATS I wish to support whether you approve or not.

You are not the Democratic Party hall monitor.

[JI7]

73. hahah, i just said it's hard to take you seriously

[AgingAmerican]

75. And your take on it

is irrelevent

[Union Scribe]

72. You're really gung-ho to get rid of people here aren't ya?

So much for opposing purges eh?

[JI7]

76. i can't get rid anyone. i don't even serve on the jury

[MADem]

108. I think the TOS should be followed as well. It wasn't during this last election cycle. nt

[sabrina 1]

136. 'Purge' is the new Third Way talking point, they have always had talking points to purge the Left

from the Dem Party. I'm sure you've seen them. 'Concern Troll' eg, that one surfaced about ten years ago when Democrats expressed their opinions on Liberal Policies. 'The Reality Based World' again aimed at the Left by the Third Way, implying that Liberal Dems were delusional. I was around when all this came to the surface on a prominent supposedly Dem website. They were PURGING LIBERALS from the site every single day.

The ONLY use the Third Way has for Liberal Dems is to intimidate them into silence ON THE ISSUES and to 'shut up and vote'.

So you are correct, there has been an ongoing attempt to PURGE Liberal Dems from the party for a long time now.

I used to be totally puzzled that Dems would so fiercely attack other Dems, including popular public Dem figures, so fiercely. Think of all the Dems they attacked over the years, anyone who told the truth about eg, Wall St. It didn't make sense until I learned about the DLC/Third Way and began to read their websites. It was hard to distinguish them on major policies from Republicans.

And they HATE what they call the 'Left'. That too was amazing to me. I saw Liberal Dems being attacked MORE on that site than Republicans. In fact the all out effort to demonize Liberals was more fierce than it was on right wing sites.

The word Purge is their new attack on Liberals. This is how it works, get some talking points intended to demonize the Left and start spreading them around.

Real voters do NOT use talking points, they use their own words. When a word or phrase is used over and over again aimed at attacking a group of people, you know it is a talking point coming from some Think Tank..

I saw that word right after the Third Way lost Dems another election and was not at all surprised to be honest. They despise the Left, because the Left is not going to give up on Democratic ideals no matter how they try to persuade people that 'the Center' whatever that is, is where we need to be.

[Union Scribe]

19. No, no, we must be Stalinists

for wanting to reduce corporate influence that's pulling the party right. Why, we might as well be pickaxing those poor folks!

I feel rightly put in my place, don't you? We shouldn't be so mean to those in power. I've learned my lesson!

[KMOD]

30. Sell the idea.

Telling people who don't agree that they are either stupid, or should be purged, is asinine.

Message it and sell it, or it won't be bought.

[Jamaal510]

22. The purges

come off as a mirror image of what the RW is doing with the GOP in terms of people believing that the party is losing because it isn't pure enough, and berating those who they see as "centrist", not principled enough, etc. The purges typically appear to be over a small handful of issues, too. Not only are the purges not smart, but it's not exactly a winning strategy, either, considering that most voters in America identify as moderate/centrist (either left or right of center) in numerous polls. Even much of the Democratic base identifies as such.

[Union Scribe]

23. "it's not exactly a winning strategy"

Absolutely. Unlike the highly successful winning strategy this year.

[Rex]

25. It's a sad fact, moderate and conservative dems are lazy or apathetic

leaving us liberals to vote in high numbers and shoulder the burden. 37% voter turnout...pathetic.

[Marr]

46. Uh, Republicans just won.

You basically just said, 'this is just like what those guy who beat us to a pulp did! It'll never work!'.

lol.

[ProfessorGAC]

122. You're Kidding, Right?

You think the folks that vote D will fall for the same tactics as the folks that vote R?

They may have beaten us to a pulp, but their tactics merely cemented idealogical loyalty during a low turnout period.

That is simply irrelevant to a winning strategy from the democratc POV.

[Orsino]

119. If only the GOP were purging instead of just rebranding. n/t

[neverforget]

27. This has the makings of a great thread with the hyperbolic comparison to the Stalin purges

I give you points for not invoking Hitler though

[Rex]

33. Comrade Godwin's uncle Boris's law?

[neverforget]

34. Lol! Yeah something like that!

[treestar]

105. It's not a comparison, that's what tyrants do

Of course it's impossible for purge the Democratic party. They only tell us what they want, not something they can do.

They do not want to work with people who are not in lockstep with them. They want them to have to, be forced to, go along. This is why they don't like our system. Calling it names like "corporatist" eases the frustration a tiny bit only.

[woo me with science]

31. Third Way = Wall Street infiltration of the party

I am trashing this thread. It is a Wall Street/Third Way talking point. I recommend others do the same: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160


Let's get this straight. Neither the corporate Democrats' prominence in the party nor the constant propaganda on behalf of them was EVER a grass roots phenomenon.

The Third Way is and has always been a corporate-designed, corporate-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the party with the goal of transferring the party's representation and policy agenda from the people to corporate interests. They are working *against* the people. And the recent election results show that the people are waking up to that.

What a twisted, insulting talking point. We are supposed to feel sorry for expelling corporate infiltrators. This talking point is as offensive as when the Third Way tried to make everybody feel sorry for bankers when OWS was finally bringing attention to the crimes of the mortgage crisis.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[malokvale77]

139. ^^^ this ^^^

Thank you for stating it so well.

[mmonk]

39. LOL. We ask for a turn for the first time

in 30 years and people want to pick up their ball and not play anymore.

[Marr]

40. It's not a purge, it's a change of management.

I don't want to purge anybody. I would be delighted to see Third Wayers and Conservative Democrats vote for left-of-center candidates, help GOTV efforts, and work for Democratic campaigns.

They're very welcome to get on the boat-- I just don't want them steering it anymore.

[KMOD]

47. Then sell your message. Win them over. That's how you do it.

You want the wheel, you have to explain why you should have it.

[Marr]

49. Yeah, no kidding. And that's not a "purge". /nt

[Orsino]

118. Selling a message and winning people over is the job description of the party leadership.

Why in the world would we keep them in place, if we are able to do what they can't or won't?

[AgingAmerican]

54. For the last six years

Attempts have been made to purge the left and liberals from the party. Where is your OP denouncing that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. The election shows that we have a big surplus of people. We won't miss a few... right? n/t

[KMOD]

79. Right! So purge them the hell out. ;)

[DonCoquixote]

82. you do not like Purges

I do not either, which is WHY i get tired of seeing the Clinton/Obama center purge out the liberals.

I hate it when Bill Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz give the evil eye to whoever runs as a liberal.

I hate the people who represent the FDR NEW DEAL get treated as enemies.

[Odin2005]

84. Oh God, now we Leftists are getting compared to STALIN???

And seriously, as somebody with Trotskyist sympathies I am mildly offended by the comparison.

[KMOD]

89. OMG, no one is saying that

[Rex]

90. They knew Hitler would be too obvious.

So they picked the next biggest mass murderer they could think of is my bet.

Looks like the corporate machine is running out of gas since they had to invoke Comrade Godwin's Law.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. I could have chose Saddam's or Assad's Ba'ath party.

The ironic thing is they were bitter rivals. So much for socialist internationalism and comradery.

[Rex]

115. Well it was a great try anyways!

All this over the Third Way! My my.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. I should have cited Mao

His "thousand flowers" campaign was a thing of beauty. He encouraged people to air their grievances with the assurance they wouldn't be punished because dialogue is healthy and then when it got out of hand he purged all the dissenters. Some say that was his plan from the start.

[Rex]

120. Yet nobody is calling for mass executions, only you infer that.

So get on with your bad self.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. It's hyperbole

And for intrigue and lack of transparency nobody had anything on Mao.

[Rex]

129. I think Genghis Khan has them all beat hands down.

His favorite tactic was to take all the local towns people and put them in front of his armies when he laid siege to a castle. So the people in the castle had to kill possible friends and family first to get to his regular army. Now that is evil.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. Just convinces me there is nothing new under the sun.

They were the original human shields.

[treestar]

104. Poor things

The leftists are such victims. Even of comparisons on internet boards.

And they can't even purse the party of people they don't agree with! Because in the US, that is impossible.

I guess you'll continue to be victims of the corporatists and the third way. That's fine, because actually, I think that's the goal. Then you can complain and stay uninvolved in the hard work.

Yeah, it was Stalin and the like who "purged." Because they had the power to eliminate those they don't agree with. America is so frustrating because you don't have that power. And if that makes you a victim, we can see what your true mentality is. It ought to be your way and people who don't agree should be forced out and forced to live under things the way you say they should be. Otherwise you are being victimized.

[Rex]

112. Aw you mad bro!?

I love watching centrists squirm.

[Odin2005]

137. LOL!

Then you can complain and stay uninvolved in the hard work.

The Socialist Alternative is pushing the $15/hr minimum wage hard. the Establishment Dems dismiss it as "extremist". So who is being lazy, now?

[freshwest]

91. Now you've gone and done it! You know what's coming next because you said Stalin:

I agree, not everyone in the big tent will get along. Just maybe they'll be persuaded to not burn the tent down.

[BlindTiresias]

92. Yeah man

Kicking people out of a political party by peaceful means is totally the same as the NKVD coming to your house, putting a TT-33 pistol to your head and pulling the trigger. Totally, exactly the same.

[BlindTiresias]

93. Things also exactly the same:

Being asked to leave a private establishment for causing trouble = Trail of tears

Having to walk to the mailbox = Bataan death march

Having to stay at the in-laws for holiday = Concentration camp

Being forced to visit grandma = Gulag

[malokvale77]

140. Now that made me laugh

Thank you, I needed that.

[LiberalElite]

101. You can call yourself what you want BUT

those of us who want the Third Way gone are NOT Democratic-Communists because that's what your post implies. False equivalency on a par with the Tea Baggers who call Obama a Nazi.

[seveneyes]

103. Like the castle in its corner in a medieval game

I foresee terrible trouble
And I stay here just the same

[Orsino]

116. Know who else tried to frighten people with Stalin's name? Hitler.

Not getting to lead a political party does not mean getting shot or permanently retired. The word "purge" is laughable hyperbole when addressing those not in power.

No one will even lose a job unless an awful lot of people agree with a few posters on DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Can I cite Mao?/NT

[Orsino]

126. Not to any better effect, I believe. n/t

[RiverLover]

135. +1 eom

[Capt. Obvious]

124. You know who else liked to invoke Godwin's Law?

[Peacetrain]

128. The "purge" mentality never works

[TheKentuckian]

143. You didn't pipe up as liberals being purged, mocked, and cut off at the knees

I think many are okay with purges as long as it isn't their particular ox being gored.

Don't think of it as a purge, consider it chemotherapy.