Do you consider DU to be a moderate, left of center, or far-left site?

[kentuck]

Just curious. Although I think most folks that hear about DU over the Limbaugh show or talk radio would think DU is a bunch of far-left fanatics, I believe that if serious analysis if given, one can see posts that might praise a moderate conservative, or General Wesley Clark, and sometimes, even Pat Buchanan! In my opinion, DU is a moderate to left-of-center site, if all the posts are analyzed fairly....What is your opinion?

[NYCGirl]

1. Yes.

Moderate, left of center, and far-left.

[DrDebug]

6. Agree. All of the above

Some parts are moderate since some people are moderate. Some are left of center and some are far-left.

[blondeatlast]

49. Yeppers. Heck, Richard Nixon could last a while, I'm willing to bet.

Reagan? No effin' way.

[w4rma]

142. Agreed. Moderate, left-of-center, *and* far-left. (nt)

[PurityOfEssence]

2. No more than somewhat left-of-center

We have our extremists here, but we also have some very moderate to semi-conservative types who've been able to stay around for quite some time. The problem is that the country's gone so hell-bent crazy to the right, that anything even reasonable is tarred as Communist.

[Clark2008]

27. I don't think the country has gone hell-bent crazy to the right

It's just the media makes it seem that way.

The reason all these wingnut pundits are so mad all the time is that they know more than half the country favors keeping abortion legal, strengthening gun and environmental laws and paying people a reasonable wage.

[bryant69]

3. It's really hard to say

Certainly there are days when it seems like we are far left, and other days when we seem moderate left. Depends on the mix.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[H2O Man]

22. I agree.

Hopefully, as individuals we have the ability to have different beliefs on different issues. If someone is only to the radical left, or only to the middle, then that person isn't examining issues at all. They are merely being dogmatic.

Likewise, on some issues the majority of DUers may be more liberal than the average democrat; on others, most DUers may seem radical to the average citizen. I certainly hope so. Our country needs radical change.

[JHB]

4. Remember they cherry-pick for inflammatory comments...

...and represent them as the norm even if 90% of a thread is other people condemning the inflammatory comment.

I think the general tenor is about where you put it, moderate to left of center, though we usually have space somewhere for those of more radical temperment. Those on the right will ALWAYS characterize DU as radical leftist partly as a deliberate tactic to marginalize anyone or -thing that doesn't march to their tune, and partly because from their wingnut position, we ARE "extremely left".

[rockymountaindem]

5. I'd say it's far left without being looney.

I consider to be left of center, but one of the more moderate types on DU. However, I don't think a majority of DUers are "out in left field" so to speak.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. I'd go with left of center as well

But as another poster said, things are widely perceived so far to the 'right' that even the center is now labeled extremist liberal. :eyes:

[Mairead]

8. Your terminology is just a teensy bit biased!

I'd call DU a conservative-Dem site that has some leftist members. I'm using a world scale, of course, not the '1984'-style US scale where DINOs who vote for GOP initiatives are called 'moderates'. Real 'moderates' are people like Kucinich and Woolsey, not people like Landreau, Biden, or Stabenow.

[kentuck]

16. You make an excellent point...

It is relative....at least, it should be relative.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. I'd agree with that...

conservative to somewhat moderate for most of the DUers. The majority of real leftists have long since departed or been given the boot over the years.

Sadly.

[welshTerrier2]

41. yes ... sadly ...

i won't comment on "booting" but i think one of the strongest forces to change the DU membership (i.e. a move toward blind party loyalty (bpl)) was the advent of the primaries ...

the primaries just poured in mainstream democrats (i.e. not "UNDERGROUND" democrats) ... i had hoped that many of them would leave after last year's elections ... but they've already started the 2008 primary campaign around here ...

and the best of what we once were is no more ... and that's too bad ...

[blindpig]

79. things have changed a lot

I found this place 02/03, you cannot imagine how happy I was to see people voicing and vigorously defending ideas similar to mine(I live in a Bastion of Stupidity). You are right, the primary talk was just starting up then and I can remember some of the old lefties being shouted down. Nowadays it seems that you must accept capitalism or be derided. It is sad but also enlightening in that it illuminates just how soft the American left really is. That and the lip-service at best that the environment receives have been my only disappointments.

[moddemny]

45. I consider Biden a moderate.....

what does that make me then by those standards?

[Mairead]

53. "what does that make me then by those standards?"

It makes you someone whose politics are like Biden's, would be my guess.

Hardly anyone thinks of their own position as extreme. They can almost always look to either side and see other people, so they congratulate themselves on holding a 'balanced', 'moderate' position.

But many are careful not to look very carefully. And so they don't see that, while yes there are people on both sides, the line is very much shorter on one side than it is on the other.

(This is more often true of the people who are off to the right, in my experience. They're extremists by definition--they're excited by the idea of unlimited wealth and power. But most of them try to hide it under layers of rationalisation because they're aware that most people start to grow out of such feelings around the age of 3.)

[Arkana]

9. I would consider us to be left of center on average--but there are

smatterings of moderates and the far left thrown in.

[Finder]

10. These days moderate republicans are labeled 'Leftists and Liberals"...

so hard to define. I feel DU has moved left in the time I have been here but that is not a bad thing.(since gov and media have moved right) I think most would be surprised how many are actually moderates that post on DU. As another poster mentioned, only select posts are pulled and used to represent DU in the media. I think DU is a progressive board that is visited by dems, repubs and all others who support progress, peace, democracy and love to talk politics.

[zanne]

54. The boundaries have been redrawn by the right.

What used to be considered right-wing is now considered the center. The Republicans have been successful in redrawing the boundaries. So much so that John McCain is considered by many to be a "liberal". Twenty years ago, he would have been considered a right-wing conservative.

[Just Me]

11. I agree. DU includes many voices, ranging mostly from moderate to left.

:bounce:

[sweetheart]

12. Its generally corporatist

Given that Democratic Underground is a corporation, it is understandable
that the consensus is not nader-esque anti corporatism, though i do see
some of that roundabouts.

It seems people still believe that voting democrat is better than
direct action, something i no longer believe... or rather, vote democrat
and then as well look at direct action as a way to get counted... as
just being squished for being an opposition voter is not happenin'.

So given that the 2 parties are both corporatists, DU fits right in,
by supporting "some" corporations and not others. This is in contrast
to general strikes, believing corporate property should be nationalized,
and more radical POV's of those who really want change.

[H2O Man]

24. Interesting.

Would it be fair to venture that those who believe in direct action are less likely to invest hours on a discussion forum? And that likewise, those who spent hours on a discussion forum are less likely to be involved in direct action? If that is true, then it is hard to consider that it could be otherwise than the second part of your description.

Regarding the first part, and the corporate identity, that could only seem to describe the structure of the forum, not the beliefs.

[sweetheart]

42. I think writers are writers

If you are a writer, then perhaps that is your dharma for direct
action. Perhaps it is not direct action, and as one myself, i can't
help but feel impotent for it, as the value of being just another
blogger amongst the hoarde has no feedback except conscience and
pissed off people when they're not happy with what one writes.

Clearly, it takes time to write, time that is not paid, so that
inevitably, the very basis of writing for free, is an act of activism,
or charity, but certainly not "work". That said, everyone must be
making a living somehow as well, so there is indeed an economic agent
paying for the internet connection.

You raise an interesting question that i've got to explore in another
thread, towards developing exactly what people think they're doing
about corporations. The clinton-wing of the democratic party is just
corporate-lite, starbucks and not exxoon... something that is hardly
not corporatist... and i'm honestly flummoxed as to what corporate
thinking the amorphous "we" stand for anymore.

[hfojvt]

30. what is direct action?

I would say that we do far more than just vote. Is being a precinct person direct action? Is working at the county office and going to meet-ups and working phone banks and going door-to-door with literature direct action? Is donating money, writing a representative, writing a LTTE, or going to a demonstration direct action?
I joined DU after the election because I was looking for other activists who had ideas about what to do for 2006. Even posting on a message board is more active than just watching ABC news or CNN.
As far as the Democrats being corporatist just like the Republicans, I consider being Naderesque to be enabling Republicans. Voting and supporting Democrats is the only way to keep Republicans like George W. Bush, Jim Talent, Adam Taff, Jim Ryun and Chris Kobach out of office.
Their democratic opponents may not be "perfect" like you and me. They are just the "lesser of two evils", but there is a huge difference between the two evils. The company that makes Trek bicycles and the company that makes Hummers are both corporations, but there is still a huge difference between a Hummer and a Trek, even a purist pedestrian should know that.

[sweetheart]

38. That's good, i like it

I can't help but feel that the corporatocracy has the upper hand and
i'm wondering what benefit there is in supporting it at all... but
i accept your good hearted way of framing it.

In my view it has less to do with a hummer and a trek, and more the
difference between civil rights in the workplace and diminished worker
rights. These include background checks, firing people who smoke on
weekends, firing people without cause and all the labour flexibility
regimen of the corporatocracy. The age of clintonism is a past, and
for dems who think we'll win back the presidency by replicating that,
i'm not so sure.

That said, there is indeed a huge difference between a hummer and
a trek, but only if one company provides a modicum of civil rights to
its staff.

[Rich Hunt]

112. it takes both, I think

I think the party & DU has room for both, but I think that lately, DU has attracted the wrong kind of 'corporatists', IYKNWIM.

[GreenArrow]

165. nice distinction

(and crucial)

[donsu]

13. what we all have in common is that we want the criminal bushgang

in prison for their crimes against the united states and the world.

[moddemny]

46. and in many ways......

that's about it.

[DanCa]

14. DU is an American Site

Run for and by Americans who believe in free speech.
Letting people vent despite of thier view points on various issues.

[Sapphire Blue]

15. Far left of the radical RW... which makes it slightly right, centrist,

... moderate, left-of-center, and far-left... which would be mainstream America.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. There are very few bonafide leftists on this site

Most posters range from slightly left of center to slightly right of center

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. Agree completely...

see my post above. :hi:

I too often miss the old days of research heavy threads that blew the lid off of issues. Within 72 hours of Powell's speech to the UN Duers knew that it was bullcrap and they had the evidence to prove it. That was a fine time to be a DUer.

These days, when I see so many "Democrats" here who say we shouldn't give a shit about how Saudia Arabia treats its women or try to claim that a woman's right to choose isn't a civil rights issue or that maybe (insert traditional DEM base group) should just let give up a little of their ground and move a bit closer to the "center" (whatever that is) it makes me gag. I used to believe they were just trolls, but now I wonder if this isn't the true face of "new Democrats".

Excuse me while I :puke:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. In some ways I miss the old days

but we had our wars then too

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Oh yes, the wars...

That has been the one constant on the board. :)

I've never been one to get too worked up about the wars, and frankly I get a little pissed off at the folks who bolt from the site because of them -- I say stand your ground and fight for this board and for what you believe in. I could have disappeared myself 100 times over the past almost five years, but heck no. I plan on staying put so that when someone needs a good ol' :spank: I'm here to give it to'em.

[Rich Hunt]

110. that's true

DU used to have a lot more knowledgeable lefties, who had lots of information and research. I learned a lot from it, and it gave me hope that the Democratic party wasn't dead. It has changed. Lots of us know why.....

[Solly Mack]

116. That one

[DS1]

19. All over the place

not that there's anything wrong with that

[all.of.me]

20. left of center

i don't think it's very radical, but like someone said, it's mostly left of center with people on either side. to say it's one thing is inaccurate.

[LynnTheDem]

23. All of the above. Unlike the reich who march in lockstep, Dems and libs

have minds of their own. They even use them.

[UdoKier]

25. I think DU is an extremely PC, slightly left of center site.

That being said, what I consider to be centrist would be Howard Dean. We live in an extreme far-right-wing country, so I don't like to define the center as halfway between what most Americans think. Most Americans are astoundingly ignorant.


I think DUers tend to pile on anyone who doesn't toe the line on "social" and wedge issues, ripping anyone apart who fails to speak the proper PC lingo at all times.

But on economic issues, DU is in the center, if not slightly to the right of center (again, for a civilized country, not fascist America) There are plenty of apologists for NAFTA, FTAA, wage-slavery sweatshops like Wal-Mart, regressive flat-tax schemes,

Even U.S. atrocities like Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Dresden, etc. have their defenders here - of course that is a function of blind nationalism more than ideology or objective reasoning.

I find it enjoyable, because less-moderated sites are usually rife with right-wing scum spewing all kinds of garbage, or right-wingers, amateurishly posing as liberals and saying the stupidest things.

So I put up with DU's overzealous PC, because it's worth it to be able to talk to sincere progressives without a lot of "hannitized" assholes ruining the discussion.


When I feel the need to vent and just say whatever, I go over the the Yahoo boards and say whatever I feel like. It doesn't take long to get it out of my system, then I come back here.

[slackmaster]

26. It's a broad mix dominated by left-of-center

A pretty wide range of viewpoints are tolerated here. I didn't used to feel that way, but as long as you treat people decently and don't post anything that works against the Democratic Party you're OK.

[Finder]

32. Good advice for some democrat leaders...

"A pretty wide range of viewpoints are tolerated here. I didn't used to feel that way, but as long as you treat people decently and don't post anything that works against the Democratic Party you're OK."


During the last election lots of noses were cut off, unfortunately.

[G_j]

28. I agree, moderate to left-of-center

with a few much appreciated radicals.

In general it's been getting more moderate from my perspective.

[Kazak]

29. These days moderate IS far-left...

:crazy:

[katinmn]

31. centrists and progressives is how I look at it

[lonestarnot]

33. A mix reflective of the dem population in U.S.

[lady lib]

103. Another vote for MIX.

n/t

[Raksha]

35. I'd call DU left of center, which is also what I'd call myself.

But then the entire political spectrum has shifted so far to the right in this country that the traditional definitions seem almost obsolete. The "right" is now the ultra-right: the neocons and theocons aka the secular and religious FASCISTS, with a great deal of crossover in that area. So it's not suprising that they'd consider us "far left extremists" when we're actually moderate to left of center under the traditional political definitions.

[welshTerrier2]

36. those labels are bullshit ...

how do we even begin to define these terms? ... i don't think they mean a damned thing on DU ... most often, they are used as criticisms that have virtually nothing to do with anyone's political philosophy ...

perhaps in one context, far left means someone who advocates a totally equal economic system ... doctors, lawyers and taxi cab drivers would all receive the same amount of pay ... commerce would be heavily regulated or run by the government entirely ... do you see many posts on DU that sound like that description???

and then there's the issue of war and peace ... the far left is often accused of being pacifists (the implication is usually that this is a bad thing) ... do you really believe there are many pacifists on DU? i don't ... i think most DU'ers know a corrupt war when they see one ... sadly, i think most elected Democrats do too ... that's what makes their collusion with bush all the worse ...

so what the hell does far left even mean ????

i'll tell you what i see as the real dichotomy on DU and in the Democratic Party itself ... i see a rift between those who would support the Democratic Party against the republicans NO MATTER WHAT and those who put issues before Party ...

those who put issues first are commonly labeled as left-wing on DU ... they are constantly attacked for "requiring perfection" or putting their "sacred principles" ahead of the Party's interests or having "litmus tests" ... all of these criticisms by the blind Party loyalists (bpl's) are dead wrong ... each citizen should develop a system of values and decide what is best for their country, themselves, their families and communities ... some will have flexibility on certain issues; some won't ... both should be respected as citizens forming their opinions in a democracy (one would hope that they have taken the time and had the resources to learn the issues) ...

but the labels listed in the BP are not going to go away anytime soon ... so, from now on, in the spirit of fighting back against those who like to marginalize the left on DU, here's my brand new jargon for the political spectrum around here ...

from now on, most of those called the left will be called the left majority, the center-left or just the majority ... you blind Party loyalists (bpl's) who would sell your soul to "win" will now be referred to as the Party's "right-wing" ... you are the right-wing of the Democratic Party ... you may be "moderates" when you add in all the republicans too, but in the Democratic Party someone gets to be the right-wing and that's you ... when you stop trying to paint those who oppose the occupation in Iraq as a left-wing "fringe" group, or those who will not accept an anti-choice candidate like Casey in PA, or those who call for investigations of election fraud or the recent UK memo on Iraq, i'll stop referring to you as the right-wing ...

it is time for DU's right-wing to learn that there is a huge difference between bashing and criticizing ... few in this group understand the difference ... it is also time to recognize that you will not be able to bludgeon the center-left into compliance when the Party acts in a cowardly, republican-lite fashion ... if you want our support for your candidates, work for our votes ... if all you have is shrill "how dare you's", you're nothing but noise ... when will the right-wing learn that issues matter ... "winning" is important; what you're winning is more important ...

and one last thing ... i think most of the Party's right-wing lacks integrity ... here's why i say that ... right now, with most elected Democrats arguing that we cannot leave Iraq because there would be civil war, or because Iran would overrun Iraq, or because of any other reason we can't withdraw in the near-term, most of the BPL's (blind party loyalists) make the same arguments as elected Democrats ... but imagine tomorrow if Dean, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi and Clinton called for withdrawal ... would most of DU's "we're stuck in Iraq" crowd retain the same view they currently have or would they magically "see the light" ???? i suspect, like little puppy dogs on the end of their leashes, they would suddenly be part of the "leftist extremist fringe" they are currently so critical of ... of course, we'll welcome you to the movement when you finally wake up ... we figure your candidates will bring you around to us sooner or later ...

[Donna Zen]

134. Good point

"but imagine tomorrow if Dean, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi and Clinton called for withdrawal ... would most of DU's "we're stuck in Iraq" crowd retain the same view they currently have or would they magically "see the light" ???? i suspect, like little puppy dogs on the end of their leashes, they would suddenly be part of the "leftist extremist fringe" they are currently so critical of ... of course, we'll welcome you to the movement when you finally wake up ... we figure your candidates will bring you around to us sooner or later ..."

Let's consider the two poles of thinking: one the one side is bush, who clearly is setting up a permanent police station and has no intentions of every leaving, on the other side is a possible pack up starting today and just leave asap. Between those two ideas there is plenty of room for a variety of ideas. It is when we reach the shift in concepts--stay or leave--around which much of the disagreement centers.

I am of the leaving school but accept that for every action there is a reaction. So how do we get out while limiting the risk of a complete breakdown within Iraq that would cause a worsening of circumstances for the people of Iraq. And yes, I do believe it can get worse for not only Iraq but for the entire region. Once out I do not want to see us 1) have to return and 2) have the credence of those of us who want to leave become discredited. Thus, as the wicked witch said: these things must be done delicately.

Anyway, the moves that would make that "soft landing" possible are not being made by bush, and never will be. So, you may be right--eventually the leave-taking will happen and be quite ugly because of wasted opportunities.

BTW, I do not see left or center or whatever. The political spectrum is place of many issues. I know hardcore anti-corporatist who are against choice. Yep. We pick and chose at the political smorgasbord according to our taste. As for DU, ditto. Most of us agree more than we disagree although always to a different degree. The other element found here are those who for one reason or another prefer to stir the shit. Trolls, stupid, obsessed, possessed or all of the above, they blur the lines and continually end productive conversation. Oh yes, they wave of PCers; well, I suppose they are well-meaning although it is mostly a move to execute an end-run defense of their own favorite player.

[donheld]

37. All over the place

DU has a very wide varieties of opinions.

[bicentennial_baby]

39. Moderate all the way

and on some days, leaning hard to da right....

[Sgent]

40. How do you define

center -- I define it as an amalgum of Olympia Snowe and Mary Landrieu.

Given that definition, the mean of the site is left of center, with a significant portion further left than that, and a few who are right of that.

[Goldmund]

44. That is theoretically impossible.

If the site is like a scale or a seesaw, and the mean is in the middle of the scale, then if there is more to the left than to the right the scale won't be balanced. The mean has to be put where there are the same number of people to the left of as to the right.

[proud patriot]

47. All of the above

IMHO

[The Magistrate]

50. Indeed, Ma'am

All of the above. In fact, many of the individuals here have within their own views a similar fractionation, being in matters moderate, in others left of center, and in others far left....

[GreenPartyVoter]

48. moderately left. I think it's neither a super liberal or super moderate

site. Somewhere in between, I guess.

[LSdemocrat]

51. VERY anti-establishment, and left-wing

There are a few establishment types and some moderates here, but not many.

[wyldwolf]

55. just the posting in this thread indicate

there are more than a "few establishment types and some moderates here."

[LSdemocrat]

56. Well, I'm judging more by the number of posts on the board

I'm not particularly liberal myself, but the vast majority of the threads/posts do tend to voice an anti-establishment/left-wing position.

[guajira]

52. I'm a Progressive Conservative Democrat - and do I get Flamed!

Over the years I have been posting here, I've had to develop a thick skin. I am not as liberal as many of my Dem friends, and we have some good discussions about the differences!

I am fiscally conservative, desperately wish Dems would get rid of the "tax and spend" label and make government accountable.

I sometimes criticize labor unions in threads - and whoa! do I get flamed on DU.
I also get flamed for saying that we need to get tough on illegal aliens and start enforcing our immigration laws!

On the other hand, I support 1st term abortions, free speech, freedom to travel, etc. And I hate most Repukes ;-)

[wyldwolf]

63. you sound like a rank and file Democrat to me

[ovidsen]

71. My kind of DUer.

Although I am concerned about the occasional flaming that you and other, well, let's call 'em pragmatic Democrats face.

Labor unions aren't perfect. Some limits on immigration might be prudent. Fiscal responsibility is laudable. Comments endorsing these views should be (and for the most part, seem to be) seriously considered, although not necessarily endorsed. Most of the time, that seems to be the case.

In fact, I think one of the nice things about DU (and I've been reading for a lot longer than I've been posting) is the relative respect that folks with differing views have for eachother here. More often than not, disagreements are explored with thoughtful questions and considered answers. With the exception of the occasional agitator who trumpets such nuggets as "death to pot smokers" or "all gays are perverts", folks here are given room to breathe, think and grow.

And I like that.

Back to the original question. Seems to me that DUers range from moderate to far left, in keeping with the sites guidelines. Frankly, I don't know why neocons or freepers even bother posting here. A real time waster for both them and us. Heck, I read right wing web sites, but I never post. Why bother? I do it to keep tabs on the enemy. :7

I also really enjoy the hyperlinks provided by so many DU posters. More food for thought. :think:

[Sparkly]

57. I think it's sort of fashionable to identify as far-left here.

That's just my overall impression. I think there's a pretty wide range of opinions here on most issues, which is great. But I don't think there's always necessarily a huge difference between someone who says they're leftist and someone else who considers themselves moderate.

(I'm not sure why you grouped General Clark with "moderate conservative" and "Pat Buchanan," though.)

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

60. "fascist tendencies?"

Do explain.

[DoNotRefill]

61. Like I said, I'm not going to start a flamewar...

and I have made my opinions on Clark known repeatedly.

[wyldwolf]

62. Do you know the definition of fascism?

[DoNotRefill]

65. Yes, I do.

eom

[Sparkly]

68. Then you don't know much about General Clark.

And if you thought you could toss out an accusation that he's got "long-term fascist tendencies" without being challenged on it ("not to start a flamewar"), you don't know much about DU.

[DoNotRefill]

69. On edit: I'm not going to play.

There's no need to start a flamewar unless he tries to run again.

[Sparkly]

70. You made the accusation -- this is your game. Now you won't play.

Then retract and apologize for the accusation. And while you're at it, an apology to "moderate conservatives" might be in order, as well, since you've implied they too have "long-term fascist tendencies."

[DoNotRefill]

74. I stand by the allegation...

because it's true. That doesn't mean I want to get into a flamewar on the subject.

[Sparkly]

75. It means you can toss out words like "fascist" and then shield yourself

by saying "I don't want to get into a flamewar."

[DoNotRefill]

77. You asked how somebody else put him in the category....

and I provided a possible reason why he fits so well with Pat Buchanan.

[Sparkly]

78. As a fascist?!

That's a very serious term, and not a very serious response. It's not a word to blithely throw around as a "possible reason" for linking Clark with "moderate conservatives" (who are also not fascists), and amounts to inflammatory name-calling -- particularly when tossed out without a shred of rationale.

Oh, but you didn't want to get into a flamewar. :eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

89. Are you saying that Buchanan is NOT a fascist?

eom

[Sparkly]

90. We're not talking about Buchanan. nt

[DoNotRefill]

94. We aren't? Do you deny that these are your words?

"I'm not sure why you grouped General Clark with "moderate conservative" and "Pat Buchanan," though."

[Sparkly]

96. That wasn't a response to your claim Clark's a fascist.

And when challenged on that remark, the reply "Are you saying Pat Buchanan is not a fascist?" is not adequate. It seems like a clear attempt to change the subject.

Or to avoid a flamewar, of course.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

100. That's funny. I thought you said he had "long-term fascist tendencies."

Do you describe all Independents who voted Republican 17+ years ago as "publicly licking the Republican asshole," and having "long-term fascist tendencies?" Or just some?

It doesn't work to throw out such phrases and expect "I don't want a flamewar" to protect you from challenges.

[DoNotRefill]

104. from the article I linked to earleir....

"As recently as two years ago, Clark was appearing at Republican fund-raisers. In Arkansas, at the Pulaski County Republican Committee dinner on May 12, 2001, Clark said “that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States.”

Just two weeks later, U.S. News and World Report said, “Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he’d campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan’s Cold War actions and George Bush’s foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush’s national security team. Absent from the praise list — his former boss, ex–Commander in Chief Bill Clinton.” "

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/45/news-ireland.php

That's a LOT more recent than "17 years ago"....

[melnjones]

106. At that rate,

I'd say some of us are the fascists...Yeah, let's only accept certain people as Democrats. If they've ever voted Republican, they're out. Yeah, that's the way to build a party and win elections. Geez.

[DoNotRefill]

108. How about....

if they repeatedly whore themselves out on behalf of Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43? Because that's EXACTLY what Clark did right up to the point that his phone calls to Rove weren't returned, and he suddenly became a "Democrat" so that he could work to get rid of the TRULY viable Democratic presidential nominee in 2004...

[Adelante]

138. Oh, God

Even Karl Rove himself said Clark made no phone calls to him and the White House logs showed no phone calls incoming from Clark.

Give this old shit up. :eyes:

[Jai4WKC08]

140. So being in the military is "whoring" oneself out to the CinC?

Because I can't see that Clark ever did anything more for Reagan or Bush41. And nothing at all for Bush43.

And regardless of what the LA Times reported, Clark appeared at ONE Republican dinner, as a guest speaker. He appeared at a Democratic banquet two weeks later, in the same capacity. It was approximately six months after he retired, when he first moved back to Little Rock.

Get this thru your head. Professional military on active duty are supposed to be NON-partisan. Period. Used to be that most of them were. It's very dangerous to our country for them to be anything but non-partisan, and a very sad and scary thing that so many aren't today. Fortunately, Clark always lived up to the ideal that he learned back before Republicans began to breed partisanship among military officers.

About those Pulaski county dinners (both parties)... if you'd read the complete transcript of what he actually said, he was promoting the very principles of multilateralism and engagement that are the staple of Democratic policy.

[DoNotRefill]

149. It's called "which side will give me more?"

"Clark appeared at ONE Republican dinner, as a guest speaker. He appeared at a Democratic banquet two weeks later, in the same capacity."

It's amazing how some people refuse to see just how much of a whore Clark is. But hey, at least he's not Howard Dean, right?

[Sparkly]

172. God forbid we support anyone who was EVER nonpartisan.

Heaven knows if we run someone who's devoted himself to the country rather than either political party, we'll be doomed.

I mean, what if Independents can relate to him? What if people who voted for Bush -- Republicans! -- vote for him?

How dare he be Independent! How dare he be magnanimous years ago, or try to support the country over the party at any time! How dare he think of anything at all but a political career since third grade or so, and what effect his actions might have on that? Politicians just don't DO that sort of thing!

And the next time we expect somebody to be honest about his/her voting record, dagnabbit, we won't ASK!

[Swamp Rat]

109. No, you didn't.

And what's with your scatological imagery? Do you have a fixation on men's anuses? Fucking GROSS!!! :puke:

[DoNotRefill]

119. Hey....

that's where the tapeworm crawls out of....

:evilgrin:

[Swamp Rat]

105. Straw man

:)

[kevsand]

82. Your words are meaningless

without an explanation, and also obviously contradictory, as in: "I don't want to get into a flame war, but your mother sucks ."

If the photograph is your proof, I have to laugh. This incident has been rehashed repeatedly. Have you read Clark's explanation? He has admitted the hat thing was probably a mistake, but the meeting was necessary in the context of the situation. He also described how much it creeped him out to have talk to that pig. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid...

[Sparkly]

83. I guess a picture's supposed to be worth a thousand words, except

he doesn't want to talk about it! ;)

[kevsand]

87. Here's something curious.

In my post, I had actually typed the phrase "insert appropriate nouns here" where it now says "sucks." I had placed the phrase inside square brackets. Some psuedo-html DU shorthand I didn't know about?

[kevsand]

91. I figured it out.

Anything inside square brackets is of course interpreted as html. Anything DU doesn't recognize as html just gets left out, instead of printed as text, which would be the default for most browsers. Had me going for a minute there...

[Jai4WKC08]

124. If you really need to use brackets, kev

There's a little box on the reply page that says, "check here if you want to format your message in plain text." Then the brackets and everything enclosed by them will show up. But of course, you also can't use any html code. And the font looks funny. ;)

Mostly, I used parentheses, or some other variant, at DU where I would normally use brackets in a formal document.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[kevsand]

139. Jai...

the moderators apparently wiped my earlier response thanking you for your help, so here's that part again: thanks! :-)

(Apparently they felt that my thinly veiled anatomical references regarding a certain other DUer's posts made the rest of my message somewhat less rhetorical than I thought... ) :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

115. "The meeting was necessary in the context of the situation"?

Yes Sir, if Clark hadn't played grab-ass with Mladic, Mladic would have run out and started slaughtering disarmed Muslims....Oh, wait, Mladic had already done that, and kept it up afterwards.



http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271932.shtml

[Jai4WKC08]

143. You don't negotiate with friends

Clark was the military lead on Holbrooke's negotiating team. He was tasked to speak to both sides. He was supposed to disobey those instructions?

Bottom line is, Clark was instrumental in making the Dayton Peace Accords happen. And a lot of Muslims and Christians are alive today who wouldn't be.

[DoNotRefill]

148. Ah. So Clark is a GOOD guy for meeting with genocidal monsters...

and playing grabass with them? For encouraging them by being friendly, swapping hats and jokes, instead of expressing displeasure at the genocide Mladic had started and was continuing?

I bet if it was you or your family that Clark allowed to be slaughtered, you wouldn't be QUITE so forgiving...

[Sparkly]

170. How many times can you use the term "grabass" in one thread?

"Grabass," "Asslicker"...

The Mladic episode has been discussed here, and repeatedly elsewhere. General Clark did his job well, and succeeded.

[kevsand]

175. I think the language suggests that he/she

is both anti-military and homophobic. That's rather a rare and unusual combination...

[LandOLincoln]

205. You're absolutely right. Clearly what Clark should have done

was march right up to that genocidal maniac and say,

"Howdy, I'm Wes Clark and I'm gonna bomb your genocidal maniacal ass back to the Stone Age."

He would have got a LOT more information out of Mladic that way, and more importantly, he would have had your approval besides.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Swamp Rat]

107. How ironic!

:)

[high density]

144. You seem to have no facts

So yeah, making up stuff about Clark, kind of like Hugh Shelton did for John Edwards in 2003, usually starts up a flamewar.

[wyldwolf]

97. no you don't

[DoNotRefill]

99. As the saying goes: If the Jackboot fits...

WEAR IT.

[Sparkly]

101. "The jackboot..." What does that mean, exactly? nt

[wyldwolf]

102. I hope you stay around on DU if Clark is in the primaries

It will be pleasure debunking your "misunderstandings" and calling you on the "misrepresentations" I'm sure you'll pull out of mothballs.

[Donna Zen]

135. Save the bandwidth!

The poster will not read any posts contradicting anything he/she choses to spew. To ignore or to comment that is always the question. It is obvious that words like fascist and jackboot without research and thus, betraying ignorance doesn't bother the likes of some as long as they get their thrills.

[wyldwolf]

137. Thanks, Donna... but...

I get a few thrills slicing and dicing these types of people. :)

[Sparkly]

64. "long-term fascist tendencies!" Oh but you don't want to start a flamewar.

:crazy:

[Renew Deal]

73. Clark is a fascist now?

I don't think I've heard that one before. It's up there with man boobs and mind reading.

[ClarkUSA]

88. Clarkhater Tinfoil Hats on Sale today? I see someone wearing one already!

Leftwingnuts are very similar to rightwingnuts in their modus operandi, aren't they?

[melnjones]

80. HOLY HELL

Now that's just shady. Make an accusation like that, without backing it up, and refusing to discuss it further b/c "I don't want to start a flame war." Not cool.

[davsand]

81. Actually, I supported Clark because he's electable.

I really felt Clark stood a good chance to beat the "Asswipe in the Oval Office." I really didn't feel the same way about many of the other Dem primary candidates. Clark impressed hell out me with his literacy as well as his humanity (as he did many other people on here.)

I don't exactly think the Dean or Kerry either one is "unelectable (look where they are at NOW. By definition they are "electable"!) but I still think General Clark would make a fine President.

It is called a party primary. It is how the Dem party and the GOP both define themselves to voters. The primary for 2004 was DONE and over a long time ago--GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!


Laura

[DoNotRefill]

95. What made you think that?

Was it his Photo-op of him smiling and swapping hats with the mass murderer, or his paraphrasing Heinrich Himmler on a civil liberties issue? Was it his "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls" statement? Or his repeatedly opportunistic change in position depending on who he was talking to WRT the war in Iraq?

[DoNotRefill]

58. DU is schizophrenic.

DUers range from moderate Democrats to way-far left non-Democratic lunatic fringe conspiracy-theorist tinfoilhatters.

We're not easily classified...and we do have our fair share of the insane.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

93. Speaking of schizophrenic...

"This week’s Newsweek, however, has the explanation: Clark was pissed that the Bush team rejected his overtures in the wake of 9/11. At a conference last January in Switzerland, the magazine reported, Clark told two prominent GOPers that “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” One of the two who heard Clark say this, University of Denver president Marc Holtzman, said Clark “went into detail about his grievances. Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

Opportunism, in fact, seems to be Clark’s middle name. As one retired four-star general recently told the Washington Post, “There are an awful lot of people who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later.” That diagnosis was reinforced just last week when Clark, on Thursday, told reporters that “I would probably have voted for” the blank-check Congressional resolution giving Bush unlimited power to invade Iraq, according to The New York Times. Now, Clark’s supposed opposition to the war was the motoring force behind the Draft Clark for President movement. This was no gaffe — Clark repeated his statement twice.

But just 24 hours later, Clark did a complete flip-flop. As the Associated Press reported Clark’s corrective, the general declared, “Let’s make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never. I’ve gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war.”

Sorry, General, but your record on the war has been anything but consistent. Last October, the Associated Press reported you’d said you’d vote for the Bush war resolution. Next, in a Time magazine essay on November 12, 2002, entitled “Let’s Wait To Attack,” you criticized the Bush war strategy merely for not allowing enough troops to do the job and having a flawed battle plan. But after the fall of Baghdad, you wrote in the London Times on April 10 effusively praising “a lean plan,” adding that “if the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.”"

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/45/news-ireland.php

[FrenchieCat]

114. Why relive the primary wars.....and why put out the same old

falsehoods out now that the GOP wanted out then?

Try not to mess with me cause it's almost mother's day.

If you want to go back and dig up Howard Fineman's story and call it a fact....go ahead. I call it whoring. Be careful of the dogs you lay down with....as you will wake up with fleas.

From http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#092303125pm
Fineman's evidence is the say-so of Colorado's Republican Governor Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman.

"I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls," they say Clark told him.

Clark told Fineman he had just been kidding around. But Owens and Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was dead serious.

Now, Owens is a Republican and he's close to Karl Rove and President Bush. So I don't think you've got to use your imagination too creatively to see what agenda Owens might be advancing -- especially since the story doesn't really add up on several other counts as well.

http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000839.html

Jeeze, if Clark wasn't joking....and he really did call the WH....why is this the story in a RW hack mag?
Clark Never Called Karl
Wesley Clark says he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House phone logs suggest otherwise.
by Matthew Continetti
09/22/2003 1:45:00 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.asp

From http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002221.html
Obviously this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but what caught my eye is that the White House is apparently willing to search Karl Rove's phone logs upon request by reporters.

[DoNotRefill]

117. Hate to point this out....

but I'm sure that Rove has more than one telephone number at the White House that Clark could have called. And while you're ranting about how it's all just a RW media smear job, who said that Clark never called the White House asking for Rove? Could it be....people at the WHITE HOUSE???? Who else had the records? It ain't Counterpunch....

It's amazing. You use the furthest to the right RW source to supposedly discredit a RW source.

[Sparkly]

146. It was a JOKE.

So was his remark that Tom Delay shouldn't be allowed to play golf.

So was Gore's comment that his mother sang him the Union Label theme song as a lullaby.

Come on.:eyes:

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

164. I thought it was funny. So was Gore's quip. So was the one about golf.

That's not to say these aren't serious men.

The Mladic episode has been discussed already; in the long run, Clark did his job and succeeded.

I don't consider standing up for the truth "pandering." In fact, I think repeating lies and rightwing smears is closer to "pandering."

I also think closed-minded, broad-brush prejudices under the label "Military-Industrial Complex" are as bad as any other closed-minded, broad-brush prejudices. What's too bad is that you don't appear to be a liberal in the sense of having an open mind, nor a progressive in the sense of working with the truth toward change. There are many outspoken liberal, progressive people who endorsed General Clark, because they see beyond such stereotypes and aren't stuck in rightwing labels, propaganda, 30-year-old memes, or games of "gotcha" played against all Democrats.

But I guess you have things to teach people like Michael Moore, George McGovern and Mary Frances Berry about what it is to be an open-minded liberal progressive. :eyes:

Edited to tone it down in respect for DU rules.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

184. "Well excuse the fuck out of me"

So far I haven't seen any valid excuse, so the answer is "no."

You are hanging onto a skewed perception of one single incident as supposed insight into a man's entire life experience, worldview, motivation, character, vision, and purpose. There are 59 years there for you to consider, but you'll focus on the ones Rove, Drudge, and Limbaugh have fed you. Nice.

As for why "Clark was treated seriously," perhaps you should listen to those of us who supported him instead of pushing laughable theories. Oh wait, did I say "listen?" Silly me. That's something open-minded people do. You know, like liberals.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

188. Are you calling the military an "active pursuit of mechanized slaughter?"

Are you saying the military is all and only about "practicing to commit atrocities?"

I think all the veterans on DU, and those of us with family who are veterans or active military, would be very interested to know.

I think DU as a whole would be interested to know.

On edit: I need to get to bed, but while you're thinking, I'd like to remind you of these DU rules, if I may:

"Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violence or military defeat against the United States, the U.S. military, US service people, or the people of the United States.

Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country."

Just FYI.

[DoNotRefill]

190. There is only ONE intended purpose for the US military. That is to...

break things and kill people. That's not anti-military, that's a statement of fact. That's why they have the guns and bombs and submarines and aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles. Sometimes, as an ancillary mission, they "peacekeep" or do other things, but their "reason to be" is just that: to break things and kill people.

I'd like to ask ALL DUers who served in the military if they were not trained how to shoot guns in basic training, or if their MOS didn't in SOME way bear DIRECTLY upon the perspective mission of "breaking things and killing people". Even people in the QMC have a direct relationship to that mission objective of "breaking things and killing people"...they are the people who supply the shooters with "bullets, beans, and band-aids". The Medical Corps purpose? To fix up the people that got hurt, so they can go back out and "break things and kill people."

The REASON for the military doing that can vary greatly. Sometimes, it's a good reason, sometimes, it's a bad reason. But the basic mission doesn't change, and hasn't since before the Roman Legions came into existence...and that mission is to break things and kill people.

The US Military has NEVER been about farming or mail delivery. It's about breaking things and killing people. Sometimes they just train for that, and sometimes they do it.

[kevsand]

195. You went beyond that.

You accused them of "practicing to commit atrocities," as though that is the sole purpose of their training. That crossed a line.

[DoNotRefill]

200. What else would you call...

drilling with nuclear weapons? If that's not practicing to commit atrocities, what is??? Or is there some super secret nuke out there that only targets combatants while sparing innocents in the area that it is detonated in?

Let me ask you this: Has the US Military committed atrocities in Iraq? A "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice, thank you.

If the US Military did indeed commit atrocities in Iraq, how did they come about? Didn't they train before going in there? Or are you one of those who thinks that the atrocities were the result of strictly low-level operatives, and that the military command structure bore no responsibility for those atrocities? Once again, you can't have it both ways.

[moddemny]

204. What else would you call drilling with nuclear weapons?

Deterence.


If the US Military did indeed commit atrocities in Iraq, how did they come about?

Its called stress and not all men in the military are prepared to take all the pressures and a few lose their moral compass. Some people who have been in combat do bad things, not all. An intelligent person like yourself should be able to understand that. It doesnt help that we have a President who condones torture but that's not a reason to indict the entire U.S. military.

[wyldwolf]

208. to all lurking Democrats, independents, media. etc.

The opinion above is not the official position of the Democratic party, Democratic Underground, or average Democrats. It is the opinion of one neoleft McGovernite-Naderite.

...one with a severe case of sour grapes that he just can't get his ilk elected to any meaningful national office.

Thank you.

[ChrisPhx]

132. So you like the constitution pure and pristine?

Like the parts that discuss the number of votes allocated to a state based on the number of slaves in that state? You like that part "as is?"

If you were a prescription, I definitely would not refill.

What are you for, and how do you plan to accomplish it?

I mean real stuff, not just a bunch of inflammatory rhetoric?

[DoNotRefill]

152. I support the 13th Amendment...

which is indeed part of the Constitution.

You don't like the fact that I called "Your Hero" what much of the progressive world clearly sees him as, so you claim that I like slavery? And you wonder why people are suspicious of Clark supporters???

[Sparkly]

"much of the progressive world"

Take a scientific poll and get back to us. You have no right to speak for "much of the progressive world."

[DoNotRefill]

159. Well, I've linked to Counterpunch.org and Portland.Indymedia....

and y'all have been quoting the Bush 43 White House about switchboard activity and Karl Rove.

Which sources are more beleivable? Hmmm....Counterpunch and Indymedia or the Bush White House....Hmmm....Damn, that's a hard call, isn't it?

[Sparkly]

167. You're trying to change the subject again. Nice shell game.

To continue the shell we were on, you don't speak for the progressive/liberal world.

To your new shell, you don't need to know a thing from the WH to know that Clark made a joke about returning Rove's calls.

You do need to have a script written by Rove himself to repeat some of the things you have stated here. And you seem to be parroting them quite well. They've been propagated by Drudge, Limbaugh, and a regular army of rightwingers online. I'm sure they're happy to have you in their numbers.

[kevsand]

171. Let's make something clear first.

We're not talking about Counterpunch and Indymedia, we're talking about the actual authors and/or speakers, in this case: Wayne Madsen, Mitchel Cohen, and Karl Rove.

In an absolute sense, all three sources have been demonstrated here on the pages of DU as having at one time or another played fast and loose with the facts. In fact, the specific charges leveled by Madsen and Cohen have been systematically disproved over and over again here at DU.

In regards to statements from known liars, one has to consider the context and the motive. In this particular case, it would benefit the Rove White House to discredit Clark by making the story of his alleged overtures appear to be true. Their inability to do so would indicate truthfulness in this one solitary instance. That, and the fact that the documents are PUBLIC RECORDS...

[DoNotRefill]

186. Ah, yes...the Great Rovian discreditation plot.....After all...

Wes Clark WON HOW MANY PRIMARIES AND HOW MANY DELEGATES to make him the threat he was???

Oh, yeah, he took a GRAND TOTAL of 57 delegates. MAJOR threat there, wouldn't you say? Hey, he WON Oklahoma! Major threat there! In the states that actually published vote totals from the primaries, he received, NATION-WIDE, the INCREDIBLY HUGE TOTAL of 388,609 votes!!!! YES SIR, he was HUGE!!!! (Washington State, where he received the votes of 768 State delegates, or a whopping 3%, and Iowa, where he received 3 state delegates, or 0.0%, were not included)

Why didn't I see the terrible threat to Rove and Bush that Clark represented?!?!? I mean, hell, all he'da needed was another 22,696 voters in the general election, and he'da have squeaked ahead of NADER!!!! DAMN STRAIGHT HE WAS WORTH A ROVIAN DISCREDITATION SCHEME!!!!

[kevsand]

189. "discreditation?"

Now you're making up words in addition to "facts." I never claimed there was a scheme. I never claimed there was a plot. You missed the entire point of my post, but that shouldn't surprise me, since you haven't made a single cogent, coherent, consistent point stick in the entire thread. You'd rather SCREAM at all of us, instead.

Talking to you is like playing whack-a-mole on acid...

[DoNotRefill]

192. Ah. Spelling flames. Sweet!!!

Bet you think your spelling flame makes you the winner, eh?

[kevsand]

196. It's not about spelling.

I never said anything about spelling. Once again, you've missed the entire point of the post. That seems to be your MO, to completely ignore the substance, and dance cutely around irrelevancies. That's what makes anyone who challenges you on it the winner.

[DoNotRefill]

201. It isn't? Really?

You (or others with your same pro-Clark stance) said that Rove was essentially trying to discredit Clark. My point was "Why would Rove need to discredit him, given his pathetic stats in the primaries?" to which you responded with your discreditation post. It's a spelling flame.

[wyldwolf]

209. that is a real hard call

Counterpunch and Indymedia is the left's NewsMax and Matt Drudge. Equally suspect.

[ChrisPhx]

176. That's your whole agenda, 13th amendment?

Oh, and liking to stir things up?

The rest of your post is so absurd that surely you yourself know it is an outright lie. If not, you really need some help of one kind or another.

Again, what do you actually believe in?

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

185. Belief in the Tooth Fairy doesn't require any facts, either. nt

[kevsand]

193. If Gore had been president in 2004,

Clark wouldn't have run at all, because there would have been no need.

I don't remember anyone calling you insane or racist. I'll go back and look again. I pointed out that your language suggested homophobia, but I don't think I called you a homophobe specifically. Again, I'll go back and look, but I thought I was trying to avoid that.

In spite of your earlier protestations, your original post was so obviously flame bait that it was deleted by the moderators. You have repeatedly called one of the hardest working Democrats in the country a fascist and an "asshole licker" and a "grabass." Your language is inexcusable, and your tactics obscenely obvious. The more capital letters you use, the more I'm moved from anger to pity.

Take a drink. Go smoke a cigarette. Anything to catch your breath. Calm down.

[DoNotRefill]

194. I disagree.....

"If Gore had been president in 2004, Clark wouldn't have run at all, because there would have been no need."

Clark wanted to go into politics after he was retired. He's made this plain. Which side he is on depended on which party he thought he could get the nomination of. He's an opportunist no matter how you slice it.

[kevsand]

199. You are of course entitled to your opinion,

but around here we generally like them to be based on facts. You have yet to offer any proof of that assertion. I'm calling it a night...

[ChrisPhx]

202. Not interested in your "beliefs" about Wes Clark

So which Democrat did you support during the primaries and why?

[DoNotRefill]

203. Howard Dean...

Because he's a TRUE progressive, and not a pale imitation of one.

But hey, Dean was "unelectable", right???

I hope to hell y'all are happy...

[wyldwolf]

210. you know very little about Howard Dean

TRUE progressive? bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Thank GOD he ISN'T a "true proooogreeeesssive."

[Swamp Rat]

111. How ironic!

Nice flame war YOU started. x(

[FrenchieCat]

118. It's not ironic...

it's what he planned all along....to start a flame war while all of time stating that this was not his intentions.

What's ironic is that he is spouting Republican talking points about a Democrat here at DU. Actually, that's obcene, and I think against DU rules.

[Swamp Rat]

120. It sure is!

I stand corrected FrenchieCat. I agree 100%... divide and conquer...

[DoNotRefill]

122. But wait....aren't you the one using RW talking points to show....

that Clark DIDN'T call Rove? Who else had the White House telephone records that you use to claim that he didn't call Rove?

Pot, meet Kettle.

[DoNotRefill]

123. Oh, and BTW....did you see the links I posted? RW sites, one and all....

you know, those flaming Conservatives over at Counterpunch.org and Portland.Indymedia who seem to also think that Clark is dog vomit...

[FrenchieCat]

125. I see dog vomit

and it's contained in your posts.

[DoNotRefill]

126. Well hey, at least my dog vomit....

isn't rooting for the war criminal...Remember the bit about Clark's order for the Brits to attack russian troops at the airport in Pristina??? Remember "I'm not going to start the third world war for you,"??? Wasn't THAT just a laugh riot????

[FrenchieCat]

131. You need some educatin' my dear willfully uninformed....

siding with the extremists and a "Bloody Sunday" British General who loves the Iraq war doesn't look good on any day.

It's the day before mother's day....and you are giving me a nice gift. Educating the fools still spewing right wing crap about Wes Clark. Your dog vomit smells like shit!

Please know that the Pristina Airport incident only demonstrates what an outstanding leader and commander Clark is; the fact that he took no shit and knew which way was up? THIS OCCURED 6 YEARS AGO...NOT 40 YEARS AGO, and it was ALL WELL DOCUMENTED.....NEWS STORIES IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ETC...

Gen. Sir Mike was the WHINER on this one. His nicknames? "Macho Jacko" and "Prince of Darkness"!

here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........

The first from that article by Elizabeth Drew (a real journalist who writes for The New York Book Review:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."
Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

And here's another take on it:
Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

Think back to Berlin in 1945. General George S. Patton urged Eisenhower to let him drive the Russian army back east across the Russian border. He understood better than the naive Eisenhower and Churchill that Russia had become the biggest threat to the west and was not about to return conquered territory back to the allies or the original governments. He also understood that Russia's army, while victorious over the depleted German army, was in no shape to resist the allies. In a very real sense we missed an opportunity to avoid the cold war entirely. Republicans, conservatives, and hawks generally agree with this hindsight assessment. It highlights the irony of political partisanship that the same people condemn General Clark for essentially the same behavior. Clark very much resembles Patton: aggressive, hard-nosed, a brilliant commander, and despised by his peers and superiors - one would think Republicans would appreciate him for that.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.
http://epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxville/local_editorials.cfm

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip

More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO,

a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya.

Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm
Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

Brig Freer was in charge of the Parachute Regiment and Gurkha soldiers who were the first, apart from special forces, to enter Kosovo, on June 12. The report, prepared for the Ministry of Defence's comprehensive "lessons learnt" exercise on the Kosovo war, and copied to Gen Jackson, is unusually strong criticism of the command structures in the operation. Because there was little or no Serb opposition to the arrival of the Nato peacekeepers, the failings identified were not fatal.
....
The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.

The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.

a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.

Macko Jacko Supported the War in Iraq
The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml
....
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

He was less impressed, just before the war began, when Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be suggesting that the British troops were tagging along for the ride. "I saw the comment about the British forces not being necessary. I don't think he had an idea how many British troops were committed, but the first days of the war straightened him out," says the general. "Our performance was outstanding in the south."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.
==
His role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial
Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183"
Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

Colonel Ted Loden, the major in command of the army unit which fired more than 100 shots on Bloody Sunday, had claimed he made a list of engagements, which was later typed up, after interviewing soldiers in his armoured vehicle.

[Donna Zen]

136. Ah my dear

Thank you for posting for the record.

I'm sure by now you realize that person you are trying to have a conversation with is not interested in anything resembling the truth. They identy with their own exteme notions and thus share all of the hallmarks of all extremists.

Robert F. Kennedy wrote:



"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.


Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-semite, red, commie, nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don't have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.

19. INCLINATION TOWARD "GROUPTHINK."


  Extremists, their organizations , and their subcultures are prone to a kind of inward-looking group cohesiveness that leads to what Irving Janis discussed in his excellent book Victims of Groupthink. "Groupthink" involves a tendency to conform to group norms and to preserve solidarity and concurrence at the expense of distorting members' observations of facts, conflicting evidence, and disquieting observations that would call into question the shared assumptions and beliefs of the group.

Extemist left and right

There are several points that apply to the posts I'm reading here this afternoon. What can be done about this? It would seem so personally ingrained that a message board would never make a dent. Nevertheless, it is most unfortunate for the progressive movement to have to carry such dead weight.

[DoNotRefill]

150. that's some mighty fine historical revisionism there...

your teachers must be SO proud...

The fact remains that Clark ordered Jackson to "take" the airport....which was occupied by Soviet troops at the time. And their nukes still worked just fine...

[Sparkly]

154. Wrong.

"Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive."

[DoNotRefill]

157. well, it looks like your "pro-Clark" sources...

can't make up their minds. Which one is lying?

[Sparkly]

158. Facts are facts.

Any source that said Clark ordered an "assault" is wrong.

"Take the airport" as in occupy it before the Russians landed is one thing. "Assault" Russians who were already there is something else, and that's not what happened.

[DoNotRefill]

161. "take the airport" indicates that there will be resistance....

and since the Russians were there (at least according to one Clark supporter's post), that WOULD involve fighting.

The Marines "took Guadalcanal" in WWII. The Brits and Australians tried to "take Gallipoli" during WWI. When the Americans went ashore in Japan after Japan's surrender, they didn't "take" squat, because it had already fallen.

Now you say that Clark wouldn't have ordered Jackson to push the Soviets out of the Pristina airport. So what was Jackson's conflict? Did he think that if British forces were at the airport, the Soviets would have started World War Three over it? Of course not...It would have been the act of pushing the Soviets out of the airport that would have caused athe fight.

[Sparkly]

166. Site what you're referring to, please.

Is it this?

"a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport."

[kevsand]

177. I can "take"

a dump without resistance, actual or implied. I can also "take" a nap, although that is admittedly sometimes a struggle. Your tap dancing ceases to be amusing...

[Sparkly]

147. Man, are there any rightwing lies you *haven't* swallowed?

Cause you're regurgitating them all, one by one, as if they were news here. Rightwingers say the exact same things. The only difference is if you post this uninformed, long-debunked nonsense on their sites, you'll be welcomed.

No, he never ordered "Brits to attack Russian troops." Good grief.

[DoNotRefill]

151. From one of the articles FrenchieCat posted:

"Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you.""

That certainly is an article a Clark supporter posted here, isn't it? And it CERTAINLY does say that Clark wanted Jackson to "assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians." You Clarkies are tripping over your own lies...

[Sparkly]

153. "assault Pristina airport:"

False. Period.

[DoNotRefill]

163. So if that is "False. Period.", why did a Clark Supporter post it????

Do you need the post number or something?

[Sparkly]

169. Because the quotes from Jackson tell a story.

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

The direct quotes in that article show him to be a cognitively lazy Bush-league general. Whoever wrote the article was wrong to say Jackson's hyperbole was a response to an order from Clark to assault Russians who had landed. That part is simply not true.

[DoNotRefill]

179. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

You seem to be saying that Clark is some super-genius military leader, AND that the bickering and infighting in the chain of command under him extended the war. You can't have it both ways.

If the airport was NOT occupied, then how would seizing it threaten to start World War Three? And why did he issue orders that caused a breach between Tony Blair's government and the Clinton Administration? Isn't one of the BASIC rules for military officers to NEVER, EVER issue an order you KNOW will not be obeyed? That's right up there with "Thou Shall Never Screw a Subordinate Brother Officer's Wife".

If Clark is such a gentle, anti-war soul, then why did he spend most of his life in an organization dedicated to organized, mechanized slaughter? An organization which Officer Corps is commonly and correctly seen as being almost exclusively both Right-Wing and Republican? Let me guess..."he's the exception", right?

Clark is obviously trying to be everything to everybody, and you've fallen for it. Your defense of Clark's actions with the war criminal Mladic is pathetic, and reminds me of nothing more than Freepers defending the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam.

[Sparkly]

183. You need to do some reading and get some basic facts.

His plan was to avert the Russian landing, and he was correct.

It's an insult to many, many good people to say people in the military are "in an organization dedicated to organized, mechanized slaughter."

"Officer Corps is commonly and correctly seen as being almost exclusively both Right-Wing and Republican" -- that perception is the problem. It's a problem for our party, and frankly, it's a large part of your problem.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[amazona]

66. mostly moderate to left-of-center, agreed

There are small numbers of more extreme lefties but not all that many.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Rex]

67. I consider DU a breath of fresh air

I refuse to label this site.

[Renew Deal]

72. I think it's a firm left site.

It's not moderate or far left. There are people on all ranges, but the site is left overall.

[Zinfandel]

76. Sadly moderate...Far from progressive posters on the whole.

Most are content with the way things are, while having a few pet peevees...Its fun time on DU, game time, to be cute...and say, look at me, aren't I really informed, all my friends think so...

If they watch TV - all the bubbleheaded network bullshit religiously, that's who they are, (as a rule) moderates at best...and these same people want to argue and pontificate that they indeed know all the facts.

Few do, and I don't claim to be one of them.

[opihimoimoi]

84. Its a place where Reason and Sanity are trying to make themselves known

They had been regulated to the back burners too long and now Delusion of a mild degree has taken root in our society. Too many peeps walking around mildly deluded posing as normal.

We suffer from Babelitis as well. Everyone wants to say something but hardly anyone really listens. Try it with your friends. Say something stupid sometimes to see who listens and who doesn't... you will be mildly surprised. We speak English...but in codes/talking points/buzz words/and different levels of transmission/understanding.

about 2 % to 15% goes through.

[opihimoimoi]

85. Its a place where Reason and Sanity are trying to make themselves known

They had been regulated to the back burners too long and now Delusion of a mild degree has taken root in our society. Too many peeps walking around mildly deluded posing as normal.

We suffer from Babelitis as well. Everyone wants to say something but hardly anyone really listens. Try it with your friends. Say something stupid sometimes to see who listens and who doesn't... you will be mildly surprised. We speak English...but in codes/talking points/buzz words/and different levels of transmission/understanding.

about 2 % to 15% goes through.

[Swamp Rat]

113. We're a "big tent."

I like it that way. :)

[Rowdyboy]

121. Left of center but currently FULL of trolls....

as some posts on this thread clearly show.

[sandnsea]

127. It's smack between center and socialist

For the most part. A little further left than just left of center; but not completely far left socialist either, although there are more pure socialists here than the general population I think. This is the rare place where I'm not the most far left person.

[lala_rawraw]

128. This directional thing never worked for me...

because it attempts to put people into groups based on a single label as opposed to allowing people the room to have their own feelings on various issues. The only thing that could be construed, in my opinion, as "center" is an agreement where two people decide they agree to disagree. Outside of that, there is no directional applicability. It is a misnomer, much like the faux Soccer moms.

As I see things now, there are only two groups and two groups only... they might internally differ on a few things in terms of degree or in terms of policy, but the bigger picture describes them all quite well.

People who believe in the Constitution, Rule of Law, civil liberties, human rights, respect for one another, ethics and responsibility, etc... these people are generally considered on the "left" side. In my opinion, they are simply Americans or better still, they are humanists.

People who believe in greed, in their own ideas as the correct version of reality, in the controlling of others (body, mind, soul), in chattel, in abusive treatment of others, in torture, war, laziness of thought, racism, etc., are generally on the "right" side of the isle. I would just simply call them anti-humanity or Fascists. Now some could argue that Republicans do not really subscribe to these horrid ideals. If that were true, then they would not be subscribing to these horrid ideals.

DU is a humanist arena. Simple.

[Swamp Rat]

173. "DU is a humanist arena."

I like that. :) :hi:

Though, there are a few lizards here and there. :D

[orpupilofnature57]

129. A little left ,a Lotta right.!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[ChrisPhx]

133. All in all left of center

I saw one of the right wingnut sites calling it something like lunatic fringe left Democrat.

A judgment from the right wing lunatic fringe doesn't mean much.

We need to stop reacting to inflammatory rhetoric that I'm not even sure the other side believes and respond strategically instead.

Chris

[rndmprsn]

141. all of the above and thats why i love it... NT

[thecai]

145. Combination

... a wide variety of opinions and beliefs.

[noiretextatique]

155. it's average

as are most of the opinions expressed here by its average members. those who label this site "leftist" are conservatives...or worse.

[Guaranteed]

160. Previously it had been been moderate- too moderate.

Lots of DLC whore types.

But now it's moving pretty far to the left. Just in the past month. TOO far to the left.

[GreenArrow]

162. STAUNCHLY moderate

[libodem]

168. All three

everybody's different. Sometimes I need my own tinfoil hat. I'm far left on most things but I'm not blinded by ideology. I know when I'm being 'kook fringe'. I'm not stupid. I still know we need a moderate type to appeal to a broad-range of voters to get anyone elected. I think our kook fringe is a natural balance to their 'crazies in the basement'. Just seems like their 'crazies' are coming up to the main floor and acting like they are the middle of the road, repugs.

[New Earth]

174. i am pretty damn liberal with the exception of a few issues

i support gun rights, but with SOME control.

i support abortion being legal, but i do think it is personally, in moral, wrong - but that it is up to the woman on what she does with her body, and it's not my business.

i'm still not sure how i feel about the "fiscal" aspect of things.

I find myself somewhere along the lines of a liberal Democratic Green Libertarian. If that makes any sense.

Honestly i think DU is such a mix it is very hard to place a label on it as a whole.

that's what makes this place so great :)

[WI_DEM]

178. I think of it as a progressive site

certainly to the left of many Americans though and to the left of a good many even in the Democratic party.

[enigmatic]

181. On the boards themselves?

The ones who scream the loudest most times are the way-left members, but when you get boards like this the zealots always are the ones who scream the longest and loudest, no matter what side of the political aisle it is.

DU is like the Democratic Party itself; Moderate to Liberal to Anarchist, and everything in between. This BS about DU being a predominately "Conservative Democratic" or "Far Left" site is just that, BS.

[kevsand]

197. I'd like to apologize to you

for the way this thread got hijacked. It never should have happened this way. I won't apologize for challenging atrocious behavior, or for answering obvious slanders, but I do apologize for having to do so in what was otherwise a fascinating and insightful thread. Sorry.

[GetTheRightVote]

198. I believe we have all levels of Dems, Independents on board

Willing to listen to them all.

:kick:

[entanglement]

206. I've found it be quite the 'big-tent' place, with support

for a range of opinions from far-left to moderate. However, there is an almost unanimous opinion that kitties are cute, and contrary views are not welcome ;)

[Zynx]

207. On the US political spectrum, solidly left of center.

On a European political spectrum, fairly centrist.

[Moderator]

211. Locking.

Much of this thread has devolved into a flamefest.