Has the time passed when DU Moderates and DU Leftists can live in peace?

[bryant69]

Bryant

[lpbk2713]

1. I think we need to face the fact that DU is so large now ...

and so often referred to by other blogs and media that we have become 'populated' by a few people who are not what they may appear to be. They are here to agitate and some may even want to influence opinion to a point of view that is not consistent with the majority of other DUers.


(Mods: Notice how I tried to phrase this as delicately as I could without accusing or 'calling out' anyone.)

[bryant69]

3. Why did you phrase it so delicately?

If you have something to say, you should just say it, in my opinion.

Bryant

[lpbk2713]

5. I wasn't in any particular hurry to have it deleted.

[Lerkfish]

13. It appears you're goading someone into a flame

:shrug:

what is the purpose of your poll, to assuage differences or inflame them?

I think this post here gives proof as to your true intent.

[bryant69]

17. Why would I want to assuage differences? What would be hte value in doing that? n/t

[Lerkfish]

35. well, apparently to you, no value at all.

however, it means this post is intentional flamebait and has been alerted as such.

[bryant69]

43. Good job. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Agent Provocateour

it's an old tactic and it works

[bryant69]

14. yep I'm convinced that many of the "leftists" on DU are nothing of the sort

They are trying to push DU into taking crazy positions and attacking our Democratic leaders in Congress so that they make us look ridiculous and render us ineffectual.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Just what are these "crazy positions?"

[bryant69]

24. You know the one's I'm talking about. I don't need to repeat them. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. I think I know what you're talking about, but it's not very flattering to you.

So why don't you just tell me the "crazy positions," so nobody gets their feelings hurt.

[bryant69]

30. OK allow me to clarify - I was being sarcastic

nadinbrzezinski's mention of Agent Provaceteurs was obviously intended not for DU leftists but for DU moderates - when he or she thinks about Agent Provoceteurs, he or she means people like me. You do too, presumably. I was just turning it around.

Bryant

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Actually you are wrong

I am thinking of those who pose as moderates, even progressives, who establish street cred and then start telling us that mainstream positions in america ain't

You hold those mains stream positions

You don't fall in the catetory...

Unless I haven't been paying attention.

But you may want to pay attention to some of the really heated threads on impeachment et al... and some folks who use the one liner and the misdirection argument with marvelous ease and get a street brawl going

Or folks who post attacks on democrats to "defend" democrats, when they show a little backbone. aka the Stark thread this morning

That is what an agent provocateur does.

And the tactic is not just old, but ancient

[Blaze Diem]

44. Is 'Craig-like toe tappin' one of them ?

Larry didn't think it was crazy, until he got caught.

Maybe we could name all the Repuglican crazy positions we've had to hear about this past year.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. While you think left

I am thinking neo liberal

Amazing how that works huh?

After all them damn lefties want extreme positions such as national health care and labor rights and small d democracy, and respect for the US Constitution.

You're right. those ARE extreme views indeed :sarcasm:

:-)

[bryant69]

27. Hmmm.

I want national health care

I want labor rights

I want small d democracy

I want respect for the US constitution.

And I'm pretty damn sure I'm a moderate. So what exactly is the difference between leftists and moderates?

Oh wait. I remember now - I must not really want those things because if I did I would be attacking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the same way the rest of you are.

Bryant

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Then welcome to the club

hate to tell you this but those views are radical

By the way... defend her staffers sending you to a call box instead of taking messages

[EFerrari]

23. You give us too much credit.

And, btw, I voted "No". :)

[Lerkfish]

36. you would consider anti-war a "crazy" positon I suppose

and being against torture "crazy"?
and being against illegal domestic surveillance "crazy"?

so...

you believe the opposite position is sane?

:shrug:

[bryant69]

41. Nope- and what a total bullshit response. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

75. yep I'm convinced that many of the "moderates" on DU are nothing of the sort

They are trying to push DU into supporting the crazy positions our Democratic leaders in Congress have supported so that they make us look ridiculous and render us ineffectual.

[mudesi]

19. LOL

I know of at least 2 people of whom you are referring.

[wtmusic]

2. ?

It's never been peaceful around here. As long as it doesn't get personal, that's a good thing.

[Iris]

81. I think it used to be more peaceful. Or may less personal.

When I first started coming around, I learned a lot about being a part of an online community, including how to back up my opinions with some sort of support. And if I one of my opinions was unfounded, there'd always be someone to plant a question about it, but usually in a thought-provoking, and mostly kind, way. Now, if you say something that seems unfounded...well...it can get ugly.

[TahitiNut]

4. Some people rob banks. Some drive getaway cars.

And some direct traffic to keep the getaway cars from causing an accident.

The latter regard themselves as "good guys." I don't.

:shrug:

[bryant69]

7. Well aren't you noble. n/t

[TahitiNut]

8. Well, when you set the bar so low, how can I help but being so?

:shrug:

[MoonRiver]

6. To me it's about the same that it's always been.

The battles are different of course, but the anger level has stayed pretty constant.

[H2O Man]

9. Naw.

My goodness, I've even had people say things that I think are a bit rude about as recently as today. It's not a big deal. As long as we generally are respectful to one another, I think we do pretty darned well here.

[rudy23]

10. Remember, the DLC fired the shots the day after the '06 election

This wasn't our choice.

[bryant69]

11. Those bastard DLCers - list there names so we can round them up. n/t

[rudy23]

37. You don't remember Carville coming out against Dean, suggesting Harold Ford take his job?

It's still being waged in Florida, and against Moveon, and for the telecom companies, not to mention the war, etc, etc....

[bryant69]

45. But what DU DLCers are there? I mean who are the DU DLCers?

[rudy23]

74. We're talking about two different things--I see you're talking about the board, specifically

I'd still have to say that most of Clinton's supporters, and a good amount of Obama's supporters must support the DLC if they support those two candidates. Or at least, they must not have too much of a problem with them.

[mudesi]

15. Since when have they ever lived in peace?

I refer to the "moderates" as conservative, frankly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Just what does a moderate stand for these days?

The war was a bad idea, but we should keep fighting it any ways?

Homosexuality should be legal, just not gay marriage?

We should be fiscally conservative, just like those political conservatives?

[bryant69]

21. Boy you really have a knack for understanding us moderates

Those are such brilliant statements of the moderate positions, it's amazing you aren't a moderate yourself.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. So then why don't you tell me what moderates stand for these days?

[TahitiNut]

42. I think it depends on which way the wind is blowing.

:evilgrin:

Dead leaves go with the flow.

[Yael]

20. My ignore list has grown exponentially. I am at Peace.

:evilgrin:

[OzarkDem]

26. False dichotomy

DU moderates and DU leftists get along fine on this forum.

The problem seems to be with DU conservatives. Hopefully some day they can find common ground. Its very possible if everyone sticks to discussing core Democratic values.

Here's a link to the Dem Party Platform - a good place to start finding common ground

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php

[NoPasaran]

29. I thought that was 2003

[ulysses]

31. what the hell time was that?

Seems to me we've been this way at least as long as I've been here, personal exceptions notwithstanding.

[cali]

32. well, looky, looky

if there isn't a certain cadre of people angrily denouncing the OP. Particularly amusing in that one of them just posted an attack on centrists that got quite a few recs putting the lie to the claim that those who insist they're the only *real* leftists/progressives/liberals, and are being sadly persecuted here at DU.

Funny as hell. Hypocritical as all get out.

[Bluerthanblue]

33. no- not unless we allow ourselves to be controlled by

the worst in us.


It is up to each one of us as individuals to live PRO-activly. To decide not to simply 're-act' to others, and sometimes lose ourselves in the process- but to live authenticly- acting in the manner we believe is 'right'- and just.

Something i sure would like to become good at- but often fail to do.

peace~

[SyntaxError]

34. I read through this thread and it seems as if the problem is that "moderate" wasn't defined clearly.

Now, it seems as if most here agree with what is commonly considered "left" causes, such as health care for all, getting out of Iraq, Bush is a dick, civil rights, better education and whatnots. Despite this, there is still some sort of disagreement which isn't clear. What am I missing here?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. The moderates are the leftists.

Those other folks are rightwing Democrats.

[JackRiddler]

39. Flame bait - false dichotomy - false labels - bullshit poll. n/t

[Lerkfish]

40. yep.

[bryant69]

46. DU Moderate Defined

i can't add this to the initial post - but the definition of a DU moderate is as follows - a DU Moderate is someone who supports Congressional Democrats. Obviously not complete, but a workable definition.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. So, to be clear:

Supports continued funding of the illegal occupation of Iraq;
Supports unconstitutional spying on citizens;
Does not support holding the current regime accountable for crimes committed.

Those "moderates"?

[bryant69]

50. If that's what supporting Congressional Democrats means to you, than yes

From your perspective. However, I should point out that I don't see it the same as you do.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

55. What the heck?

So it seems your definition means next to nothing. What positions on the three issues I mentioned does your use of the term "moderate" imply?

[bryant69]

59. Ah - I see you didn't understand.

By your definition, supporting Congressional Democrats mens that one
"Supports continued funding of the illegal occupation of Iraq;
Supports unconstitutional spying on citizens;
Does not support holding the current regime accountable for crimes committed."

Those are not moderate positions, obviously. On the other hand deciding that Congressional Democrats are the enemy isn't very moderate either, in my opinion.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Your definition of 'moderate' was 'supports congressional democrats'.

It is no definition at all as it does not, as you yourself have demonstrated, indicate anything at all about where a so called moderate stands on any issue other than the minor issue of some sort of litmus-test loyalty oath concerning the non issue: 'supprts congressional democrats'.

You seem to want to transform the discussion of 'what is a moderate' into "do you now and have you always supported 'congressional democrats'".

What is a moderate? Can one honestly call the Democratic congressional leadership moderate?

Down thread you list a few of your self labelled 'moderate' positions, all of which appear to not be ones held by our congressional leadership, at least not by their deeds, their words may be something else. I submit that you support a leadership that is anything but moderate by your own terms, that is in fact rightwing, and that your support therefore amounts to blind loyalty.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. So then moderates have no stance at all.

I asked upthread what moderates stand for these days. You're saying moderate dems stand for whatever congressional dems tell them to stand for?

[bryant69]

52. As noted above, this was a short hand

To clarify the issue.

I should note - I oppose the war, I'm in favor of repealing the patriot act, I'm in favor of restoring our constitutional liberties, I'm in favor of national health care, I'm favor of civil rights for homosexuals (including marriage), I'm in favor of electoral reform to increase democracy. I can't speak for all Moderate DUers but that's where I stand.

I should note that many people feel that my failure to hate the Congresional Democrats sufficiently means that I don't really have any of the positions above. Because if I did I would hate Congressional Democrats sufficiently.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. So in other words, we have the same positions.

It's all a matter of how vigorously we're willing to fight for those positions.

[bryant69]

56. Yep - some people prefer to fight for those positions in a vigorous but useless way

by attacking Congressional Democrats - wasting energy and venom on our allies. But I suppose I'll forgo speculating why someone would favor wasting time like that.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. I don't know.

Maybe the same reason people waste time defending them.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. Hate? Your definition said "support".

Now it seems that 'not support' means 'hate'?

You oppose the war, and yet our Congressional Democrats have supported an escalation of that war.

You are in favor of repealing the Patriot Act, and yet our Congressional Democrats do not even have that legislation on their radar, let alone the legislative agenda.

You are in favor of national health care - where exactly is the national health care legislation in the House or the Senate? Are our Democratic Congressional leaders bringing such legislation up this session?

You are in favor of civil rights for homosexuals (including marriage), but once again there is no effort to repeal DOMA or to introduce legislation to expand the Civil Rights Act of '64 to include homosexuals. This is off the table.

You are in favor of electoral reform to increase democracy - but there is no legislative initiative from our Congressional Democrats to enact meaningful electoral reform.

Why on earth do you support the rightwing Democratic Congressional leadership when it does not stand for any of the positions that you have listed?

[bryant69]

62. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Why don't you just take it as read that I'm full of shit, and only pretending to support liberal positions so I won't get kicked off of DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Why would I think that?

I believe you hold the positions you stated you hold and are massively confused about what positions the leaders of our party hold, as it has been amply demonstrated since the November elections that they are not, by your own terms, 'moderate' and do not support your positions on the issues you listed.

Why you continue to support these corrupt corporate toadies escapes me.

[bryant69]

72. I'm just saying you are presented with a dichotomy

I claim to support liberal positions, and yet I also support politicians who, in your opinion, fail to fight for those liberal positions, and in fact actively fight against them.

There are a couple of ways to finesse this dichotomy. One is to note that my perception of Congressional Democrats may be different than yours. But that's not very satisfying - as you say, any rational for me feeling that way escapes you.

A simpler solution, and one that is probably very satisfying, is to assume that I don't really hold liberal positions. If I don't actually hold liberal positions, there is no dichotomy - and clearly, if I did hold liberal positions and were looking at our Democratic leaders rationally, I'd be on your side of the fence.

Merely deciding I'm a bit of a bastard or douche as someone down the page suggested relieves you of this dichotomy and allows you to simplify your world view considerably.

bryant

[Spike from MN]

54. Would that be those that support Congressional Democrats in

a Congress with an approval rating of 11%? Why not just call them the Eleven Percenters?

[Warren Stupidity]

85. 6% - the other 5% support the republican near-half. nt.

A better term for Bryant's position is "loyalist".

[mike_c]

58. that's IT?! that's all you're concerned about? blind loyalty is moderation?

:rofl:

Oh my.

[bryant69]

60. Blind loyalty? Who said anything about blind loyalty?

If anything DU has become the home to Blind Disdain - as if we all had a duty to attack Congressional Democrats all the time.

In my case at least (and I suspect in the case of most DU moderates) I'm not blind to the faults and problems caused by our weak ass representatives. On the other hand I support them against the bullshit attacks progated here.

[mike_c]

66. "...not blind to the faults and problems..." but you support them anyway...?

How is that in any way "democratic?" It seems just the opposite, the utter failure of democracy. The only real check against corruption, ineptitude, etc among the full time political class in a democratic society is the committment of the people to refuse their support for those with "faults and problems."

So does that mean that "moderates" are those who don't really participate in democracy?

[ulysses]

73. I knew the DLC was downplaying issues, but I've not seen anyone

just write them entirely out of the equation before. :silly:

[Lerkfish]

80. so, you have no principles or postions, only adopt the positions of whatever dems are in congress at

any given point?

If so, and in 2008, we elected all left leaning dems, would that mean you'd adopt left leaning policies automatically?

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

86. No - he has stated clearly that he doesn't hold those positions.

Bryant is a loyalist and he has confused that with 'moderate'. He is loyal to 'Congressional Democrats' whatever that term means. He supports a broad range of positions that are in direct conflict with the actions taken, or deliberate inaction, by 'Congressional Democrats', but yet he continues to support them.

[IndianaJones]

48. I can tolerate leftists. nt.

[hiphopnation]

51. bullshit

furthermore, let me ask you this: if YOU think the time has passed, how exactly is this helping the cause, presuming you actually do want to help the cause, i.e., bridging gaps as opposed to creating more. Maybe I shouldn't presume so much.

See this most recent thread from Skinner: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2087332

[hiphopnation]

77. glad to see this canard poll

is getting a fair amount of votes for exactly what it is...BS

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Have we ever?

I've been here since '01 and haven't noticed much hugging and kissing between the "Leftists" and "Moderates" at any time.

And, why should there be? Disagreements make good horse races and (sometimes) good discussions.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Lerkfish]

83. interesting response

too bad I missed the the deleted post you responded to.
It would have had to been worse than "Fuck you you fucking fucker", I assume, since its deleted but your f-bomb post remains.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. I would assume that the f-bomb was followed by an alert

and that the moderator was not paying attention.

[slackmaster]

69. Between mindless support of Congressional Dems or mindless support of everything on the left

I choose beer.

:beer:

[Lerkfish]

78. a draft!

[hiphopnation]

79. ...

:rofl:

[joe_sixpack]

90. Here, Here

I too, choose beer. Then we will have nothing to fear. And all will be full of good cheer.

[RiverStone]

76. Why ask why?

Our diversity and independent thinking nature is part of what defines DU! In fact, I really dig the passion and heated debates (minus neanderthal name calling).

At least we don't walk in lock-step like rethugs.

I'm very confident that come fall of 08, we will close ranks to defeat the REAL enemy. DU will be just fine! :pals:

[rucky]

82. "Bullshit" wins again! n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

87. I don't really see "moderate" or "leftist" postiions here as...

much as I see anger and frustration.

There's no political philosophy involved in objecting to Gonzo as AG, screwing up a war, running up the debt or a whole bunch of other things that Shrub&Co have managed to screw up. That's simple management, of which they seem to be incapable.

There's also no philosophy involved in the calls for impeachment and other similar plaints. Is impeachment of a corrupt and inept administration a conservatiove or liberal concept? Would libertarians and socialists really be divided on throwing out a crooked and stupid President?

I'm a socialist by nature, and I've already said I don't believe in more than limited property rights. I'm perfectly willing to let the government handle much of commodity production, like electricity and water, and see it as preferable in many cases. If I had my way, I'd tax estates at 100%. You really can'ty take it with you, so die with it and the state takes it.

That puts me far to the left of even some of the more radical here, but somehow I'm a "moderate" (i.e.-- reactionary closet rightwinger) because I'm also a pragmatist and realize that I'll never see more than a tiny bit of the world I would like to see. I prefer to fight for the small gains I can see happening, even if it seems the big picture is disappearing slowly in the distance.

So, I'm not out out to impeach, oust Pelosi, or jump on many of the other "liberal" bandwagons when I see little chance of anything good coming out of it all. And that makes me an appeaser, corporatist, or just lazy scumbag in the eyes of many.


Well, so it goes.

[The Inquisitive]

88. there can be only one...

...sorry about the cliche... That has to be at least as tired as "run forest, run!"

[mvd]

89. There are a couple kinds of moderates

One kind:

- is more supportive of Democratic leaders
- less ready to buy into conspiracy theories and sky is falling rhetoric
- don't always agree with the tactics of progressives like McKinney and Sheehan

The other kind continually has positions like this:

- the war is wrong, but immediate, total withdrawal is a mistake
- health care improvements, but not single payer
- death penalty is usually not appropriate, but there are cases where the poster supports it (I used to be this way, but am now against)
- keep taxes progressive, but not that high on anyone

I see more of the first here than the second, but I think we can can and will work together once we have a common opponent: the Repuke nominee.

[tammywammy]

92. Good Post

[mvd]

93. Thanks!

:hi:

[JeffR]

91. Course not

the Moderates will come to their senses eventually.:)