Something interesting from the Democratic Underground "About Us" page

[NJmaverick]

<<We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.>>

[NightWatcher]

1. Damn, I can only rec this one time......

you mean this place isnt about blind hero worship all for the D following their name?

[onenote]

4. not about blind hero worship, nor is only for some some types of Democrats

"all stripes" means "all stripes"

[NJmaverick]

9. Agreed it's not about hero worship, it's about helping achieve the Democrat's (our) common goals

[NJmaverick]

23. You know what is really interesting is how many Unreccs a thread posting the published description

of the website has gotten.

[mitchum]

25. Maybe when it is a clumsily disingenuous attempt to counter a thread that was whined down...

into the memory hole?
Perhaps?

[NJmaverick]

26. Disingenuos could best describe your ham handed attempt to defend the action

I think it's more likely that there are a good number of people that don't like what this website is supposed to be about.

[mitchum]

27. There is nothing disingenuous about my sentiment of "fuck the DLC and its tools"

That is quite blatant.

[NJmaverick]

28. Yes it is and it is also quite contrary to what DU is all about

Can you reconcile what this website is all about, with your very incompatible position?

[G_j]

29. there has never been a critical mass here of people who shared goals w/ the DLC.

not in all the time I've been here.

[mitchum]

31. Thank you; you are correct, but the revisionists will ignore that fact

[NJmaverick]

33. I know you are not a keen one to answer questions...

but I have to ask- Look at post 32. I went over to the DLC website and found their goals. Can you tell me where you have differences?

[HughMoran]

49. "revisionists"

Hmmm, who was just accusing "one side" of using pat phrases repeatedly?

hypocrites.

[mitchum]

59. No, I'm using a precisely defined word...

a practice with which you are seemingly unfamiliar

[HughMoran]

61. Yes, attacking me is the answer

Your credibility really goes up in my mind when you use a broad-brush mischaracterization, then attack me for calling you on it.

Well done.

[NJmaverick]

32. I have seen the DLC frequently demonized here. I have to confess while I knew what they were, I

only had a vague idea what their values are. The reason for this is I don't vote for them and I don't give them money so they really weren't all that important to me. However to respond to your post I went over to their website to see what their goals are.

Here is what I found:

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.

We believe that the promise of America is equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none. We believe that economic growth generated in the private sector is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that government's role is to promote growth and to equip Americans with the tools they need to prosper in the New Economy.

We believe that government programs should be grounded in the values most Americans share: work, family, personal responsibility, individual liberty, faith, tolerance, and inclusion.

We believe in community; that we can achieve our individual destinies only if we share a commitment to our national destiny. We believe in an ethic of mutual responsibility in which government has an obligation to create opportunity for citizens, but citizens have an obligation to give something back to the commonwealth.

We believe America has a responsibility to lead the world toward greater political and economic freedom.

We believe that as advocates of activist government, we need to reinvent government so that it is both more responsive and more accountable to those it serves and to the taxpayers who pay for it.

I am having a hard time seeing where these goals conflict with the vast majority of DUers.

[mitchum]

35. But there is quite a difference between DLC homilies and DLC policies

What you pasted from their site are nothing more than sweet sounding words

[HughMoran]

50. name another Democratic group whose policies match their rhetoric 1 for 1

I don't consider positions to be policies - I'd like to know of a single "policy" from an alternative "group" that you support. "A policy is typically described as a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). However, the term may also be used to denote what is actually done, even though it is unplanned."

[corpseratemedia]

54. +1

there's actions, and then there's words

actions: nafta, repeal of Glass-Steagal, welfare "reform," student loan "reform." bankruptcy "reform" that dlcers supported (thanks, biden), etc..things that are mentioned here a zillion times - things that have ruined our country.

both parties have moved to the right, and to the extreme racist right...since we'll never have a parlimentary system, many of us want the democratic party to start representing us again, instead of only multi-national corporations against the vital interests of most us citizens

[intheflow]

86. Nicely put. n/t

[Enthusiast]

173. I'm with you! nt

[pleah]

206. .....

:thumbsup:

[twitomy]

270. "Sweet sounding words versus policies..."

Hmmmm...now of WHO does that description remind me? :think:

[G_j]

38. it has appeared that one their real goals has been to defeat progressives and put in centrists

that goal is not traditionally been shared by majority here, IMO.

[NJmaverick]

42. Didn't the DLC help Hillary Clinton (who appears to be popular here)?

[defendandprotect]

131. Hillary Clinton is part of DLC LEADERSHIP . . . !!!

[NJmaverick]

254. Yet she is a hero to many that demonize the DLC

which is a very odd contradiction.

[tonysam]

48. The problem is the DLC was made up largely of southern Democrats

and much of what it espouses is neoliberalism, which has been discredited over and over again. Business is more important than labor, privatization of public services is also advocated, e.g., public education.

The DLC is basically a think tank, but the ideas of its members have been counterproductive to the Democratic Party. It had a purpose after the losses of Mondale and Dukakis and tried to get the Democratic Party to be more "business friendly" and not be a regional party as the Democratic Party was in danger of being one, but again, its neoliberal philosophy has been completely discredited.

This think tank needs to take a critical look at many of the ideas it espouses, especially regarding privatization or pseudo-privatization.

[NJmaverick]

63. So are you suggesting they served the purpose of saving the party

but now that things are going better we should discard them?

[laughingliberal]

104. To fall back on a really threadbare cliche...Devil is in the details

There's no arguing with the broad principles stated here but the ideas at to how we get there vary widely.

[defendandprotect]

130. You got the Hallmark Card version of DLC . . .

Look at it's history, how it has co-opted the Democratic Party --

which is what it is intended to do.

Search further on their website --

Others have also found DLC connections to PNAC --

[NJmaverick]

255. I did search further and I didn't see anything that contradicts the principles of the Democrats

[sabrina 1]

275. How about co-signing PNAC letter

urging Bush to start the Iraq War?

Or their opposition to Universal Health Care system?

How about their support of 'some of George Bush's policies' and one of their goals being to shift the Democratic Party away from its traditional left policies, such as helping the poor? How about their belief that that Public School System should have 'more competition' in the way of Charter Schools and their full support of the vile Bush 'Educational' program 'NCLB'?

Or maybe you weren't talking about traditional Democratic values, but about the current DLC influenced 'Democrats' who vote with Republicans more than they vote with Democrats?

[laughingliberal]

277. I reread the Democratic Party Platform 2008 yesterday and a whole lot of the policies being pursued

by the DLC crowd are in direct opposition. It would seem there would need to be some agreement with the party platform to run on the party ticket.

[maryf]

238. "We believe America has a responsibility to lead the world

toward greater political and economic freedom" I have an especial problem with this one...not crazy about the second one either...better stop reading...

[sabrina 1]

274. That all sounds very nice, but it doesn't even begin to explain

who they are and what they are really all about. To begin with, they probably despise what they perceive to be the 'left' far more than they oppose the 'right'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation <3> that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hails President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story.

.......

The DLC's current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Bruce Reed.

Harold Ford! Need we say more? Not that we can't, as there is more, much more reason to not trust this 'organization'. What exactly do they mean by shifting away from the 'leftward turn' the Party had taken during the 60s and 70s and 80s? Did they not like Civil Rights? Or was it social programs they didn't like? Or was it that they LIKDED Reagan's policies so much? I think it was the latter.

Their positions on the issues might help understand why they are despised, both by the 'left' and the right who they so desperately want the approval of:

The DLC states that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions." <4>

The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 <5>, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit <6>, and the creation of AmeriCorps <7>. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

The DLC has both supported and criticized the policies of President George W. Bush

And on the criminal and illegal Iraq War:

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" <9>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe.

There's more, a lot more. But you asked and that should answer your question to some extent.

I agree with Howard Dean's assessment of them: The DLC is the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party

They have split the Democratic Party and made it impossible to get programs in place that every other developed nation view as a right, such as Universal Healthcare.

As long as they exist and are viewed as Democrats, which they are not, no Democratic agenda will ever succeed. The Republicans couldn't have better allies to ensure the failure of democratic policies if they tried.

War supporters who aligned themselves with the PNAC crowd? Need anything more be said about them? Seriously!

[defendandprotect]

128. DLC is corporate wing of Democratic Party/dedicated to moving party to the right ..!!!

Is that what we're supposed to be in favor of?

More corporate control of the party and an agenda moved to the right?

Is that what you favor??

[bjobotts]

170. You got it. We have a unrec troll that unrecs everything at noc so I wait and re-rec right on down t

the line

[Th1onein]

34. What thread are you talking about, Mitchum?

Enlighten the rest of us.

[mitchum]

36. Taverner's thread about the presence of DLC trolls

[HughMoran]

51. So you support disingenuous and outlandish flame-bait threads

Is that what you're all about? Trouble-making?

[mitchum]

55. It may have been flamebait, but it was certainly not disigenuous...

it was quite straightforward.
Why do you guys persist in misusing the word?

[HughMoran]

60. Because as is discussed above, almost nobody knows what the 'DLC' stands for

Using it as a broad-brush insult without any concept of what their policy positions are (never mind that I've yet to see a single DUer claim to be a DLC supporter) is DISINGENUOUS.

[defendandprotect]

132. Their policies are stated clearly within their website . . . and it is a corporate friendly

move to the right -- the overall purpose of which is to co-opt the Democratic Party

and its traditional values.

It isn't sufficient for the right wing/corporates/elites to rely simply on taking over

the Repug Party. That won't work if there is honest opposition to them by a second party.

Point is we haven't had any real opposition to the GOP by Democrats in decades!!

Here and there we get a brief glimpse of it -- around election times -- and poof! ... it's gone.



PS: And hopefully someone will show up with the real facts on the DLC --

Sorry, right now, I can't get involved in a search like that --

[Lorien]

169. There are many "former Republicans" among the founders of the DLC

It was an effort to destroy Liberalism from within, and it's worked. Down here in Florida there are powerful business groups which groom future politicians to represent their pro-corporate, anti-union, anti-environmental, anti-regulation agenda. When asked whether they prefer to run Democrats or Republicans for office they say "It really doesn't matter. They run as Democrats if the district leans Democrat, as Republicans if the district leans Republican.We've had an amazing amount of success with the program so far..."

[defendandprotect]

240. What you're saying needs to be said louder and more frequently . . .

especially on this thread which looks like a spot of brainwashing to me to

shut down criticism of "deform" Democrats and the DLC ....

Sad, but informative post -- thank you!!!

:)


PS: I didn't actually know that there were "former Republicans" involved in the founding

of the DLC!!!

I knew Gore and Clinton were involved as founding members --

I caught up with DLC rather late --

I have been reading recently, however, that CIA was funding right wing members of Congress --

their campaigns, etal. CIA was taking money from any right wing source -- including the KKK!! --

to finance their various efforts.

Two of the members I'm aware of were Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Jerry Ford --

They also financed Pat Buchanan --

Evidently there are longer lists but I'm not aware of other names.

:)

I've also read that there were times when the Federal Education budget was 50%

money for the CIA!

We hardly know what we're dealing with -- !!

[Stinky The Clown]

40. I bet the unrecs went more to assumptions about your motives in posting than to the words themselves

Just sayin' .......

[NJmaverick]

43. Yeah, there does seem to be plenty of DUers that fancy themselves

as modern day Lamont Cranstons.

Still I as other posts indicate, there are many that don't like the idea that this is the DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[Djinn]

150. n/t

[Duende azul]

121. Oh, with this you invoke the unrecs of those who unrec just for whining about unrecs.

They are out there: Yes, Sir.

Since I don't get what the purpose of this post is, I'll go and look for the thread that gave birth to it.
On second thought, I won't go there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGpVcdqeS0

[elocs]

141. Why would you even keep track of UnRecs? The OP is on the Front Page now with plenty of Recs.

I don't understand this DU obsession with how many Recs or UnRecs a thread receives.

[Maraya1969]

171. I think there are many here who hope we don't achieve our goals. And one of the

ways they do that is to use the very Rushannity gang talking points. Put down everything the president says. Make it seem like we are going down the toilet with no hope of coming back. Feed the people the exact opposite talking points that this president ran on - in other words give them no reason to hope.

Tell everyone that the only reason Obama was elected president was because "they" (the all-governing GOP) let him win

Emasculate, humiliate and embarrass us.

That is how you knock down your adversaries and I see people doing it to Democrats on this board under the label of "critical thinking".

The must be a definite distinction between critical thinking and being progressive and critical thinking and trying to bring down the progressives.

[NJmaverick]

202. I fear you may be right

[treestar]

2. Right, so how can one be a troll even if a DLCer

Whatever that is.

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

21. I think a troll can fall under any category here.

For me, trolls are mostly people that consistently go out of their way to start arguments, post flamebait, hit and runs, etc. It doesn't have to be tied to any particular ideology. It could be a DLCer, A DK fan, a Clinton fan, etc.

[Enthusiast]

174. There, fixed that for you.

"It could be a DLCer, A DK fan, an Obama cheerleader, a Clinton fan, etc."

[NJmaverick]

267. It's the word in front of troll, that assigns motive

there are trolls that disrupt for the sake of disrupting. Others disrupt for a political cause (like a freeper troll on DU). I think the poster is asking what would be the motive for a Democrat (who is welcomed) to disrupt a board for political gain.

[gleaner]

83. When I have participated in other ....

forums the word "troll" was used not to describe a particular political stripe, it was used to describe a person who went out of his/her way to disrupt, to cause trouble for other posters and to generally make the forum an unpleasant enough place to be so that the posters could not function.

In short, a troll was someone who attempted to shut down the forum to a greater or lesser degree. In order to keep our forums open to everyone we basically ignored the trolls and kept posting as usual. It would be nice to say that they went away, but they don't. Forums always have trolls, no matter what kind of forum it is. Some people are perverse. They like to disrupt and cause trouble.

It's kind of like having ringworm that types.

[NJmaverick]

266. It's the word in front of troll, that assigns motive

there are trolls that disrupt for the sake of disrupting. Others disrupt for a political cause (like a freeper troll on DU). I think the poster is asking what would be the motive for a Democrat (who is welcomed) to disrupt a board for political gain.

[gleaner]

273. Thanks Got It N/T

[azmouse]

3. But, but.... surely that doesn't include:

DLCers and Unrec Bots going around trying to malign the left, Dennis Kucinich and any DUer who disagrees with Rahm....!!!!!

[Politicub]

5. What?!?!11 There's no purity test when you sign up?!1?!1

Sometimes I get aggravated at the more conservative views that are expressed here, but at the end of the day I'm glad this is a place that's open to different viewpoints.

And I like that about the Democratic party. You're not expected nor required to be lockstep like the republicans. For things like Universal Health Care, I admit that I do wish there were some lock-steppin', though. :)

[tosh]

6. +1. But what about....

spots??

[NJmaverick]

22. What the heck is that animal? It has a very tiny head for such a large body

[NYC_SKP]

30. Hi NJmaverick. That creature is called...

...a Serval.

They look like a cheetah, but they do have tiny heads, don't they.

http://www.serval-cats.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serval

Keep up the good work.

[CTyankee]

24. I think our diversity is our strength....and our downfall...

I know that's contradictory and that's why it is so confounding! Sometimes I marvel in the diversity of thought here and the rich lode of political insight. Then, when our presidents or legislators fail, we are floundering around helplessly.

Just wish there was a better way, but perhaps we need to learn to live with it...

[NJmaverick]

57. Unfortunately I think you make a very valid point

[CTyankee]

65. What do you feel is the solution? nt

[NJmaverick]

66. I am not sure there is one

perhaps agree on a few ground rules (like keep the GOP out of power) and then just try and get along as best we can.

[CTyankee]

78. It just looks like we can't get it together coherently...

right now I feelthat the Dem party people I mostlyknow, who are really liberal andprogressive here in New Haven, don't get along with some folks on DU who are a bit more "conservative" in their beliefs. Not right wing, no way, but just a bit...

I have no use for these conservadems, none whatsoever. I think they should become repubs or at least indies. Fine, goodby and good riddance.

But I worry that we cannot get along among OURSELVES...that is what bothers me so much...

[Politicub]

67. I know what you mean - it is a contradiction

But I don't think there's any way a group as large as a political party will have common views and goals about everything. But I wish we could rally together to do good for a majority of the people.

What's really sad is when the legislators in our party coalesce to (frequently) promote corporate interests rather than pursing legislation to make our society more fair and just.

[CTyankee]

190. I came to DU in the fall of 04, a couple of months before the election.

In the aftermath of that disastrous election, I found DU to be a solace to me (along with blessed St. Stephanie Miller whose radio show gave me strength!). There was not a lot of dissension, with the exception of a group who seemed bent on blaming John Kerry for everything that went wrong in that election. There were a LOT of BBV conspiracy minded folks so there was much discussion on this board dealing with that. But we held together as Democrats and that was so important to me. It didn't start coming apart til the primaries really got underway, then we healed those wounds and pulled together for our candidate to win. Now there is disappointment and bitterness all over this board and I feel like we need a DU for DU, a place to have that solace again for the dreams of some here that were utterly destroyed (or at least they believe were destroyed). It's a bad feeling...

[NJmaverick]

257. I have spent a lot of time on the internet debate/fighting with right wingers and republicans

I found DU to be a great resource. There was brilliant insights that made me consider this place a think tank. The LBN was a great source for all the news the right wing controlled media couldn't be bothered to support. Plus there was a comfort into coming here where I wouldn't see the Dems being bashed or right wing talking points pushed. That place sadly is no more. I see as much if not more venom and vitriol directed at the Dems as I do dealing with the right wingers/republicans. This place is no longer a source of comfort or intellectual ammunition.

[CTyankee]

276. What happened to those think tank thinkers? Did they just leave?

What happens to the ones who reason out stuff and don't pop off in epithets and insults? Have they all gone away from DU?

And who is it who has taken their place? Or are they the former thinkers who have turned venomous?

Any thoughts?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

8. The people working to help the Democrats are not "cheerleaders" they are DU

although your wish to shut people up is duly noted.

[arcadian]

10. Aren't Republicans "shut up" in that same regard?

They are banned. Republicans and pro-war Democrats are the same thing in my book.

[NJmaverick]

12. Democrats that support the actions in Afghanistan are still Democrats and still more than welcome

I also have to say your idea that Democrats should be shut up and be banned is pretty disturbing.

[arcadian]

15. Spare me the drama and crocodile tears.

"I read somebody's opinion on the internet that was shocking! Just shocking!!!" :rofl: <-@U

[NJmaverick]

16. You can mock, but it will not hide the fact that you are wrong

[arcadian]

19. You need a hanky?

I can get you one. Ebay it to ya. Paypal?

[Jane Austin]

13. Being as simplistic thinkers as the tea-partiers are

isn't going to get us anywhere.

Some things are more complicated.

[arcadian]

18. Is war right or wrong?

I say it's wrong.

[defendandprotect]

133. Especially this variety: Based on lies -- illegal and immoral -- wars of aggression -- !!

[Enthusiast]

175. Especially this war

, it won't achieve anything except further enriching the MIC.

[defendandprotect]

239. Maybe we should be calling it our privatized-corporate-military . . .????

[Enthusiast]

244. Very close.

Bring back the draft!

[Jane Austin]

258. Q.E.D.

Thanks for the illustration.

[proud patriot]

11. When I first came to DU I was a member of the Green Party

I registered Dem when Howard Dean ran for President .
He gave me hope that progressive change within the party
could happen and I could affect it .

[NJmaverick]

14. It's always been my observation that change is mostly done from within rather than from outside

When you are on the outside looking in, there is little of a constructive nature that can be done. When you are inside you have the ability to influence direction.

In other words you don't get a say in steering the ship if you jump overboard.

[proud patriot]

17. indeed

[arcadian]

20. Who cares? If the ship is sunk?

[FailingParachute]

37. Well, under the current administration it's a "kinder, gentler" sinking

That is very important to some.

[Th1onein]

39. When the only ship left is the Republican ship, you'll care, believe me.

We'd live in the Handmaid's world.

[FailingParachute]

41. Vietnam? Civil rights marches? Ongoing gay rights struggles?

Of course, all undertaken by the "inside" people. :sarcasm:

Let us compare these with the efforts on Afghanistan, Wall Street, and health care.

To quote Aretha - "who's zoomin' who?"

[Goldstein1984]

107. Couldn't agree more

I stepped outside the Democratic Party and became in Independent ten years ago. I haven't regretted it once.

As an Independent, my principles play a more important role than party loyalty. Bill Clinton pushed me over the edge with his support for neoliberalism. Repeal of Glass-Steagall was the last straw. When Al Gore ran for president in 2000 (and was supported by the majority of voters), I was hoping for a rejection of neoliberalism. We'll never know.

As far as DU goes, I read the rules as rejecting affiliation with the Democratic Party to provide a forum for all people with democratic ideals. I've only been here a short time, but I'd rather see a diversity of ideas to challenge us all. It would be nice, though, if the diversity showed itself more constructively.

Just a thought from a "noob."

[HughMoran]

52. Well said

:toast:

[Djinn]

151. history would disagree

You think FDR's New Deal was influenced by those within the tent or the growing numbers of people abandoning the tent and joining unions and the Socialist party? If you're already in the tent you are discounted as someone who'll always be in the tent, political parties attempt to court those OUTSIDE.

[defendandprotect]

134. True .. . Dean drew many in and then they knocked him out . . .

with little or no protest by Democrat leadership -- in fact,

they may have even helped!!???

[Enthusiast]

176. I pray we can regain that hope

for you and the rest of us. Our hope is being severely tested.

[kentuck]

44. What are our "shared goals" ?

And are your goals more "Democratic" than my goals??

[NJmaverick]

45. I'm thinking since all Democrats are welcome and this website was formed in the dark Bush years

One goal would be to keep the Republicans out of power.

I would imagine another would be to keep the Democrats in power.

[kentuck]

46. That's what I thought you meant

Thanks for your honesty.

[NJmaverick]

47. I am some what confused by your "thanks for you honesty"

Are you suggesting that these are not the goals that are described in the "about us" section? Are you saying I would have a reason to lie about those goals? If so why? I am pretty baffled. The two goals I suggested seem to me to be the ones that are the most solid. So how was your question a challenge to one's integrity?

Oh and one other thing, I answered as to what the About us meant, not what I meant. This post is Skinner's words, not mine. (which adds another mystery in why you referred to the question as "what I meant"

[kentuck]

53. Honestly...

I think it is a very petty "shared value" just to put Democrats in power and to keep Republicans out of power. There has to be more involved than just the "power". We not only have to stand for certain principles but we must be willing to fight for those principles, even if we lose. That is where we differ, I suppose?

[NJmaverick]

56. When I was young one of the first classes I took in college was an engineering design class

part of what they taught was how to evaluate solutions to problems. The key concept in this process was critical issues and preferred issues. Any solution could not violate the critical issues. The preferred issues, on the other hand, were the criteria used to decide what was the best solution.

For example say the problem was how to get to my job 5 miles away.

The critical issues may be:

It can't be illegal

It can't do me any harm

The solution can't exceed the $2000 dollars I have

The preferred issues could be:

It should be a cheap as possible

It should be quick

It should be reliable


Now if my proposed solution was a giant catapult it would be a non-starter because of the harm it could do to me

However a bicycle or used car could be solutions in the running.


Now to get back to the issue at hand.

We have various issues (problems if you would) that we would like to have solved or dealt with

To me one of the critical issues would be:

The solution can not enable the Republicans to return to power

So any idea that violates that critical issue, is a non-starter in my book and would certainly be working against the agreed upon goals.

[kentuck]

62. Using your criteria...

How do we solve the problems with wars that have been going on for almost a decade and draining our Treasury and breaking our Army?

How do solve the problems of 10%+ unemployment?

How do we solve the problems with the big banks?

How do we solve the healthcare problem?

How do we solve the criminal activities of the last Administration?

How do solve the lobbying and special interests that have control of our Congress?

How do we get more revenue into our Treasury?

Perhaps my solutions are different than yours? Should we compromise? Or should we just do it your way? Or the politicians way? What would you suggest?

[NJmaverick]

68. What I am talking about is not about solutions rather how you consider solutions

for most of the problems I would think we could start with:

Critical Issues:

The solution should not return the GOP to power- Now this is a complex issue. After all who among us wouldn't sacrifice the entire party to solve all these issues? While most would say go for it, history has shown us almost all the problems were caused by the GOP. So letting them back would likely negate the solutions as well as create even more problems.

The solutions should not put not needlessly hurt any portion of the population.

The solution should be legal and with in the framework of the Constitution.

The preferred criteria to solve the problem might include things such as:

It should be able to work quickly

It should result in lasting solutions

It should be have a good chance for success

It should help as many as possible

It should be as fair as possible

[defendandprotect]

142. Should not hurt "any portion of the population" . .. you mean like Goldman Sachs????

Glad to see you stressing "legal" and within "framework of Constitution" --

Iraq is certainly an "illegal" war as made clear by UN -- and Bush's lies.

Afghanistan is a ridiculous war of aggression supposedly to take revenge for 19 hijackers

who were a majority SAUDI -- while the families of the 9/11 victims cried out:

"Do not use our sorrow as an excuse for war" --

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- set up and ready to go -- would work quickly --

Why pretend we're reinventing the wheel . . . we're just very late to the play -- !!!


Meanwhile we have an actual unemployment rate of 16% or more --

We need to re-regulate capitalism -- and tax the hell out of Wall Street --

Renew the New Deal restrictions on financial services -- etal

Seems to me it is TREASON to bankrupt our Treasury . . . how would you describe it?


We have just rid ourselves of a criminal administration -- were you supporting impeachment?

Investigations? A true attempt to STOP wiretapping -- even FISA as it originally stood was

violence against Constitution !!

Are you ready to ban any participation whatsoever by corporations in our elections?

"Politics" is indeed the shadow cast over a people's government by corporations/elites .. . !!

[FailingParachute]

64. No, it seems the only critical issue to you is enabling Republicans

By using that single criteria you are effectively (for you) able to justify any and all shortcomings, distortions, lies, etc. that lay within your narrow self-professed "critical issue" region. You have dismissed the aforementioned negatives, thus making your "solution" hopelessly narrow and massively deficient in the critical thought component you trumpet.

I'll bet you didn't do too well in that class. :)

[NJmaverick]

Look at post 68 if you would like a deeper understanding

oh and I got an A so you might want to reexamine what you believe.


:hi:

[FailingParachute]

74. I did, still nothing there save for a grade school level attempt

to defend PhD level crooks and liars.

I bet your school graded on the curve. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

76. I have a feeling you wouldn't have made the cut at Cooper Union

it's a pretty tough school to get into.:hi:

Oh and by the way, is there a reasoned point of yours that I missed? I mean it was cute and all...

[FailingParachute]

88. Judging by your attempts at logic I would have gotten a full ride there

Maybe even a free car.

Of course there is a reasoned point - it just takes a person capable of reason to understand it, which most probably explains your inability to grasp it.

Simply put - two parties, very much the same, fighting mightily to keep opinions contrary to theirs out of the discussion, lying through their respective teeth whenever it suits them, and amazingly enough still able to get diehards to believe that the things they see are not really the things they see.

You do get points for toeing the company line however - blurry and fuzzy though it is.

[NJmaverick]

89. LOL! Keep up that sense of humor of yours. It may be your biggest strength

because clearly it's not logic or reason.:)

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

111. Since you don't seem to support the Democrats, why did you join?

I mean it is the DEMOCRATIC Underground and it's not like you have been a member so long that the nation's situation has significantly changed.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

147. The Democratic Party has been hijacked to the right . ...

that has been done thru corporate influence on the party leadership --

by BUYING candidates -- who are PRE-OWNED and PRE-BRIBED --

Have you no awareness of corporate money and influence on our elections???

Or of corporate lobbying on Democrats?

Did you miss the fact that Speaker Pelosi helped make way for the Stupak Amendment

last week AFTER she attended a meeting with the Catholic Bishops and got a call from "Rome"--!!!

Was it not sufficient to keep taxpayer money rolling into their pockets for their "faith-based"

religious organizations?

We need money for our huge debt -- China had it to lend --

China now is manufacturing all of the products sold in US -- coincidence?

[Djinn]

152. check that about us page again

the bit about OTHER Progressives, I've never been a Democrat and wouldn't be even if I could. Have never hidden that fact and the admins have seemed OK with it for several years now.

[Enthusiast]

179. I've heard this all before.

Why should we support chameleon Democrats that represent banking and insurance interests? How are these Democrats different than Republicans other than they wear the other uniform? This isn't college football.

[Enthusiast]

178. Damn! Nice post, Chute! nt

[defendandprotect]

146. Those so worried that some slight "risk" in moving the party to the left ...

would elect some Repugs, why not work for IRV voting?

They we can ensure that ONLY those we actually vote for get into office --

Do you see the Democrats working for that at all?

No -- because they fear the competition and fear giving Democrats somewhere to go --

with NO risk!!

We have to do what Rahm Emmanuel is doing -- only reverse it --

instead of bringingnew Blue Dogs into the fold, we should be support, breeding and

adopting new liberals/progressives and financing them!!

[Enthusiast]

180. +1, defendandprotect! nt

[defendandprotect]

137. As William Greider and Michael Moore have ably pointed out . . .

We can root out the more conservative elected Dems who are blocking progress --

and assist more liberal/progressive Dems to run --

In other words, doing just the opposite of what Rahm Emmanuel and DLC are doing in

hatching more little "Blue Dog" puppies to run against liberal/progressive Democrats!

[defendandprotect]

139. There's another old very valid saying ... doing the same thing over and over again ... and

expecting different results is a sure sign of insanity --!!!

That's what many Democrats are now coming to understand --

[defendandprotect]

135. It's been obvious for decades that it is ONE party with two wings . . .

[Enthusiast]

177. Another goal should be

to keep corporatist Democrats out of power. Sometimes these are difficult to recognize but I'm getting better at it.

[Oak2004]

260. The problem with that is that it is overly simplistic

and fails to recognize that we're in the midst of a major political upheaval.

The Republican Party is simultaneously on its death bed, and is a very dangerous beast. How can that be? They still have potentially one last hurrah as a governing body, not because they have anything like majority support (they don't), but because angry, uninformed, voters may seek to punish the Democrats by voting GOP out of spite. As an angry but informed voter, I fear what kind of damage the extremists of the GOP can do with their one last hurrah.

If the GOP was opposing a healthy opposition party, it wouldn't have an "h", let alone a "urrah", left to it. The Republican Party is still dangerous because of the dirty little secret almost no one is voicing: the Democratic Party is also on life support. While the Republicans are on life support because they've become extremist and fringe, standing for one clear and definite, but nightmarish, agenda, the Democratic Party is on life support because it aspires to stand for nothing. The GOP is going out Federalist style, while the Democrats are doing it the Whig way.

Of course under the hood the Democrats firm(-ish) stand in favor of nothing (more or less) is more complex. The Democratic Party is a party of often opposed factions, and those factions most certainly stand for something. Here the division is usually described as progressives versus DLC, though if you want to get even more fine grained, it gets more complex still. Nonetheless the "progressives vs. DLC" model is a useful one, because our electoral system winnows all politics down to either-or choices irrespective of any fine grained complexity.

My opinion, one I've held for a while, is that the only thing holding the Democratic Party together as a party is the Republican Party. When the Republican Party ceases to be a threat, the Democratic Party as we know it today will also die, by splitting itself into "progressive" and "DLC" wings. The tumult on this message board is not "infighting" -- it's the precursor of future party vs. party strife.

I think we can agree that it's better for the country that the Republican Party just get it over with and die and be buried. Beyond that, I don't expect a whole lot of agreement -- not even over how to best put the GOP out of its misery.

[corpseratemedia]

58. I do think there are many democrats including the progressive caucus

who are trying to steer this party into less laissez-faire, country-imploding policies. One thing I notice is that Sanders, who never got any airtime years ago ( I think the media thought he was a singular socialist freak and anomaly) is now being interviewed on a regular basis by the msm. Even though he's not a Democrat IMO I think that signifies that there is a much greater popular sentiment to pull away from neo-liberal policies because of the damage they've done to our country.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

70. It appears you either didn't read the OP or if you did you failed to comprehend what was written

unfortunately those facts didn't mitigate your nastiness and personal attacks (which appear to have become your hallmarks)

[Raineyb]

71. Unlike you, there is no flaw in my reading comprehension skills. Nor

am I incapable of sensing irony. If you find it personal to be told you're full of shit perhaps you should stop spewing it. You get exactly the amount of respect you warrant, which admittedly isn't a whole hell of a lot.

[NJmaverick]

73. and yet the evidence is glaringly in contrast to your claims

oh and by the way, how much respect do you think your behavior warrants?

[Raineyb]

163. I could care less what you think of me. Bullies and hypocrites are not people

from whom I waste time trying to garner respect.

[NJmaverick]

200. ahh do as I say not as I do. Got it Karl

[Raineyb]

259. To my knowledge I haven't put up OP after OP after OP

pretending to want a reasonable discussion when my sole purpose was to slam people who don't agree with me. When I slam people, and I make no bones about the fact that I do do so, I'm straight up with my shit. I find it's easier that way.

Your disingenuous OP and your consistently bullying replies shows everyone exactly what your true mission is. And your failure to comprehend what you read doesn't change that one whit.

You're not interested in a "big tent" you're only interested in people who put the party first and you have the nerve to pretend that you're interested in all views? No you've made your preferences quite clear a long time ago. The only person you're fooling is your damn self. And well, lets face it that's not too hard a job but I daresay you'll find it a lot more difficult fooling others.

[rudy23]

94. It's very Rovian/Rahmian---accuse the other side of doing exactly what they're doing.

Don't worry, people can see what's going on. The DLC starts flame threads, then starts threads about those who complain about it. It's bullying 101.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[girl gone mad]

72. Well, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Just saying.

[NJmaverick]

75. are you two sisters or something? I mean you could be cyber twins

the same detachment from reality. The same nastiness and personal attacks. The same arrogance that the lead you to believe you are above the rules. The same inability to proper understand others.....


oh- just saying

[girl gone mad]

77. Huh?

I don't generally engage in personal attacks, etc.

I'm just thinking back to all of the nasty stuff you've said about Paul Krugman over the months. Very vitriolic, and almost like you were his stalker. Yet you expect others to be courteous and respectful toward your point of view.

It's a glaring double standard, is all I'm saying.

[NJmaverick]

79. Is Paul Krugman a member here? You need to differentiate between criticism of public figures

and personal attacks on fellow DUers. When you consider that, you will understand it's not a double standard, but rather different standards for different situations. Oh and also Krugman is not an elected Democratic official and his actions have been mixed in terms of supporting the party, so it is pretty safe to be critical of him without enabling a return of the GOP to power.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Uh...Holders of public office are also public figures and not members of DU.

Are you saying that public officials should be shielded from criticism? Or, only Democratic public officials? Also, many elected Democrats have indulge in "actions" that can, at best, be described as "mixed" in supporting the party.

"Freedom for the supporters of the government only, for the members of one party only - no matter how big its membership may be - is no freedom at all. Freedom is always for the man who thinks differently." Rosa Luxemburg

[NJmaverick]

91. You need to differentiate between constructive criticism (which is certainly welcome)

and destructive criticism (which serves to help the GOP and is far less welcome).

Which elected Democrats have been mixed in terms of supporting the party?


Oh and we are talking criticism and not freedom. Freedom would be an inappropriate framing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. Their job isn't to "support the party". It is to serve the people.

But, by your rubric, if they vote against the parties stated policies, i.e. health care reform, then they aren't supporting the party. See the Blue Dogs for example.

Political parties are but a means to an end. A tool only. Not an end unto themselves. If the party diverges from pursuing the ends desired by the voter then the party risks losing that vote.

I'm a Democrat, but I owe no fealty to "The Party", nor does the party "deserve" my vote. If they want it, they have to earn it.

As a citizen it is my responsibility to criticize those in power when I see fit, not when the party sees fit.

[NJmaverick]

97. "Their job isn't to "support the party". It is to serve the people."

Wasn't that the campaign slogan of Liberman?

Oh but to address your comment, liberals make up roughly 20% of the nation. So by your reasoning, no politician should ever listen to us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

100. Beats me. But, do you disagree with it?

Do we elect representatives to serve "The Party" (whichever party) or to serve the people? Unfortunately, for us, too many politicians feel their obligation as public servants is to serve the party. Or, the lobbyists.

You might try checking out George Washington's thoughts about political parties in his Farewell Address. Or, Thomas Jefferson's if you prefer a Democrat.

[NJmaverick]

101. I don't see it as an either or

If I elect a Democrat I expect them to both represent me and help the party he/she is affiliated with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. And, if he/she doesn't represent you when "helping the party"?

What then?

As for me, if my representative fails to represent me on the policies/issues that concern me, I will look elsewhere for representation. As, I believe, most people do when they vote.

Don't you think it would be a tad foolish to vote for someone who is actively working against your interests?

[NJmaverick]

109. Since I am a Democrat, that's usually not much of a problem

Still I can't give you a blanket answer. Most situations are pretty complex and one would have to consider all the pros and cons on a case by case basis.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. Nor is it for me. Most of the time.

I'll forgive some politician(D) voting to name a gully after Ronald the Drool Reagan. But, if he/she decides to back right wing policies, such as escalating a lost war, curtailing abortion rights, or other issues that I'm concerned with in favor of political expediency, I have no problem in seeking representation elsewhere.

So, on the point that there are limits to party loyalty, we kinda/sorta agree.

[NJmaverick]

115. Do you believe that there are going to be times when a poltician is faced with the choice of

committing political suicide (which means they will have no ability to affect future outcomes) or voting for things they don't fully support?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

166. Of course. But, it's still their choice to buckle under or not.

Their choice. They decide whether to play politics-as-usual.

My choice. I can go along with a corrupt system that demands such choices of politicians, or refuse.

[NJmaverick]

231. It's not as simple as buckle or not buckle

the loss of power to those on the right, has be be considered when making these decisions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

268. Most voters don't give a rip about left/right. They vote issues.

"All politics is local." Tip O'Neil

If the ordinary voter is losing/lost his/her job and one party is in power, that party is likely to be blamed for it...usually deservedly. Same goes for wars, education, and all the rest.

Just saying that Democrats "aren't as bad" as Republicans is meaningless to people who are looking for a change in their lives and see both major parties as depriving them of that change.

As for the left, being told to "work within the system" is all very nice...if it actually worked. It hasn't.

[defendandprotect]

155. Nothing is that "complex" except that made to seem so ... like the Patriot Act . . .

an obvious attack on our Constitution behind the cover of fake wars of aggression --

Or wiretapping of US citizens, which btw, began immediately when Bush took office --

6 months before 9/11 --

Same with Patriot Act, obviously written before 9/11 --

So Democrats have never disappointed you --

Whatever they do on Health Care Reform, whatever they might do re Social Security . . .

privatizing it? . . . whatever they might do on keeping wars going for another decade or more --

that's all OK with you as long as Democrats make those decisions?

Giving the Federal Reserve more access to Treasury and taxpayer money, no problem for you?

Trade Agreements . . . ? Don't worry, be happy?

Glass-Steagall?

Global Warming -- ??

Is there any issue on which you wouldn't compromise, even if a Democrat made the decision?

[defendandprotect]

149. Only 20% of the public now identify as Republican . . . what's to fear?

Except fear itself --

While buying our candidates and elected officials!!

[NJmaverick]

198. Those could have been Custard's last words

[QC]

215. Custard? n/t

[NJmaverick]

230. I'm sorry is the spelling error preventing you from understanding my point?

[defendandprotect]

236. The usual thing is when someone ....

makes a silly mistake, is to correct it -- and say "thank you" --

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

241. The polite thing would be to send a PM or at least point out the error politely

then you get the "thank you". Being snarky get's you snark in return.

[defendandprotect]

243. I've never gotten a PM on an error -- as I said . . . "the usual" . ..

And I still don't see you acknowledging your error or correcting it --

[NJmaverick]

247. I'm sorry my use of the word "error" must have been confusing

as for correcting the error, there are time limit's on editing

[defendandprotect]

279. You did refer to "the error" . . .

not to your specific error --

And, when a post can't be edited, it is common to simply reply to your own message

and correct it --

[defendandprotect]

235. Those were FDR's words . . . and surprised you don't know that --

PBS - THE WEST - George Armstrong Custer
Photo and profile of George Armstrong Custer, who led his troops to defeat by Lakota and Cheyenne warriors at the Battle of Little Bighorn. From PBS.
www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/a_c/custer.htm - Cached

In the end, they let Custer kill himself --

And you're offering that as counter-debate?

Let's get back to reality: 20% of the public identifies as Repug --

What is it that you fear?

[ChiciB1]

271. The Man Lieberman (Liberman) Is One Who I Can ACTUALLY CALL A

Flip-Flopper! If there ever was a person who deserves the moniker better... he's the one! Had he become the VP I wonder how things would look now. I think it was when he lost the Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont that he descended down the path toward becoming a Repuke!

I remember a different man before that time, I could be wrong, but there is no doubt in my mind that he's much, much more to the RIGHT of me!

I'm not going to get into this fight because some of the names I see are mostly the ones I see as being much more to the RIGHT of me. I won't presume that what I have to say will change their minds.

Last comment: I've been a Democrat for a very long time and understand that "time" changes things as we progress, HOWEVER this Democratic Party I'm seeing now ISN'T like any Democratic Party I've ever seen! It saddens me greatly, and the fracturing may well bring down much more than "some" politicians!

I'm sitting of the fence myself right now!

[defendandprotect]

280. I think Lieberman was a TROJAN HORSE in the 2000 race . . . but

Gore certainly should have known who Lieberman actually was --
he served with him long enough to know --

IMO, THIS Democratic Party is intended to block a liberal/progressive agenda --

and in the health care DEFORM that seems even clearer!!

[Raineyb]

164. Exactly my point as well. I've seen post after post slamming progressives but then

this OP is put up. The hypocrisy is glaring. Admittedly, I wasn't at all diplomatic when I called it out.

[NJmaverick]

251. I am not critical of progressives. In fact my issue is with actions and not people

while you take the simplistic view that it's all about personalities and go on your self appointed crusades to flame the people you don't like, some here are more interested in actions, facts and reason.

At least you are correct though in your admission that you behave worse than the people you call out. That is a good start.

[Raineyb]

262. That is absolutely not true.

You've already started blaming progressives for any losses that may happen in 2010. You've accused them of helping Republicans, you've accused them of not being Democrats because they do not put the party first.

There has never been ANYTHING about ANY of your posts that remotely resembles facts or reasons. Your disingenuous posts shows that notion to be a whopping LIE.

And as per usual your reading comprehension skills are lacking as I've never made any such admission and saying so makes you a liar.

[LWolf]

80. Yes.

Of course, I'd bold it differently:

<snip>

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

I also don't like to leave out the following:

<snip>

Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

[NJmaverick]

81. You are certainly capable of the bolding it differently, but it does CHANGE the meaning

in significant ways.

[LWolf]

82. Including the second piece also helps understand the meaning. nt

[NJmaverick]

84. You would have to agree that bolding select words and ending disclaimers

tend to distort the meaning, don't you?

[defendandprotect]

162. Thank you --

This happy-go-lucky thread doesn't seem to acknowledge the fascism we've seen from

the prior administration -- and the preserving of much of that fascism by this administration in

NOT prosecuting/impeaching -- in not overturning the wiretapping expansions -- in not taking steps

to protect the TREASON of bankrupting our Treasury with two wars -- in not stopping the subsidizing

of "CHURCH" and their "faith-based" religious organizations --

in not restoring the New Deal regulations -- Glass-Steagall -- nor re-regulating capitalism.

Inequality of DOMA -- inequality of two tier service in military with homosexuals still being

witch hunted and pushed out --

Not much concern either, it seems, for a health care system equal to what other industrial

nations have long had!

And many other issues where I see no concern expressed -- ????


First we should all be small "d" democrats -- that's the agenda, that's the goal --

Where a party lives up to principles which prevent fascism and preserve democracy --

and our Constitution as amended -- then they will have my support.

Where a national party continues to privatize government, privatize elections, privatize

health care for the benefit of corporations rather than for the benefit of the "PEOPLE" then

they do not have my support.

A people's government is dedicated to the "greatest good for the greatest number of people" --

that is not a corporate agenda -- it's a human agenda.

Thank you, again, for your post!!



:)

[Enthusiast]

182. Another excellent post, defendand protect. nt

[LWolf]

223. You're welcome, of course. nt

[Enthusiast]

181. Thank you. LWolf.

I like the way you think.

[LWolf]

225. You're welcome.

:hi:

[StarfarerBill]

85. "Democrats of all stripes", not "unquestioning followers of the Party only", is how I read this.

[NJmaverick]

87. How do you read the part about working together to achieve our common goals?

[StarfarerBill]

95. That we work together on what we agree upon, not just what the Party hierarchy decrees.

[NJmaverick]

99. Would anything in that sentence preclude working against all Democrats?

[StarfarerBill]

112. No, as DU is for all democrats, not Party faithful only.

[NJmaverick]

114. Wouldn't an organization for Democrats support Democrats?

[StarfarerBill]

117. Has there been any instances of blanket lack-of-support here, beyond trolls?

[NJmaverick]

119. Yes I have seen at least 2 long time members call for the stopping of donations to the DNC

I think that would fall under blanket lack-of-support. How are your feelings on those that say the Democrats are the same as the Republicans? Would that be a blanket lack of support? If it is I have more examples. Then there are others that simply say all political parties are corporatists, which would presumably suggest the abandonment of the Democratic party (since they never explain how one could change the situation with out destroying the party).

[StarfarerBill]

129. I often feel that way, myself.

That doesn't mean I don't support individual Democrats and their initiatives, and in most cases I imagine that applies to others who are disgusted with the general direction of the Party. As for the DNC, they should be held accountable for questionable policies and practices in the same way that any other component of the organization would be.

Let me ask you something: Can DU exclude socialists and Greens who never vote for Democratic candidates, but do support positions held by individual Democratic officials?

[defendandprotect]

157. That's been going on a long time . . . many Democrats feel betrayed by the DNC and

don't contribute to them --

That's certainly the case with me -- I will only contribute DIRECTLY to a Democratic

candidate I've confidence in -- and it would be someone liberal/progressive.

[defendandprotect]

167. Let's reverse that . . . Elected Officials represent their constituents ...

And, let's take an even closer look . . .

The day after the '06 election, Nancy Pelosi appears on video proclaiming that

Democrats were elected to end the wars -- !!!

What happened after that was a complete betrayal of the Democratic voters who had

put Democrats in office to end the wars!!

[defendandprotect]

156. I think you'd have to refer to the Platform and how it has been moved to the right . ..

with corporate influence . .

Remember that when JFK ran for president in 1960 . . . the Democratic Platform he

ran on called for NATIONALIZING the oil industry--!!

And that's still a terrific idea!!

[Enthusiast]

183. No wonder "they" shot him. nt

[defendandprotect]

234. Those who control our wealth and resources didn't want another FDR . . .

though obviously, it couldn't have been done without LBJ.

LBJ had plenty of his own motivations -- deep with oil/mafia interests.

Whether he was the cheeleader for it or whether it was the CIA cheerleading for it,

is difficult to discern. But obviously couldn't have been done either without Hoover.

Many involved. Establishment is still fighting for the Warren Commission and cover-up.

Maybe someday????

But, at any rate, you can see how far to the RIGHT the party has been moved.


Capitalism is one of the worst enemies, IMO, of democracy and people's government.

I still haven't gotten to see Michael Moore's new movie -- they just zipped it thru here

and out. Did you see it?

[Enthusiast]

249. I wanted to see it.

We have to travel at least 20 miles to get to the nearest theater. Not a problem, but, they did not even show it here! I checked to see and it was never available in my entire surrounding area! I will rent it soon.

[defendandprotect]

283. I'm very disappointed that I missed it . . . first one I've missed . . n/t

[tekisui]

92. I guess the issue is what are 'our common goals'.

That is widely open to interpretation. For example, my goal is not Democratic power, it is enacting liberal policies.

I am absolutely against the Afghanistan escalation. My goal is to withdrawal. Obviously, that goal is not shared by other members or the Administration.

This rule only covers the shared goals. If we don't share them, we need not work together.

[NJmaverick]

98. Are you a democrat?

[tekisui]

126. I am a democrat and a Democrat.

I support the democratic process and I am a registered Democrat and have been for my entire voting life.

I guess what I should ask is whether you place more value democracy (small d) or with the Democratic Party (big D).

Standing on values and principles is what the democratic process is all about, and is what DU is about. Supporting the Democratic Party, and seeing Party majorities and successes as the ultimate or primary objectives is not the same thing.

I am a Democrat because there has never been a viable political party that better aligned with my principles. The Democrat Party oscillates to and from me. I put some of my beliefs to the side, because it is the only option I have when I am in the voting booth.

The democratic process that we are engaged in now is not the same thing. Now is the time to tell those we elected exactly what we see and how we feel about the decisions they are making.

It is their job to listen to all the voices and make their decision. They will usually make those decisions based on political calculations. They will take their positions where they believe a majority will be or follow. It is out obligation to tell them where we are. If we do not speak up, they will listen to someone else.

If you don't speak in a democracy, you do not have a voice. In fact, you are invisible.

[NJmaverick]

191. Techniically we live in a Republic and not a Democracy

The representation is skewed toward small states, while large urban states are under represented. I don't think the Democratic party is perfect. However I lived through the horrors of George Bush. Not only did he rule in a terrible manner, he made it crystal clear he was ONLY the president for his supporters and voters, not the rest of the nation. Now that is a horror I don't ever intend to live through again.

Still getting back to the Democracy thing, you should be thankful that there is a Democratic party and that it enables liberals to have a say and to have power. The reality is that liberals make up about 20% of the nation's population. Under a pure democracy that means we should never have a say as we are not the majority. I am constantly amazed at how many liberals forget this rather important fact.

So if you were ever to achieve this perfect democracy of yours, you would be at the mercy of the majority. For me I work with what we have to achieve the best results possible.

[pundaint]

196. Technically, we live in both

[NJmaverick]

203. I stand corrected it's a democratic republic

[tekisui]

208. Yes. That is correct.

Democracy does not end at the election both. And, although polling suggests liberals are but 20%, our positions are just as valid as those who want to balance a walk down the middle for maintenance of political power. In fact, ours is the more noble position. Party politics means nothing more to me than keeping the worst out of power. That is as far as my loyalty goes.

In between elections, it is my duty to call it as I see it. And, at DU, I am under no obligation to adhere to the party line on any issue. I am under an obligation to myself to stay true to my principles. Where my positions and the Democratic Party's positions are shared objectives, we will be in concert. When we aren't perfectly aligned, I will say so.

[NJmaverick]

256. Any obligations to keep an open mind or frame topics in an intellectually honest manner?

[rudy23]

93. These threads get started b/c disruptors desperately need to frame the rules to where

they can come as close to breaking them as possible, and avoid being TS'ed on a technicality.

Those DLC posters would flip out if somebody identified them for what they were, and started cleaning house. It would be a huge failure in their book.

[NJmaverick]

102. Isn't your hatred of the DLC contrary to what this website is clearly about?

[rudy23]

143. The DLC stands against the basic tenets of the traditionally Democratic platform which DU supports

Basic ideals like peace, people over profits, pro-union, social programs, public ownership of public resources, and the idea that the government can do good if we are active in keeping them honest. Those are what Democrats stand for, and the DLC goes against--with the name "Democrats" being the only thing they have in common.

[defendandprotect]

159. Pehaps your love for the DLC is what this thread is really about -- ????

[Raineyb]

168. +1

Ladies and gentlemen I believe we have a winner!

[Enthusiast]

185. +2

I'd vote for it.

[NJmaverick]

193. The DLC has made it clear they will help the President and the Dem Leaders

that makes them better than most of the people calling them devils.

[Sebastian Doyle]

250. "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals"

The DLC is NOT generally supportive of progressive ideals, they are generally opposed to progressive ideals.

[defendandprotect]

158. Agree -- and I think we are too quiet and too compliant re the DLC . . .

Rahm Emmanuel and Obama having eloped into the White House with them and Goldman Sachs!!

[Enthusiast]

186. We should be in complete revolt.

Seriously, this is a betrayal of monumental proportions.

[defendandprotect]

232. It's amazing the attempted brainwashing by this thread . . .

evidently, we are all just supposed to drop any of our own judgments and simply follow

DU's alleged dictates/dogma to support every Democrat no matter their behavior!!

That would work well for the DLC who continue to move the party to the right --

Would also work well for those here who don't really want a lot of discussion of

corporate-DLC!!

Basically, the core value is small "d" democracy -- and EVERYTHING else should be judged

according to that understanding of freedom and democracy --

DU and the Democratic Party is to be judged according to small "d" democracy and not

the other way around --

Amazed that this thread has gotten away with as much as it has!!



:)

[asdjrocky]

108. How many different ways are you going to try to tell people to shut up?

[NJmaverick]

110. Ever think the problem is with YOU (rather than others) if you have a problem with with the core

values of the site?

[asdjrocky]

116. Oh thank you wise one.

Here I was, a liberal Dem all my life and I didn't know I held the wrong "values" to post on some Internet board. I don't even know who the fuck you are, er Maverick, so can you explain to me where the hell you get off questioning my values?

What you just did, right there, is one of the most right wing responses I've seen on DU. Tell ya what cupcake, if you don't want me here go tell a mod that I insulted you, until then, I'll post whatever the hell I please. Tell them that I called you cupcake, not once, but twice.

And my "values"? My values are a personal matter and they are none of your fucking business. (Oops, almost called you an ass-hat there, but I'll just say that was an very ass-hatty thing to do.)

So no, I won't shut up, and anyone other than a mod that might suggest I don't belong here, must know any number of things they can do with that suggestion.

Have a nice day now.

[NJmaverick]

118. Well to be perfectly honest, I think your intellectually dishonest opening

sort of left an opening to question your values. The "shut up" meme is one of the most dishonest and disproven ones on DU.

Still I admire your stick to itness. After all the "right wing response" is a classic defense for someone backed into a corner (and are incapable of debating or reasoning their way out).

Then you go for the "my values are none of your fucking business". Just the right amount of faux or self righteous anger.

Then back to your "shut up" meme. Nice, I guess you believe in the tell a falsehood often enough....


Oh and you will be happy to know I am having a great day. Why don't you do the same:)

[asdjrocky]

122. Yeah, okay.

[defendandprotect]

160. And the "core values" of Democratic Underground is to support the DLC . . . ????

The corporate wing of the party --

which by the way, Gore left after 2000 due to their having convinced him to

drop his populist speeches/comments --

If what DU is truly about is the DLC, I'd like to know it ... like right now!!

[NJmaverick]

205. The core value is to support Democrats of all stripes

including the ones YOU don't like

[defendandprotect]

229. There is no default/demand to support individual Democrats, either Blue Dogs, nor DLC . . .

who act like Repugs --

Again, the basis of our judgment is small "d" democracy --

and a party which supports those core values.

Look at Harry Reid -- in Nevada, many call him Republican-Lite --

Is that what you want to support?

We can support a party we HOPE will react ethically and morally to valid support

for small "d" democracy and freedom.

THAT's where the agenda is, that is the core value --

What a private website does has to do with their core values --

and we are free to question those, as well --

For instance, I always ONLY give money to individual candidates -- and organizations --

I never give money thru a website --

I donate to DU to keep them afloat -- but my donations are made purely on my own judgments,

not someone else's.

I'm sure you consider Michael Moore and Wm. Greider "Democrats" --

they are advocating just what I am saying to you --

targeting Democrats who are working for "deform" rather than "reform" --

It's a small risk -- but in the end, we can encourage Democrats who are truly for REFORM to

run -- and we can give our support to those Democrats, while denying our support to those

who are working for right wing values -- i.e., corporate values: insurance companies and

"for profit" health care industry.

[spoony]

261. Rarely has a nail been hit as squarely as that! nt

[Initech]

120. Which is why we're better than the flip side:

Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site
12/11/2009 | Jim Robinson

Posted on Fri Dec 11 17:57:16 2009 by Jim Robinson

Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site... or so they say... and they might even be right.

We don't go for any of that godless left-wing big government socialist malarkey. And we do put our faith and trust in God, not government. We are pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Country and pro-Liberty.

We do not believe that government or science knows what's best for us or our children. We will make our own decisions thank you very much. <--------- :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Every once in a while some group of posters get together and try to bend Free Republic to their will. Now, we tend to be pretty free-wheeling around here and will take a lot of guff and a lot of obnoxious insults from a lot of people, but eventually a breaking point is reached.

For example, when a group of RINO lovers recently banded together to try to force FR to accept an abortionist/gay rights RINO as our presidential candidate, they soon found themselves on the outs.

And a few years ago a group of evolutionists tried to force FR over to their way of thinking and they soon found themselves on the outs.

FR is a pro-God, pro-Creator, pro-Life, pro-Liberty site. <-------- :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

And now we have yet another group of Darwinists trying to have their Darwinist way with us. Well, as I've said before what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger.

Darwin Central has again declared war on FR. They have ping lists and email lists and will try to pull away as many FReepers as they possibly can. So be it. Those who would rather go with Darwin, please go. I sure as hell won't try to stop you. :wtf:

[NJmaverick]

123. "pro-God, pro-Creator" I find that a bit redundant

or is he suggesting that they are different entities?

Still I guess this serves as a warning about getting too extreme.

[Initech]

124. Not sure what Rimjob is suggesting here.

Although yeah it is a good warning about getting too extreme.

[Duende azul]

125. If you can show me that imperialistic wars are "our shared goals" - you might have a point.

But since they are not, I still think this post is somewhat pointless.

[NJmaverick]

127. Since there are no imperialistic wars currently being conducted, I am not sure about

the relevancy of your post

[tekisui]

144. No Imperialistic Wars?

How do you figure? We are in another country, supporting an illegitimate government and dictating what they do for our own interests.

No one in Afghanistan voted for Obama, yet he is making the decisions that will effect their lives.

Sorry, NJMav, we are an Empire and this war is for our own Imperial interests.

[NJmaverick]

194. By your definition WW2 would be an imperilistic war

After all after the war the allies occupied both nations for a period of years. you are badly misapplying the term tekisui

[tekisui]

207. No matter how you slice it, we are an Empire.

im·pe·ri·al·ism- The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

We are a dying empire though. Our Imperialistic conquests are becoming to costly, and we will be forced to give it up.

[NJmaverick]

209. No I don't agree with your claims to the US being an empire

nor do I believe the facts support your claims. The US may be powerful, but currently there are no attempts to acquire territory or expand our nation.

[tekisui]

210. We expand our INFLUENCE.

We fit the mold perfectly. Culturally, economically, and militarily we seek to expand our influence and power.


The wars are obviously imperialistic. Like I said, not one Afghan voted for Obama, yet he is making the decisions for their country, war decisions. The US military is not representing the Afghan people, it is representing OUR interests. You cannot deny that.

[NJmaverick]

212. To suggest an expansion of influence is imperialistic is a stretch IMO

All nations seek to expand their influence in world affairs. It's why we have a United Nations.

[tekisui]

213. At the point of a gun,

at the exploitation of other countries' resources and labor--that is imperialistic. The US most certainly acts as an Empire. The question is how long can we afford to keep up the facade.

[NJmaverick]

214. When the neocons controlled things you would have valid points

they no longer do though. Now we are in the situation of how to best extricate ourselves from the mess they created. As much as we all wish it was as easy as snapping one's fingers and every soldier was back home with their friends and family it's just not that simple.

[tekisui]

216. I simply disagree with you on that.

I do not believe that we are trying to best extricate ourselves. Increasing troops, money for war corporations, private contractors, expansion of drone attacks--none of this stand as evidence of efforts to extricate ourselves. It stands as evidence our using war as a means of carrying out our nationalistic interests.

To be intellectually honest would be to admit that what we are doing there is serving our own nations objectives. We are using war to do it.

[NJmaverick]

218. I guess you feel that either all war is wrong, you don't think the President's plan will succeed

or you don't think it's worth the cost. That is fine, those are all reasonable positions. What's not reasonable is to suggest that the plans are imperialistic, done to raise money for war contractors etc. What you have ignored is that the President's plans have an end game a time table to with draw. That utterly disputes your claims (which might be way you either make your claims or why you ignore this fact)


Intellectual honesty involves talking about the issue in a fair and honest way. Declaring that the nation is on some sort of imperialistic expansion spree and that the only motive to the President's plans are corporate profits, flies in the face of everything intellectual honesty stands for.

[tekisui]

220. Puh-lease.

There is no time-table. That has already been debunked. Have fun chasing your tail.

[NJmaverick]

221. No it hasn't been "debunked". I know you wish it had been

One can not honestly say the President lied about the time table.

"puh-lease" "have fun chasing your tail" Those are certainly telling reactions when the discussion started entering the arena of intellectual honesty (at your request no less). Sounds to me like you were just paying the concept lip service.

[tekisui]

222. Seriously.

You run around and around with you think-headed arguments. It is a waste of my time to engage you, because you will avoid and deflect. You are tedious.

The day after the time-table announcement, it got walked back. Any withdrawal in 2011 will be very slight and only enough to say they weren't misleading. that much has already been said. I really have no use in helping you chase your tail. You get the last word, as I will no longer be responding.
:hi:

[NJmaverick]

224. It's funny how you are blinded to the faults you perceive in others

seriously and in the spirit of all being Democrats, please take some time to reflect and contemplate. You have a very strong position, that doesn't hold up well when you remove the hyperbole. There is nothing wrong with a position that the escalation is the wrong move. There are many reasonable and intellectually honest reasons why. Yet that's not what you are clinging to. Your position is one where the President is some sort of imperialistic war monger who plans on expanding the American empire to please his corporate masters. That sort of position is not only wrong (in my view) but it takes away our credibility with so many non-liberal Americans.

[tekisui]

226. Quit putting words in my mouth.

I have never called Obama a war monger, set to please his corporate masters. Ignoring--should have done it long ago. Preach it to the choir.

[NJmaverick]

227. Implied is the equivalent to saying, stop hiding behind semantics

[Warren Stupidity]

252. 900+ military garrisons outside our territory

Military command centers for every region of the planet.

An operative doctrine of american hegemony enforced by aggression against any nation viewed as a threat to that dominant position (and weak enough for us to easily topple.)

Not an empire? Why, because we lack an emperor? Because we only outright conquer minor nations?

[Djinn]

153. no none at all

you're in Iraq to bring 'em Freedom (TM) and you're in Afghanistan to free the people from evil fundie warlords (except those fundie warlords you've now put in power)

Way to completely jump the shark.

[NJmaverick]

195. You need to understand that not every war is an imperialistic war

Imperialism
The power or character of an emperor; imperial authority; the spirit of empire.
The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less independent of each other for operations of war, copyright, internal commerce, etc.

[defendandprotect]

161. Whoa . . . next you're be telling us that this is "conspiracy-free America" . ..????

[tabasco]

136. This site has become a cesspool

of trolls and utopians who do nothing but bash Democrats.

[WillyT]

140. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Skip Intro]

145. This is the most stupid, insincere thread I've ever seen on DU. WTF is wrong with y'all?

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND is open to other progressives in working toward common goals. What is wrong with that?

For those implying some kind of odd censorship conspiracy, I'd say the existence of this thread is proof to the contrary.

The fact this thread exists is a testament to the tolerance of DU.

And when I come here and get into a good 9*11 thread and then it gets locked or moved I bitch a little, 'till I realize nobody's fucking forcing me to come here.

And to the DUers who recc'd this - WTF?

[Mithreal]

148. Beware of evangelists who do not practice what they preach

[NJmaverick]

189. The attacks are growing more pathetic and more personal

guess they have run out of any sort of factual counter points

[Mithreal]

272. It deludes itself too

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

154. Oh good God...

I'm putting you back on Ignore. Get off your Rules High Horse.

[anonymous171]

165. Shared goal = Health care for all, not compromise .Dogmatic moderates can go fuck themselves. nt

[grahamhgreen]

172. I am a social democrat ie democratic socialist

[nomaco-10]

184. Yeah, and all that free speech bullshit seems to be at ....

a minimum here lately....

I loved you Obama, but you're breakin' my heart here lately.

Please come back to the 08 candidate I came to know and love.

[FlaGranny]

187. There also used to be

something in the rules that said that people working against Democratic and progressive candidates were not welcome. That certainly seems to no longer apply - if it ever did. And there have always been some working as hard as they can against us. One always wonders if they are progressives at all when their arguments and ideas, if really adopted, would make certain that Democrats and progressives were on the losing end of every election and give the other side all the ammunition they might need to make it so.

I'd like to remind everyone that it took the radicals on the right about 25 years, working in STEALTH mode. Falwell and friends laid out a plan in their corporate offices (and slowly spread it to religious nut cases through their churches) and then followed it, having their candidates running in local, then statewide, then federal elections, while hiding their real Taliban-like agenda until they felt they had enough power. When the majority of people realized what a disaster that was, we got a relatively progressive Democrat elected along with mostly good reps and we have a major turnaround in our government. While that may not be good enough for us, remember how long it took the other side to pad the senate and congress with a bunch of religious nut cases.

I'm disappointed too, but I need to be realistic or I'll lose my mind. I wonder if we'll ever get everything we want. Most Democrats just don't have the deviousness required. We're liberals and we're fighting zealots who have zero understanding of their own bible, very much an American-grown Taliban. With all that, what did we do? We elected a Democratic president who actually is on our side, but with so many of his own party working against him (the conservative Democrats) and his vocal critics from the left, I truly fear in 2012 our next president might be Sarah Palin or someone similar.

G.W. Bush NEVER had to deal with critics from the right. His entire party and some "Democrats" supported him all the way and he got what he wanted every time.

Edit to add: I don't believe that we shouldn't criticize the president, no I don't mean that at all. It's what we do, we're liberals. I just wanted to point out what a dumb ass president could do with complete support from his party.

[NJmaverick]

188. Thanks for posting, I really enjoyed reading thi

You made some great points.

[pundaint]

192. Democrats and "shared goals," if only that could be

The Democratic Party is such a big tent, that it really is the independent party. We are living in a two party system with one party, an organized group of independents, and a disorganized group of independents.

Perhaps we could work out a consensus on what we demand for the future, and of those who would represent us on the way there. Then we might possibly become effective.


1. We reaffirm that the only purpose for government is to benefit the people contributing authority to that government.

2. Only natural persons may participate in the electoral process

3. No more than 10 amendments to any bill, if it was good enough for the original passage of the whole constitution, surely we could think a little harder before regulating anything smaller.

4, We recognize that Capitalism is a tool, and Democracy is a form of government. Democracy is superior to capitalism, and should properly control it's use for the exclusive benefit of the general well-being of all the People. The capital of this nation was created through labor, and it must not dominate it's creator.

5. As humanity makes progress, so should the quality of human rights progress. In our modern world, healthcare is an achievable, and worthy addition to our set of basic human rights, as are subsistence food and shelter and education.

6. Military action longer than 15 days require specific Congressional approval by a standing committee of 9.

7. The first priority of Law Enforcement is pursuit of criminal wrongdoing by elected officials.

8. We need to find a way to fall to mid-pack of countries by percent of population in prison.

9. White collar criminals deserve real justice, Corporate criminals cannot remain free to act, either.

[NJmaverick]

201. I would put campaign finance reform that took money out of the picture

my first priority

[davidwparker]

197. Yep. I'm finding myself to the left of Democratic policy since

Clinton, but I appaud the efforts of those who are working to take the party back to the policies of Jimmy Carter. Or, even better, FDR.

[NJmaverick]

199. I appluad those that work to move the party in a particular direction

I am not happy with those who are just trying to destroy the party.

[Raineyb]

263. Another lie. You've done nothing but derided people who want to move the

party to the left by calling them disloyal.

[aikoaiko]

204. For the 103rd time.

I recommend this OP.

[Bobbie Jo]

278. +104

[Umbral]

211. Do the Democrats still have 'Super Delegates'?

That's another example of the status quo protecting itself. Change indeed!

[defendandprotect]

237. Great point . . . haven't heard about that subject in quite some time . . .

And, if you've ever worked with the party at the local level, you know there's a

tremendous block there.

Been quite some time since I actually worked for Democrats, but it's a question we

should be asking now.

[tomp]

217. parsing:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes (blue dogs, centrists, hawks, etc.), along with other (?) progressives (blue dogs, centrists, hawks, etc. are progressive?) who will work with us to achieve our shared goals (blue dogs, centrists, and hawks, etc. have the same goals as progressives?).

the statement is nonsense on its face.

[NJmaverick]

219. Thank you for the very educational inside look into your reading comprehension process

I found it quite enlightening.

[tomp]

282. there is nothing that could enlighten....

...such a thick brain.

[Warren Stupidity]

228. Another purity test.

[NJmaverick]

233. Democrats of all stripes=purity test

:crazy:

[Warren Stupidity]

242. Your many comments in this thread and elsewhere indicate exactly

where you stand and what your meaning is in this OP of yours.

[NJmaverick]

245. uh huh

:crazy:

[Warren Stupidity]

246. Glad you agree.

[NJmaverick]

248. I have little doubt that is how you see the world

I also have learned not to waste my time trying to reason with people who think "democrats of all stripes" = "purity test"

[Warren Stupidity]

253. now you are the world?

It is how I perceive your presence on this board.

[Name removed]

264. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

265. What makes it interesting?

[DailyGrind51]

269. Only the Republicans have Reagan's 11th Commandment!

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

[AuntPatsy]

281. after reading through some of the posts I have a feeling that I reacted to quickly...

I had no idea this was a thread that was in response to another which quickly seemed to become another fight about DLCrs...not sure that I agree that those that allow themselves to be associated with the supposed new democratic movement DLC deserve much more than an acknowledgment that we are well aware of how they feel that feeding the masses a few crumbs should be enough to stave off starvation.....just to offer my humble opinion..it is not enough...