If you do not believe in these things, you are NOT a Democrat

[Taverner]

- Freedom of Speech

- Freedom of Association

- Freedom of Religion

- Freedom of Movement (something to consider, the Confederate States of America had Domestic Passports, just like the USSR)

- The Commmon Welfare of American Citizens (also referred to as Freedom from Want)

- Freedom of Sexual Lifestyle

- Freedom of Thought

- Freedom to Vote

[Ken Burch]

1. You know somebody's going to come in with some snark about ponies now, don't you?

:eyes:

Great OP...but some people can't tolerate the idea of the politicians WE elected being expected to stand for anything.

[Taverner]

4. Aye, true that

If we're talking about Obama, hell yeah I'm disappointed with a lot that he's done

I'm also very impressed with a lot that he's done.

I have concluded that he's just a man with a lot of strengths and a lot of weaknesses

But who isn't?

[blondeatlast]

2. I would add the freedom to bargain collectively. nt

[Taverner]

6. I would consider that Freedom of Association, but yes, that is a MUST

[blondeatlast]

8. Sadly, a few DUers don't seem to think so. nt

[Bake]

21. Union? a BIG RESOUNDING YES!

:hi:

Bake

[Taverner]

70. I always wonder what some people mean when they say "Unions are destroying America"

I always ask them how, and its always some weasel word answer "no one can get jobs because of them!!"

[dkf]

3. Freedom of sexual lifestyle = promiscuity?

Promote promiscuity for everyone?

[Taverner]

7. If they wan't to - it's not our decision to make

If someone wants to collect VDs and not spread them, that is that person's prerogative

Your sexuality is YOUR OWN, not the state's

[Zywiec]

14. How do you collect VDs, but not spread them? n/t

[blondeatlast]

9. How about the freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they want without busybodies

fretting that it will Destroy Us All?

I don't spend a whole lotta time thinking about what others do.

[tekisui]

10. You are free to be as promiscuous or non-promiscuous as you want.

That is the point of freedom. It is up to you.

[uppityperson]

12. You are free to be promiscuous if you like. Not promoting any particular sexual lifestyle, but

being able to be free in your choice of whom and how and when to have sex with, provided consenting adults.

AND you are free to have your sexual orientation without fear.

[FreeState]

13. Orientation is not a lifestyle n/t

[uppityperson]

15. I know. I was adding in Freedom of sexual orientation, or meant to

I know it isn't and didn't mean that to be read that way. I apologize if it does. I edited, tried to explain better.

[nashville_brook]

24. freedom from you, or anyone deciding what's "promiscuous." yes.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

67. +1

[WillyT]

91. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:kick:

:hi:

[xchrom]

25. I'm not surprised that's what you took away from that. Telling. Nt

[jberryhill]

27. Celibacy is a "sexual lifestyle"

But leave it to you to assume it necessarily refers to promiscuity.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. No, only those who fail to produce an original long form

birth certificate. Does that seem fair?

[tabasco]

75. Why not?

You want the government telling people how much sex they can have?

[quaker bill]

5. I thought this might perhaps be a test

apparently not.

[ReggieVeggie]

11. does Freedom to Vote mean freedom not to vote?

and vote for whomever we choose?

[Initech]

16. I agree with all these things

[RevStPatrick]

17. Hmmm...

- Freedom of Speech
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater?

- Freedom of Association
Don't we limit, for example, certain known criminals' ability to freely associate with each other?

- Freedom of Religion
Ritual human sacrifice?

- Freedom of Sexual Lifestyle
NAMBLA?

[tekisui]

20. Your examples are limitations because they infringe on another person's

freedom.

[Taverner]

26. Exactly EOM

[RevStPatrick]

54. No. Wrong.

I want to voluntarily submit myself for ritual human sacrifice. I'm not allowed to do that, and the high priest will end up in jail for the rest of his life after plunging the knife in my chest. Who's rights have been infringed upon?

The 14 year old boy next door REALLY wants to be my homosexual lover for the last days of my life before the sacrifice, but he is not legally allowed to. Who's rights have been infringed upon?

Things are not always as simple as they seem, and I think the OP should turn in his Democratic Party membership card at the front desk.

[tekisui]

55. You are grasping at straws and creating absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals.

You run with it.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

63. No one suggested that the freedoms are absolute.

Your red herrings and strawmen, notwithstanding.

[Generic Other]

64. So this means the rest of us should be celibate?

because some people are pervs? Or that the rest of us shouldn't drive because some drive drunk. No one says we don't have limits on accepted behavior. The OPs list was valid. Your defense of NAMBLA less so.

[RevStPatrick]

68. I'm not defending NAMBLA...

...and it's not a red herring or strawman, if it is something that actually exists in the real world. And I'm not really sure where this "the rest of us should be celibate" stuff is coming from. I used to be a member of a group marriage where several husbands shared several wives. That was not a legal marriage, and there would no doubt be fine, upstanding Democrats who would be opposed to that situation.

The OP said "If you do not believe in these things, you are NOT a Democrat."

That sounds pretty absolute to me! And if there are to be exceptions, it can't be absolute.

[tekisui]

69. Nothing wrong with group marriages, IMO.

As long as it is consenting adults. children are incapable of giving real consent. Your freedoms go only as far as they do not infringe on another's freedoms. It isn't a hard concept to understand.

[Maven]

83. Pederasts are mostly HETEROSEXUAL

Interesting that you would conflate "pederasty" with homosexuality. No, there's no homophobia problem on DU. :eyes:

[RevStPatrick]

88. Did you read the Wiki page?

That was the definition I was using.
It has a long history.
NAMBLA did not make it up.
I wasn't conflating anything.

On edit - I had a previous post removed, no doubt because it contained a link to NAMBLA. I don't have a problem with the moderators deciding to remove that, because what they do goes totally against societal norms. However, that post also contained this link:

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

Which I don't think should be removed. This conversation makes much less sense without this link.
However, if the mods decide to remove this as well, so be it. It just means that my argument falls apart.

[mckara]

18. Actually, JFK Stated the Democratic Party had 3 Pillars:

Education for Our Children

Employment for Our People

Security for Our Elders

Those are the fundamental underpinnings of the party.

[bobbolink]

23. Children can have education but not security?

Its OK if they are physcially ill, and malnourished, as long as they are in school?

[darkstar3]

37. Are you fucking kidding me?

How in the name of Sir Isaac H. Newton did you come up with that from what mckara posted?

[bobbolink]

41. I am able to read. And unlike this post I am replying to, I didn't find it necessary to swear and

harangue.

If you want to calmly discuss it, let me know.

Otherwise, the tone is obviously not one of discussion, but uproar.

You have a good evening. :hi:

[darkstar3]

43. The question was serious, and you can drop the "tone" stuff.

You managed to twist the words of JFK quoted here to mean that either JFK, mckara, or someone else here believed that every other problem suffered by children was excusable as long as they were in school. That is an incredible and ridiculous feat, and it received the proper response. If you care to explain how you arrived at such a twisted interpretation of those words above, feel free. If you'd rather spend your time dropping into threads to chide and infuriate wherever you can, then I guess I'll see you later.

[bobbolink]

45. Have a good life.

:hi:

[Courtesy Flush]

61. I get what he (she?) is saying.

Why should I wait until I'm elderly to be secure?

[Dorian Gray]

53. Hmmmm

Ostensibly, employment for our people (the parents of children) would provide the financial means to feed and provide care for the children.

[truedelphi]

50. I had never heard of him talking about those three pillars,

But now that you mention them, they strike me as beautiful.

[tomp]

51. pillars currently collapsed or collapsing. nt

[Dorian Gray]

52. They are a great foundation

one that you would think could be easily twisted (yet it's been tried already in this thread).

[Modern_Matthew]

57. I would also add the right to health care and education. nt

[LanternWaste]

85. I think you're reading literalism into an abstract

I think you're reading literalism into a rhetorical abstract (political speeches by their very purpose simply rhetorical abstracts designed as a structure rather than as a set of rules), as no one pillar necessarily denies the same for the other pillars.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

19. Damn right.

Proud to recommend.

[Riftaxe]

22. How about freedom from purity tests....

oh wait, never mind :P

[Ken Burch]

31. Without some standards, a party is worthless.

There's never anybody who's SO wonderful in office that it's worth accepting them being horrible on some major things.

[darkstar3]

40. Some purity tests aren't so bad.

http://www.armory.com/tests/seuss.html

[LoZoccolo]

28. If you register as a Democrat, you are a Democrat.

[Ken Burch]

30. Not if you're just in the party in name.

Strom Thurmond and Roy Cohn were registered Democrats at one point(Cohn was until he died). So was(and possibly still is)Fred Phelps.

You'd have to agree that those Southern Dems who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 until the bitter end ceased to be Democrats.

Those that were "Democrats for Nixon" or "Democrats for Reagan" clearly lost any real moral right to claim to be Democrats as well.

You have to have SOME commitment to principles. You have to be clearly to the left of the Republicans and to clearly be on the side of the powerless instead of the elite.

And our principles are never so unpopular that we have to elect people as Democrats who disdain them or think they're above them. We simply don't need anyone who thinks they're doing us a favor just to agree to stand on the Democratic line in the fall.

We NEVER need to reduce ourselves to being "slightly less conservative than the Republicans".

[LoZoccolo]

42. If someone is "just in the party in name", they still have the power to choose its nominees.

Taunting them over the Internet is unlikely to do anything. If you want to change the situation, you will probably have to try something else.

[Ken Burch]

47. I wasn't taunting anyone.

My comments should be applied more to Democratic officeholders than to the rank-and-file.

However, people who are only Democrats in terms of their voter registration are generally not going to be interested in choosing the party's nominees, and probably won't vote for them.

I mean, should I really worry about the sort of people who are ONLY Democrats because they're family's still pissed off about Sherman marching through Georgia?

[Forkboy]

32. Technically you're correct.

You could go out and register as a Republican tomorrow and call yourself one and you would also be correct. You could even be a Green Party member. The possibilities are endless. You are, indeed, whatever you call yourself.

The question is, regardless of whatever label one has hitched their horse to, does one stand for anything beyond that? You can call me a Socialist Nazi Green Democrat if it makes you feel good to put labels on others (and so willingly to yourself), but there has to be something beyond just rooting for a letter in the alphabet.

Hence your posts and mine over the years lol.

[LoZoccolo]

33. I guess I'm just trying to point out the futility of arguing over labels.

It's not an uncommon strategy to try to manipulate people by making them feel excluded from a group if they do not believe one thing or another. I'm not completely knocking it as a strategy; it's one way our instincts guide us toward consensus, and it's probably an instinct that ensures our survival in some situations. But there's also little consequence to being "excluded" over the Internet and thus little disincentive to comply with the demand being made. There's also no way to enforce compliance when the Democratic Party relies on secret ballots to choose it's nominees. It's a blunted strategy at best, and I don't think there's any way around putting in the work to compel people with facts and ideas as opposed to simple faction-building.

[Forkboy]

48. Ok, there's some meat here.

It's not an uncommon strategy to try to manipulate people by making them feel excluded from a group if they do not believe one thing or another. I'm not completely knocking it as a strategy; it's one way our instincts guide us toward consensus, and it's probably an instinct that ensures our survival in some situations.

I don't knock it as a strategy either...to a point. Are we manipulating people towards something THEY want or something WE want? At best it's a mix. More often than not we justify the manipulation by telling ourselves that what we want is what everyone must surely want as well. The whole concept of manipulation is something I'm very into. Not to do the manipulation, though I can see how easy it would be, but to avoid being manipulated myself. And in politics every one is playing you, playing me, and half the time playing themselves.

But there's also little consequence to being "excluded" over the Internet and thus little disincentive to comply with the demand being made.

Hard for me to comment on this, and this where my political acumen becomes useless. I welcome being excluded, and this isn't just a political thing, but a philosophical one. When you say "excluded" do you mean "wrong" or "made to feel wrong"? Lots of people have tried to make me feel wrong, and have tried to make you feel that way as well, and often that comes with a degree of exclusion. Is that right or wrong? Or is it subjective?

Or do you mean that anyone can post one line firebombs on an online message board and not care if it hurts the very thing they say they're working for?

It's a blunted strategy at best,

Lots of blunted strategies abound.

and I don't think there's any way around putting in the work to compel people with facts and ideas as opposed to simple faction-building.

Part of the problem lies is us assuming our "facts" are universal. If facts were facts and we all saw them the same way there would be no such things as hung juries. They all see the exact same facts, yet come to different conclusions. If you want to go beyond faction building you can't just tell people, "These are the facts, damn you!". All they hear is, "This is what I think, idiots!" Your sentence here suggests that you see yourself above that, as if your posts are anything more than the very thing you mention...faction-building.

Do you really think your posts challenge people on these ideas? Or do you think it just hardens them into their already held positions?

I know the answer, and so do you. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

84. How do you know they are "firebombs"?

[Forkboy]

104. And so much for the meat.

Someday you'll find the courage to attempt a real conversation.

Kicking so people can see the weak sauce reply of yours.

[LoZoccolo]

34. P.S. I am seriously considering registering as a Republican for the 2012 primary.

Obama is unlikely to face a primary challenge, and there is no U.S. Senate election for the Illinois seats next year. I don't know much about the other races, but my most effective vote might be the one I cast for whoever I think is likely to win the presidential primary election and lose the general election for the Republicans.

[uppityperson]

35. I tried that 12 yrs ago and we got shrub. I figured McCain had too good a chance and no one would

vote for the idiot.

[Ken Burch]

49. Go for it.

n/t.

[LanternWaste]

86. Does that fall into the One True Irishman allegory?

Does that fall into the One True Irishman allegory?

[athenasatanjesus]

36. You are only a democrat if you support the good things and oppose the bad things.

Don't get those confused.

[ZombieHorde]

38. I don't know what a Democrat is, but I like what you describe. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

39. I'm no sure about that "Common Welfare of American Citizens" bit.

There are quite a few citizens whose welfare I am not itnerested in.

Any of the BFEE
Darth Cheney
Scott Walker
David Prosser
David & Charles Koch
…well, you get the idea.

[Taverner]

65. I bet you'd fight for their pensions

Now, before you balk, by their pensions I am referring to the pensions that all Federal employees get - and since they did hold a job in the federal government, they have a right to a pension as much as any other Federal Employee...

[Jackpine Radical]

92. Can you collect your pension while in prison?

[Taverner]

93. Good question

Can you?

[Jackpine Radical]

97. I do know that if you're on an SSI disability, the payments stop

when you go to jail or prison & people sometimes play real hell getting them started again after release.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Are they still a Democrat if they only believe in them for Americans?

And in other countries it's not such a big deal?

[ecstatic]

46. Is this a pro-comic kiddie porn OP? nt

[Modern_Matthew]

56. Sounds good to me. Many wolves in our clothing want exceptions to every freedom. nt

[pipi_k]

58. Does that include...

Freedom of speech for everybody?

Like...people we don't agree with? Or is it just for people whose views we share? I can't even count how many times I've seen people here think they have a right to "shut up" RWers or Teabaggers or anybody else with whom they disagree...even other DUers.

Or they go into a public place and demand that the TV channel be changed, apparently thinking they have the right to censor what everyone else sees.

Yes, they have the freedom to say, "I don't agree with Fox News" but they don't have the right to censor what other people can see in a public place.

How many here call themselves "Democrats" and believe in the concept of Free Speech, but have trouble with the reality of it?

[SlimJimmy]

59. K&R just for that reply. The first ammendment does not

come with a disclaimer.

[pintobean]

60. +1 - there goes your popularity rating

:nuke:

[pipi_k]

94. Hah...I think it probably sucked already...

I'm sure some people think I'm sticking up for Republicans, but what I'm really sticking up for is that people put their money where their mouths are and stop being hypocrites.

thanks for the +1, BTW...

:)

[Taverner]

66. Agree 100%

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

--Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Edited for spellingk

[Lorien]

73. A lot of people here are against the Fairness Doctrine, but they also get miffed if

Fox News is shown in EVERY public area and business that they walk into. So is it really "freedom of speech" when only the corporate money party gets air time?

[pipi_k]

95. Well I know it probably seems that way...

but I'm sure not every public place or business is showing Fox News.

One restaurant I go to regularly has two TVs. One is tuned to Fox News, the other is tuned to MSNBC.

So who knows...maybe the owners of these places are men who think the women on Fox are hotter than the women on CNN, for example, and it might have absolutely nothing to do with "Corporate Money Party" stuff.

I mean, you never know, right?

:shrug:

[progressoid]

71. Or you're not a Libertarian

Except maybe for the Commmon Welfare part.

[Lorien]

74. +1. nt

[Lorien]

72. So, if every talking head on Fox News suddenly told their viewers to go out and kill

liberals, Muslims and minorities, you would be OK with that?

As for a purity test, I would say that you are not a Democrat if:

You are pro war

You are anti-environment

You support corporate interests over the interests of workers and the public or environment's welfare

You are anti-union

You're a racist, homophobe, or a misogynist

If you don't believe that health care and a good education should be RIGHTS, not privileges

If you don't believe that every worker deserves a living wage

If you don't believe that the elderly, disabled and very poor are deserving of help from our government and society.

[bvar22]

76. IMO, if you don't believe THESE things, you're NOT a "Democrat".

"As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---Democratic President FDR

Notice in the above, FDR says "the RIGHT to".

He also says, "for all—regardless of station, race, or creed."

[librechik]

87. hear hear n/t

[TheKentuckian]

90. Fuckin' A, Bubba!

[Green_Lantern]

77. those things are pretty vague..like say free speech...

Does free speech mean political groups can spend unlimited amounts of money spreading lies about rivals.

Does freedom of association goes as far as allowing business owners to refuse to serve minorities?

Does freedom from want have a limit at basic needs? Or to providing any consumer item? Should the govt control production of goods to provide for everyone?

[sendero]

78. Hmmmm......

.... most dem congresspersons and certainly our president don't believe in those things - go figure.

[slackmaster]

79. Well, OK.

:kick: K&R

[dembotoz]

80. were is choice????

needs to be spelled out these days
in capital letters

[Wait Wut]

81. Interesting.

I think "Freedom of Thought" contradicts your subject line.

[FiveGoodMen]

82. A- Fucking-men.

Seriously, anyone not good with that list: Eat shit and die screaming.

[UTUSN]

89. Whew!1 I wondered what I was going to be purged about, but I'm 100%!1

"Freedom of Thought" covers some other possible things not in the list.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. I don't believe that any of those things are absolute.

Speech? I can think of lots of speech that I think are impermissible.
Association? I don't defend Fred Phelps right to do what he does.
Religion? If it involves tangible public harm, no good.
Movement? I don't approve of illegal immigration. Period.
The common welfare, doesn't necessarily mean equal outcomes.
Sex freedom? No.
Freedom of thought? Okay, that's one exception.
Freedom to vote should mean strict regulation to assure that the vote is valid.

[pipoman]

98. I agree with these things

plus all of the other civil liberties/rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This would include the 2nd Amendment, the one so many hereabouts like to deny. Many here accuse others who place the right to keep and bear arms high on this very same list of being freepers..

[cherokeeprogressive]

99. So you're saying "agree with me, or you're NOT a Democrat?

Wait a minute, let me go check my registration receipt.

Yup, it says I'm a Democrat no matter WHAT conditions you put on my claiming to be one.

Hate this kind of binary post... You either AGREE WITH WHAT I JUST TYPED... or you're NOT X.

"Freedom of Sexual Lifestyle", huh? No limitations? No laws? Incest? Molestation? What if I enjoy rape or some kind of sexual mutilation?

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[pipoman]

102. So since you can't post a thread, you try to

post a thread in another thread? Really? What does this have to do with this OP?

[vmpolesov]

103. well, the democratic party is historically the champion of things such as laws that protect workers.

this seems like an appropriate place to add it. But who knows, maybe you're an large microsoft shareholder.

[Imagevision]

101. heavy sigh... keep believing folks the T-baggers will love it...