Reply #19: *sigh* [View All]

[codegreen]

1) i was referring to party leadership. and contrary to your insistence, i am not trying to just speak for myself, but for those who agree, and i've seen plenty of them.

2)in my phrasing it that way, i was indicating we should have a party line, and one different from whatever we have know, if we have one, which you seem to think we don't, but i'm not going to count on you as an authority as to whether that is the case.

3)there was more to that sentence that was really my central point, and the party should lead. if the GBLT orgs know they live in a country where no one will stand up for them, certainly not the former 'party of the people', (y'know, the same party that refuses to stand for and demand a living wage and a real national non-profit healthcare system) then i don't care. we shouldn't expect groups being relegated to fifth-class citizenship to lead for us. we should stand up for the people.

4)it doesn't stand up for its complication, or for complicated stances. it desperately attempts to fit into the soundbyte culture, and the leadership is continually going middle-ground, Rethug-lite. and what i meant by different was different from the opposition, not different as in 'sure we've got diversity in our party but the leadership is always leaning right because, well, the opposition party is winning by running right, so let's follow them or we'll lose; oh and let's ignore our base for most part'. anyway, you know what i meant and insist on twisting it into something else. we have a party that tolerates diversity, yes, but the leadership is the problem in that it is NOT diverse, instead it is consistently refusing to go left, and consistently letting the media and the other side dumb things down and shun nuance.

btw, when i aknowledge my rants are poorly thought out within the rant, i don't see why you need to keep telling me how poorly thought out they are. (that's why i said they were in the first place)