But, sir or ma'am, that is just such a pathetically low standard that even you must realize how sad that is to be reduced to putting it that way.

-Laelth

a population will accept more easily if a "Liberal" inflicts them.

Romney wanted to ban internet porn. Thank goodness he wasn't elected.

Like Mittens, it was a no-brainer.

Only reason I voted for him was to give the right wingers 4 more years of punishment.

I love to hear them wail and gnash their teeth.

...but I was REALLY hoping for an end to the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

....but neither one is on my Wish List.

You totally stole my joke idea!

But that will be ok because of the principles being stood on. And how bad could President Christie be in 2016, with Congress writing him blank checks? That worked out pretty well the last time..

Think of the principles. That's all that matters. And when the U.S. does go hardcore Somalian, at least the DU can say 'we stood for the principles'. That'll show 'em.

And just vote for the guy...any guy really... because he has a D after his name.

Yeah, that's going to keep us out of trouble.

The only thing standing on your principles will get you right now is forcefully roped over a barrel and repeatedly sodomized with a baseball bat, and no, not by this administration. Seems many here are having a hard time discerning the real threat to this country, and 'they' are certainly enjoying this, rubbing their hands together and giggling at the trivialities.

near my ass for continuing to call politicians out on bullshit.

You can march lockstep with Bush policy etal. I'm out.

I'll continue to fight for local dems and actual Democratic causes... while those who can't separate adulation from reality try to spin, and spin, and spin some more...

and most likely never will.

Sure, mmmmhmmmm...

Sorry, y'all can ride that train. I'm going to stay grounded here, in reality. Holding politicians accountable.

What happened wasn't that the government they had which was social democracy with a social safety net, civil rights and other liberal ideas became the Third Reich quickly, or over time. That is the song we're always being sung to demoralize us.

What happened was the unions, socialists, communists, and other leftist parties fought each over purity and principles that you can't have that many agree upon. The Democratic majority forged during the FDR era was nowhere near as progressive as we like to imagine it was - but it gave us economic equality - in the long run, that's what gives us the freedom to speak out and demand better lives.

But back in old Germany as my friends explained, as the various groups failed to come together on the basic points - they lost majorities and were unable to form a coalition or government.

Much like we see in the Left in the USA today, because those parties could not get the perfect and refused to go along with those who weren't correct in their eyes. So they lost it all.

The Nazis weren't so concerned about fine points until they got power and then a lot of the little niceties of democracy were seen as nothing more than weakness. To rule with an iron hand and make things happen fast is not as hard as compromising to keep from losing civil society.

It is the GOP and not the Democratic Party that sees diversity as a weakness, that glorifies the strong over the weak, the rich and powerful over the poor and disadvantaged. They are the ones daily working to take away all our rights, and people fall for their manipulation of us to turn on each other over fine points.

Those principles mean nothing to them, yet we want to stand aside and let them rule, since we can't agree. They do agree on their principles and are ready to take control while we fight amongst ourselves. So they put out whatever will fire us up. It's an old strategy and it works very well, and it's called ratfucking.

Dems are just as guilty of eroding our public school system as the republicans are. In fact, the dems are just as guilty in eroding a lot of things in this country as the republicans are.

As Clinton said, better to be strong and wrong than weak and right. The wrong have thrown down a gauntlet and all the many rights, unbeknownst to them, are being herded into a bickering trap. I got permanently banned from the LGBT forum for protesting their self proclaimed exclusivity on the immigration bill, because all the millions of others who would benefit from it didn't mean shit to them. Just hope people come to their senses sooner than later.

I was hardly the only one there pointing out the hypocrisy of self proclaimed liberalism and the condemning of a much larger swath of people who are also in need. I should have known that ONLY jerks were allowed there.

We have safe haven groups and those groups are run by hosts. If you come in and act in a way that upsets the group, the hosts have the ability to ban you from the group.

You were warned, you kept going and all the hosts decided that you were indeed being a jerk and needed to no longer have access to the group.

The process worked exactly as it was intended.

I have trashed a lot of forums as I don't want to deal with a lot of people I don't know, but do know each other and fight with each other. You post and then agree with one person, and you are on another person's shit list. Like the Hatfields and McCoys, but you don't know who's who.

The groups are not like any other part of DU, are not forums, they are safe havens. I suspect you were banned when you didn't realize how tight the rules were and had offended by continuing to debate when the old timers didn't agree with you. If they don't, shut up. It's their house. Nothing wrong with that, it's the same as real life.

IMO, the groups are set up to avoid what used to be called a 'hostile work environment.' The kind of places where minorities were insulted, making them pay a sort of tax and putting up what the majority didn't and stressing them out and affecting their job.

But after years of Rush and Fox, people don't seem to respect that anymore. They push other people's buttons as they think it is their right, or for the kicks, or they are better and dress it all up as their freedom of speech. They wouldn't get away with it in real life, and I don't tolerate anything here I wouldn't there.

The forums are different, that's the place to fight it out if one wants to. Generous use of the Ignore function saves a lot of time and sorrow dealing with people who insist on trying to goad someone for something they don't like, trying to get a person to go off.

First sign of that, and it's KMA from me. I don't come here to prove I'm a worthwhile person or whatever some need to angle for here. Don't break the group mores, and you'll do fine in any group, I think.

Some groups go over subject matter that to me is more boring than a cemetary, but they think they're doing something great. That's why we've got groups, each one to their little mental patterns and enjoy each other.

As far as the divisions preached in the Democratic Party and the ratfucking, there's not much to do about it. Except to know what the platform is and then work from there. It's a damned good one, compared to what the GOP has written in theirs, there is no comparison between the two parties.

I don't care if every CTer and libertarian darling says the parties are the same, it's a lie. The truth tis they are rooting for something else entirely. They come to the wide open forum Democrats demand as a matter of principle and have a knee jerk attitude against anything that is being attempted because they don't believe in the basic platform, either. Don't know it, never read it either, all their stuff comes from pundits.

They are here to peel people off the Democratic Party to join up with them, or tratfuck and get them to stay home. They won't tell you any solutions at all but to not support Democrats. Or to not vote. Because they don't like the base ideas of the party, no matter how they dress it up.

minorities that they should take the backseat (again) and be happy with that they have.

Because you know, the equality they are asking about, is something 'special' that no one else has. Those are 'special' rights, only applicable to 'them' and no one else.

Sure LGBTQ minority is counted in tens of millions in US, sure they can be fired at will, denied housing, refused benefits, etc. just because they are members of LGBTQ minority, but who gives a fuck! They should count themselves lucky, because it could be much worse if they were living in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. Look how much they have already! How DARE they to ask for more!



You should be ashamed of yourself.

you're making way too much sense -way too much sense.

How old were these "friends" of yours, that they had a clearer view of the early Nazi party than anyone else who wasn't there? One hundred? One hundred and ten?

No one can deny that a coalition party has to compromise with itself in multiple ways-- but what exactly are the groups you're referring to here, and with whom must they compromise? People who describe themselves and "Centrist Democrats" almost always seem to be demanding that every group in the party compromise with big business and the national security state-- and that's it.

I mean, I don't see any big fault lines between labor, gays, minorities... any of the other traditional constituencies of the party. The fault lines are between that base and people who are pushing for back-breaking trade agreements, or the trampling of Civil Liberties, etc. Opposition to those things is part of what brings the coalition together. Asking them to accept them is ludicrous and actually undermines the party's cohesiveness-- in addition to just being plain old bad for just about everyone.

stuff. Equal, except for employment discrimination, housing discrimination, tax inequity, denial of marriage rights, very equal. For you and others like you.
Such a claim to make. Equal under the law! As if!

of this thread, Rand Paul is the only candidate that actually has a good position on this issue -- even including Obama. I wouldn't vote for him for other reasons, but he is a libertarian when it comes to government surveillance.

policies that Obama has embraced under the rug so they are deeply entrenched and accepted for when the next repub president comes along. Then, they can further expand the civil liberty violations. If we can't change bad policy with a dem in, we are hopeless.

Because they are certainly coming back while the Left bickers and wets their pants about supposedly losing their 'freedoms'.

democratic politicians fault, not the voters.

Want my vote? Prove with real action, not more lies. Republican Light can kiss my Liberal ass.

who voted for Nadar in 2000?

missing pieces... and trying to convince us otherwise.

I'm talking about the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome that seems to have taken over those who can't or won't admit that there is something wrong with our Democracy... on both sides of the party fence.

This is, as I've been repeatedly told, only a website full of people who don't represent the mainstream of the party.

We deserve a real change, a difference from the fucking republicans.

Like this guy:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

Personally, I don't care for Republicans. Even the ones that pretend to be Democrats. Actually, they do more long term damage to Democratic constituencies than the Republicans you can see coming a mile off.

cept Carter, he was an honest man too.

that doesn't mean I have to support his decisions, opinions, and roll-overs (or make stupid excuses for them) at every turn.

Feet to the Fire. Sorry. Put me on ignore. I just don't care.

Principles.

the fire and expect better.

Oh well many are getting what they wanted, they need to STFU now and enjoy the fascism!

This is the new standard? Better than the 2013 Republicans? Not much of a bar to meet.
I'll also add that I'd prefer many Democrats to the damn Republicans in the administration, I don't prefer any Republican, ever. Do you support Hagel and the other Republicans? Would you vote for one of them in the future?

I finally get the joke about my mother drunk or sober.

If this doesn't make sense, try a search.

It's not that there's no difference between the parties, it's that the differences are so small and in the wrong places.

but I've no doubt this thread will achieve exactly what it was supposed to. LOL!

As usual, the naysayers are missing the point. And I know they don't want to hear it.

President Obama is actually saying "if you don't want it, get rid of it".

It's not like he can snap his finger and do it. That would be a dictator.

He needs congress to undo what they have time and again authorized.

And since 2000, when Bush got seated, it was the republicans that did all this.

The president is saying, let THEM undo what they did, even if it means getting some negativity on himself

The naysayers don't want that to be known, so they rail at the President.

But it will take a village of voters, of the house and of the senate, to undo what was done.

The FAUX Bush=Obama, well, we did we hear that before? Oh yes, it is the reason Bush was selected in the first place.

4 little bitty electoral votes of NH gave Gore LESS than 270. Had those four went to Gore, it meant 270 and victory way before
Florida even became important.


Rand Paul and Ron Paul are players in the Bush party, and you can bet Rand Paul would in a New York City minute,
take the VP if offered by Jeb in 2016.
Render Rand obsolete by getting him out of his senate seat in 2016 vote. Isn't there one candidate in Kentucky who could easily
defeat him?
(and if his eye is off the senate race while attempting to coral a vice president nomination, shouldn't it be quite easy to defeat him?

Remember, it is because of the republicans, of which Ron and Rand Paul are proud members of, that got America what it did from 2001-2008.


btw, didn't the naysayers of the president ask for transparency?
Well, its out on the table, it's transparent.

So what is the republican party going to do in the house to get rid of what THEY put into law?

(isn't there anyone but me who appreciates just how ironic it is that the republicans are going to have to admit they
were wrong in 2002 if they are using this as an issue?

Isn't there anyone else that sees President Obama indeed has roped-the-dopes yet again?
Because President Obama is a constitutional scholar and is crossing every T, and dotting every I.
yet again.



and by the way, not for nothing- if one doesn't like what the old NSA did, well, didn't the President just name a NEW NSA head?

He will always rope the dopes. President Obama is waaaay smarter than them. They aren't anywhere near as smart as my president. Haters gonna hate but I have Obama's back.

We're voting NOT to become ChurchWarMerica.

That's all we're voting for.

What a sad lot we've become.

We need to be sitting in corporate boardrooms and in Washington, harrassing the lobbyists.

Voter apathy's at an all-time high for a reason: if, economically, President and Congress of 2013 aren't going to do anything different to their handlers than the President and Congress of 2003 did, then what's the point?

a lot of my votes boil down to choosing the one I'm LEAST against.

So far that has meant voting Democrat.

Blind support relies on cognitive dissonance which is perpetuated by the egos relentless need to protect itself. To never admit it could be wrong and to avoid embarrassment. What this eventually leads to is people supporting the person or the camp, the team, at all costs. Principal is out the window.

Even if Obama takes away my warm mash and sends Boxer to the glue factory.

nt

It is a wonder why some partisans here seem nonplussed that the President doesn't seem to share their partisanship. The President's loyal supporters, here, are proud to "back the President," whereas he doesn't seem all that interested in "backing" his loyal supporters.

For some of us, this is a bit of an issue.

-Laelth

Quite the standard you set for yourself.

What we had back then was a party line. You would pick up the phone line and someone would be talking to another person. You would have to wait until the cleared the line before you could make your call. When I was working for state agency and we finally got the internet and a message would come up and basically say, "Everything you do is monitored down to the last keystroke." I got my computer and would find out later the cookies and information was being store on my activities. Ancestry.com keeps the records of everyone and you make trees to your family history. Huge databases of information for anyone to search. I never expected to have privacy. Complete and total privacy. Should it be expected? In a perfect world well then yes, I guess you would. I'm not happy with this, but going back to my op, I do respect what the president was faced with and what is at stake.

side note, two more people are ignoring me. Weee!

on a democratic forum, imo.

And I wonder if Hillary would have done any different.

and probably not.

But it doesn't give him a pass to do whatever he likes. He should have put the brakes on all the spying crap.