Are you going to be for the people and against the corporatists? Or are going to be for the Democrats and only against the Republican corporatists? Lots of problems with either choice.

BTW, "you are what you eat" is not correct. You are only what you can metabolize.

it's more likely though that in our present culture it's really just all about winning and not being wrong, or having to admit it.

I think it's about what OP says, just shut up about whatever the Democrats do that hurts people and blame only the Republicans for everything that's wrong in this country. And, if you have to choose between even a fellow Democrat and the establishment, pick the establishment every time and throw the other Democrats under the bus.

All the while claiming to be "liberals"...

or are you just grouchy because the pudding isn't here yet?

At the executive level there is only one side. The war/policestate/bigmoney side. All the rest...the divisions...the arguing...it's just political theater for mass consumption. That's why nothing changes.

prove that I promote Republican and/or Libertarian corporatists while I pretend to be a traditional Democrat, known today as "a liberal," or a fringe, and standing on the principles of a traditional Democrat.

But, seriously folks, I would not say there is only one side. I would say that there are differences, but neither side is blameless when it comes to siding with big business and wealthy individuals.

And, perhaps, above them, there are unelected people who are even more powerful than Presidents and prime ministers, those found in places like the Carlyle Group and the Bohemian Grove and that group of wealthy people, mostly or all men, that meets once a year in Europe for big picture planning, whose name escapes me now. A groupd that "really" calls the shots no matter who wins or loses the elections.

If there is such a group, I cannot do anything about them but hope and work for a chance to vote for politicians with principles and integrity who are incorruptible. Which is what I do almost all the time, anyway, when i am not busy earning money for food and shelter.

Carlyle Group and Bohemian Grove. It's all about being in the club. Not much has changed since 1st grade I guess. What's amusing to be is that I had a comment flagged because I said people who support mass surveillance, the drug war, private prisons, wars in the middle east and corporate coups in Latin America aren't real liberals in my opinion and have agendas that don't sync with progressive ideals. This was labeled a personal attack by the NSA crowd. Kinda sad.

"If the foo shits wear it." Well, maybe that was later. I don't think I used the s word in first grade.

If a poster thinks a description of conservative views is a personal attack, he or she just might be a conservative (as is Jeff Foxworthy). I recommend they own it because I've heard that the first step to recovery is identifying which problem you have and then admitting that you have that problem.

As far as the alert, I assume the post was not hidden? Either that, or I'd like to see the context and therefore would appreciate a link, if you don't have to dig much for it.

7-0

I have alerted only once or twice. The only one I recall was on a poster who, on a thread about Jimmy Carter, said the Democratic Party is racist and so is Jimmy Carter. Not a word about the Republican Party being racist.

I know the Democratic Party was racist when Lincoln was President, but I would not post today that the Democratic Party is the racist party, with no mention of Republican racism.

Sounded to me like a troll at best, so I alerted. Not only did the post stay, but a couple of the alerters chastised me for alerting simply because the poster had a different view of Carter than I did. I guess they didn't see the slur against the entire party? And, on top of that, one of the jurors posted the results to the poster who had called the party racists. And, because of something that I had posted on the thread and also included in my alert, that also outed me as the alerter.

Oh, well. As they say, the system isn't perfect. But, glad it worked well for you that time.

Methedology is to bait and lower the level of discussion.

like Shrub used 9 / 11 to usurp our money and Democracy, and Obama has done shit, to reclaim it .

Yes, a hell of a lot of money went down the tubes because of the Iraq War and other Dimson follies. But we and other nations also lost a lot of wealth as the result of repeal of Glass Steagall--and six years later, the banksters that caused the internation economic crisis are still making out like bandits, courtesy of the near zero interest loans they still get. And there was TARP, which was okayed by Bush, Obama and a Democratic Congress, but that was a drop in the bucket compared to six years of zero or near zero interest money.

There are no Republicans on my side, period. They've all been bought and one thing you can say about Republicans--when they get bought, they stay bought. They're very loyal.

The problem is that there are a few Democrats who have joined them. During primary season, I will vote against them should any of them present themselves in NM.

I won't cross the choice line, either, but that's for another day and another answer.

Both sides in all matters is just intellectually dishonest.
The sad fact is money = political power and that is true on both sides, minus a handful of congress.

If Obama is anything like Clinton he will soon be playing golf and having family dinners with the Bush family while sipping champagne and laughing all the way to the bank. Not what you would consider a warrior defending the people from robber barons. And so polite about it too. At the top there is only one side.

Lets have a scientist talk about evolution and climate change, but to keep things even, lets here from a bible thumping, home schooled evangelist who will push creationism and deny that the climate is being changed.