I took the 5th on anything else I was thinking. Ya can never be to careful of a hide, even in a protected group.

Sometimes, some people hate my guts. Whatever, not my problem, it's there's.

But hey, we are in our own class.

I can't find the exact image I want, but it happened here. One of the first images I posted here.

Loved this.

Grace and dignity!

You are so sweet and make excellent points.

We could all say things but we won't because we don't want a hide.

White elephant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the idiom of an ignored truth, see Elephant in the room.
For other uses, see White elephant (disambiguation).

The British East Africa Company came to regard Uganda as a white elephant when internal conflict broke out in 1892 and rendered the company ineffective in administration of the territory.
A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam, now Thailand, were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered without use or value.[1]

Most don't care and will have their say anyway. They deny knowing where they are even with the warning. They are pissed that we have protected groups

I wish people would get that.

I usually ask them to delete. Or explain why they are being banned. A few mailed me and I reinstated them. One wanted to make an apology to the group. He did, it was sweet and sincere.

I would likely direct them to the top host.

The reality is I don't think most who are banned mind or give it a second thought.I just never expected that the ban list would get this big.

In the BOG. All the hosts listed, none are active. It's Cha, myself and now Steve. We are lowly hosts and can not delete the inactive ones. Grantcart was the head host, he has been gone for about a year.

This...

Nothing democratic about banning diversity of opinion.

Gee wizzzz.

you can get all the "diversity" you want in GD or any number of other forums. This is a group with clearly explained rules.
Or, are you the type who wants to go in a vegetarian discussion and shout " I love meat.. meat good, meat yummy"?

DU has plenty of them with very specific Statement of Purpose.

This group is positive in terms of the Democrat it supports. Just as the BOG is. The SOP is obvious for both groups:

HRC: For Supporters Only...

BOG: To Celebrate The Life, Achievements and Policies...

We don't need negativity to define a candidate as we go into a primary, nor well worn right wing memes to denigrate any of our candidates. People need to stop carrying water for them. Heck, they aren't even getting paid for this garbage.

I don't believe in this tried old 'inevitability' complaint I see in GD against Hillary, and most of what is slung at her, just as it has been done to Obama, has been more than once debunked in detail:

to NYC Liberal:

44. I “live with her record” easily, because when you actually look at her record, it is a strong liberal one.

It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Reich was even more gladdened by Hillary's passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation—one of the Labor Secretary's favorite populist topics. "These are real issues, Bill," she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company "is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about forty times ... People all over this country are really upset about this." When Bill demurred, saying he couldn't be "out front" on such issues, Hillary said sharply, "Well, somebody in the administration ought to be making these arguments," turning to Reich. "I agree," replied Bill with a nod.

Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.

• Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
• Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
• Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
• Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
• Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
• Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
• Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
• Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
• Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
• Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
• Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
• Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
• Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
• Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
• Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify--which will be millions of people--to help pay their energy bills this winter. There are so many people on fixed incomes and working people who are not going to be able to afford the spike in energy costs. And then we will have money for rebates, but let’s make them the right rebates. A lot of our seniors on fixed incomes don’t pay income taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from the energy costs.

• Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
• Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
• Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
• Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
• Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
• Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
• Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
• Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
• Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
• Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)

Clinton’s foes say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance, a claim Clinton has made literally thousands of times. She “got health insurance for six million kids,” according to one ad.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.

If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.

She bitterly condemned the greed of health insurers, who she said were pushing the United States “to the brink of bankruptcy.”

• Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
• Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
• Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
• Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

• Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
• Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
• Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
• Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
• Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
• Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
• Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

Following two and a half years of study, members of Bill’s Advisory Co until on Social Security offered proposals for investing a portion of Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Hillary reacted emphatically to the report, telling her husband, “We mustn’t let Social Security be privatized.”

Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record

At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.

Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillary’s strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.

I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.

VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



Sources:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

From this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396578#post44

Anyone can read what that says and understand why she has supporters. There is no call to insult people who hold these positions or support the person they believe will suceed at bringing these to pass. I can say from what I've seen of Sanders and Warren, they may disagree strongly with HRC or Obama or others, but they don't stoop to namecalling and personal attacks on each other.

Half the attacks on Hillary are impugning her intent to gain higher office. DUers don't know her personally, don't know what is in her heart. I posted a disclaimer with her own words about how this is not about venality or ambition. She wants her limited time on Earth to have meant something. PBO says the same thing.

Is all this poo-flinging a fit use of time? Is that what they want to be remembered for?

The GOP knew her votes and positions and made sure she'd be thoroughly 'ratfucked' as every Democratic candidate has been from them using the method pioneered by Nixon's CREEP by Donald Segretti, that day's James O'Keefe.

People who fall for this should be embarrassed, just as those who have gobbled all up the swill tossed at Obama.

The term 'Ratfucking' and how it applies to Obama and Democrats

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215862

Oh, and 'tyranny' is not the usual Democratic Party lingo. I've heard it more often from Paulites and Tea Partiers.

I like this analysis

If you wish to here criticism of Hillary go to GD but we don't wish to here it.

But you knew this and still decided to come into this safe haven and lecture us.

If they can't figure out where they are posting, that's not your problem.

99% of them are feigning it anyways.

Like they think we just fell off a turnip truck.

I will just make sure it doesn't happen again.

Thanks for finding that.

Thanks for the links freshwest.

Clearly someone with a future here!

cannot be disposed of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to their usefulness.

Without use or value? That's the GOP in a nutshell...or a Teabag, if you will.

that list facts... true facts about HRC.

I only skimmed it and bookmarked it. To tired to read it all.

Here is a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6396706

On the site for Hillary. I reread from time to time to see where she is on issues, she is making me work very hard.

I think about Bill and Hillary, new for Hillary in Arkansas. Had to get some clientele built to have paying customers and the governor's salary was not one to get. There had to be some struggles so she knows where struggling folks come. She was strong and they endured, feel sure she will bring some of those values with her as president. She advocated for education and women's issues. She sponsored a bill to increase the minimum wage, has fought for women's salaries to catch up to men's.

She has a daughter and granddaughter who may reap these benefits one day. On the her speeches, she is strong and decisive.

Yes we do.



Thanks, NBachers.

She terrifies some "elephants" who are grazing on this end of the rain forest, too, I notice!

it reminded me of this gif and GOP/Bagger heads exploding.

And timely message, Thanks sheshe!