Aren't Liberals supposed to be open minded?

As a new poster (who has previously read posts here every so often) it strikes me that (some)people on DU are incredibly narrow minded and ideological. If you merely question the validly of any part of left wing dogma (even slightly). I find much more people willing to attack then actually think.Aren't we supposed to be the open minded ones?

...just as not all Republicans are racist, child-raping murderers.

:D

That's true. Some of them are just child-raping murderers.

and FLAMEBAIT can be anything that offers a FALSE CHOICE.

For instance, would you mind having your head chopped off if it meant you would never be shot to death?

It's ridiculous, it's flamebait, and I'm surprised the mods didn't intervene.

:shrug:

It's hard to speak in generalities, what areas are you seeing these narrow-minded attacks?

I have a thread on GD politics called A a hypothetical question (or something like that)>> I've had maybe two or three people take the question seriously and the rest just scream no,and make assumptions about my agenda..

Kind of like walking into a roomful of strangers and starting an argument. Not very tactful.

And you must be aware that there is a long history of intentional disruption on forums like this, disruption that looks and feels very much like your post.

Don't you agree?

As a new poster I just raised a question about my initial impressions...

... the US Constitution be amended to ban gay marriage would not exactly brand you as a progressive, don't you think? Even if you preface it as a "hypothetical." Then you follow up with a broad criticism of this community.

You're being very insensitive, it seems to me. At the very least. But perhaps I'm just being insensitive to your insensitivity.

Why would one trade universal health care for gay rights? Will the Republicans trade gay marriage for tax cuts? They certainly don't seem in any bargaining mood, so ideology is just an internalized belief I guess.

I will opt for gay rights AND health care and let them fight for the 10 Commandments being displayed and putting Reagan on the $50 bill. And so it goes.

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

Glad he or she linked it here. It gives me a bigger picture view.

And why?

You question that he/ she is even a Democrat? That is sad indeed. You've provided a perfect example of the OPs point.

Someone parachutes into a discussion forum with critical generalizations about the community, and throws in a few flame-bait phrases for good measure... of course intelligent people are going to question the poster's sincerity.

are problems are FAR more serious than Republican dominance.

and has drawn flames. This was done purposefully and the OP obviously posted flamebait because the OP failed to remain within the conversaion.

are you really so intolerant you can't even engage in a discussion about intolerance. Even if the poster meant it as flamebait, which I see no reason to assume, you don't need to take the bait. You could try responding in a thoughtful manner. Intelligent discussion never hurt anyone.

... when it's not.

It's real actions, in a real environment, with a real history. Attempting to disregard all that strikes me as disingenuous.

I don't deny that is a problem at all. But from what I've seen from SOME posters on these boards, they are no better than Republicans.

... to humor every poster whose words and style exactly match the pattern of those who come here solely to disrupt.

Give them space, you seem to say, but I ask, "Why?" Why not ask the poster to comport themselves more appropriately, at least when introducing him or herself to the community. I don't see why rules of appropriate behavior are to be expected of one group, and not the other.

It's a website. This is not the entire body of the national Democratic party.

Two simple questions. The poster answered them. What's the problem?

Others resent the fact the question is even raised. I consider that a demonstration of the OP's remarks. Your lighten up comment is entirely irrelevant. I at least and addressing the subject matter.

So, you just disproved your own argument.

and how it related to the OP. I had one interpretation. If I was mistaken, I would welcome knowing what you meant. You seem unwilling to divulge your intent.

By the way, in the English language we have a mark of punctuation that is called a question mark (?). It is meant to represent doubt. I used that mark in posing the question about the meaning of your post. You chose to ignore it and instead perceive my question as an insult.

Lighten up, Francis. It's just a question. You read a hell of a lot into that.

How did it relate to the OP?

As in meant to be slyly humorous, but I see you and xultar have zero sense of that.

Have fun with the self-righteous indignation.

:crazy:

First off, it's impossible to tell if someone is serious or not, since there is no inflection of voice. And frankly, based on your responses to my inquiries, I do not believe you.

You seem absolutely unwilling to engage in a discussion about the question posed. I made comments about substance. You instead choose to engage in personal attacks.

As in mountain out of a molehill.

They were two questions. They were tongue in cheek. Maybe don't pounce so hard from now on before YOU ask some questions about intent if you aren't sure.

It's not even worth a discussion. That alone should tell you how tongue in cheek the original post of mine was. Rest. Breathe.

:eyes:

It was a simple straightforward question. Two of them, in fact.

Beacuse I am Social Democrat and thought he was the best man for the job.

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

calling out another poster is against the rules...

:) Tee hee

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

Yeah, he's calling Walt out. Hell, I've certainly butted heads with Walt before, but it still doesn't make it right.

You can take your "lighten up" comment elsewhere, "Francis."

There's a definite pattern to the behavior with these sorts of threads over the past few weeks and if the administrators of the board are smart, it'll be fairly obvious from the timing and numbers of alerts what's going on.

Most people here don't like the elected Dems, they think they are all spineless.
Where have you been hanging...you haven't seen all of the DINO and Anti Dem posts?

GEEZZZZZZZZ :crazy:

It's not exactly a rhetorical question. :eyes:

:shrug:

on that site which shall not be named

... the freepiots -- well, just be themselves, I guess.

:D

to regain ground. They're not milquetoast any more. I think that liberals thought that truth, honesty and the constitution would eventually prevail, but they have come to realize that it won't happen without a fight. Right-wingers are Machiavelli, they don't care about truth, or an honest discourse. They're going after the results. So, a line has been drawn in the sand and liberals will give them a fight as good as they get.

It's one thing to formulate ideas and strategies. It's another to demonstrate vehement hatred.

And don't fall into the trap that acknowledging one's anger -- even anger to the point of well-considered hatred -- is an impediment to formulating ideas and strategies.

and it goes far beyond anger at policies. Do you deny that?
Just today I saw a comment about wishing Ari Fleisher dead because someone didn't like what he said on the Daily Show. That is simply insane.

I do see a lot of flamebaiting and moling on these boards and that's a fairly obvious thing.

or you think it's acceptable to wish death on others.

... about trolling to concluding that someone favors making death threats?

Gimme a break.

Is it a healthy, productive reaction? No, at least not beyond the therapeutic value of blowing off a little steam.

However, I imagine that the poster wishing Ari Fleischer harm was not responding solely to that TDS appearance, but to all the history that preceded it, where Fleischer was a spokesman for an organization that many perceive to have caused them genuine harm.

I'm not condoning death threats, by any means. But we have to view these things in a wider context. If people on DU are feeling angry and hurt, I suggest we examine the reasons they've reached that point, not berate them for their feelings. Those feelings were earned the hard way, unfortunately.

It's voluntary to be here. And we are NOT the body of the national Democratic party.

There are very smart people on these boards who make interesting insights. And then there are others.

Gosh, this question about intolerance was crazy wasn't it?

"why aren't libruls doormats?"

At least the OP could have been honest about it. But he wasn't.

strawman?

I am posting some remarks here. I have omitted the names because I have no desire to condemn anyone personally but simply to point out what you have chosen to ignore. Whether or not you believe some individuals worthy of hatred, it is nonetheless hate. That much is undeniable.


Oh, fuck Tom Feeney
I hope the roof falls in on him. Asshole.


Jezuz is a FAG!


I HATE THAT FUCKING TAP-DANCING, LYING MOTHERFUCKER.

Nazi Whore

And religious liberals wonder why we hate religion.

and yes - i hate santorum more than anyone except **)

How's the PNAC kool-aid Clinton. Drink up you imperialist whore.

You're still a PC Liberal. Frankly, I've been known to use similar language in a moment of anger; but it's because I've lived in a red state for half of my life that I've seen the errors of the bleeding heart way. If your goal is to reach out to them with liberal sensitivity and language, well, there's a name they give to people like you around here: Road Kill.

Still, someday they will come around, and when that happens, we'll need people like you to show them that liberals are capable of seeing bygones be bygones. Meanwhile, step aside. We have some cow pies to collect for our next sortie.

but that's obviously not the case. To be honest, I see no difference between the left or the right on the issue of intolerance. And while many here decry the level of hatred manifested by right wingers, posts here demonstrate shocking levels of hatred and intolerance. People, it seems, are people. And far too many of us (and in this I include myself at times) fall short on fundamental concerns for the humanity of those who disagree with us.

That would be the right.

We also don't PRETEND to support the troops by sporting yellow ribbon magnets while voting for an administration that cut VA benefits, backdoor drafts soldiers, as well as puts them in harms way unnecessarily.

but on a personal level, I see a great deal of reprehensible expressions of hatred. I simply do not find that acceptable.

Also, the Gannon discussions were laced with homophobia, and sexism flourishes on these boards. Anti-semitism also makes an occasional appearance. Voting Democrat doesn't necessarily make someone a decent human being.

I also recently learned that 1 in 25 Americans is a sociopath. Most never commit crimes but are incapable of feeling empathy. Statistically, that means we have sociopaths on these boards, and I believe I've read some of their posts.

But ANYONE who voted for BUSH, ANYONE on the right, is far worse than our least enlightened on the left. Actions speak louder than words.

BTW, sociopaths are 1-3% of the TOTAL population. If by the slight chance a sociopath would post here, which would not fit the profile of a sociopath's interests, that would be an exception to the rule.

and what distinguishes a sociopath is lack of empathy, not party affiliation.

Look up the characteristics of a sociopath in the DSM V and studies on Conservative/Authoritarian personalities. It's glaringly obvious what interests these types and what type of groups they join. The BTK serial murderer was a classic textbook case: Repuke, Boy Scout leader, church goer, "Christian" Businessmens club...

Lack of empathy is ONE characteristic of a sociopath.

First off, the difference between the parties is not as great as you seem to think. Neither party, for example, promotes a goal of economic equality. CEO's who lay off tens of thousands of workers with little regard are voting Democrats. In my experience, there is no correlation between personal decency and party affiliation. I know people who espouse lovely political ideas but are personally reprehensible. If you reflect on it honestly, you must also know such people. It would be convenient to think you're right, but I know of no evidence that supports it. I would need to see scientific evidence before I find your assumption credible.

If you think the Repukes have done as much for Civil Rights, Women's rights, access to opportunity as the Democrats have, you are sadly misinformed.

People gravitate to a party that better reflects their worldview. You will find LESS pro violent, pro WAR types in the Democratic party than you will in the Repuke party. You will find LESS hate group types in the Democratic party than in the Repuke party.

Forn instance, WHO were famous politicians noted for their connections to the KKK? Democrats or Repukes for the most part? I believe that Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Frist, Rehnquist, all are Repukes.

that should be "Voting Democratic doesn't..."

All good Dems know that...

what is so hard to understand about that? The right pretends to be the morally correct people, all christian and good, when at the same time they reject people because they are different, their greed allows them to close their eyes to the needs of the sick and poor and homeless and they glory in an immoral and illegal war because of their perverted sense of patriotism. They do not have a monopoly on patriotism, yet when we stand up for our nation, when we protest the erosion of all civil rights, when we question our leaders, they call us traitors and ridicule our passion.

I will gladly admit that I am not tolerant of the right and their distorted, warped and hateful views. They have made it evil to be Christian because they cannot follow the teachings of Christ, they profess to be patriots, yet they do not participate in the government and they do not object to the destruction of our nation. Yes, I know, when I type these words I am praying that the Lord forgive me for the hate and intolerance that I have in my heart for many on the right.

Sounds like you had different expectations.

people are people and there are freeper-type attitudes on both sides.

Unfortunately.

First off, welcome to DU, I hope you stick around, and not get put off by some things.

Not all Liberals are open minded, just like not all conservatives are closed minded.

You have all types of thinkers here at DU, from the far left to the center. You just have to navigate your way around and take most of what you feel as an attack with a grain of salt.

Cruise around the different threads and read what's posted, put your best response out there and just take things with a grain of salt, or a bottle of Guiness, whichever you prefer.

thread.

As the Repukes?

:nuke:

Right, and we are whiners and don't support the troops. okey dokey!

...just waiting around like a doormat to be walked on.

When this liberal gets stepped on, he bites.

And I've been sharpening my fangs.

Have you? LOL!

I'm not going to walk on eggshells so that hate monger, mass murderers and their supporters, who DO HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS, feel more comfortable. If they can't stand the heat, they can get the fuck out of the kitchen.

If you're anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-minority, anti-gay then you are, as my mother used to say, dead to me. No more tolerance.

Please do so. I've been here awhile and I'm a dyed in blue liberal, yet find there are some lock-stepping things that go on at DU that I don't agree with.

But you have to let us know what specifically you mean.

The reason I stuck around here is even when I disagree with someone we can mostly manage to keep the debates civil, and almost always find some common ground somewhere. Kinda like America is supposed to work...

People on the left aren't capable of dogma? you further prove my point...

I'm still suspect.

If anyone here disagrees with you or gives a nasty response, you seem to label all of DU in a negative way. There are all kinds of people here, you ask a loaded question, you'll surely get some loaded answers.

Welcome to DU...

All kinds of crap can fall into your mind, if you leave it hanging open...

Anyway, I wouldn't accuse people of not being open-minded. Some people just like a good argument.

I'm in a cranky mood today, having just listened to NPR report on Shrubapalooza, so I am very likely to come across as narrow-minded. So consider yourself warned!!

Leaving lots of room for right-wing Faux talking points?

No, thank you.

This board is representative of those Democrats and Progressives who have had enough and have found a place to do something about it, and to stop tolerating things that are destroying our lives.

Tolerance is a word that carries a double edge. If we are tolerant, we are somehow supposed to put up with RW crap, and if we complain, they we are "intollerant." I cry BS.

As you've suggested elsewhere.

What else is bothering you?

Ignore flames. They're usually from astro-turfers anyhow.

Julie

We do not take well to those who seek to undermine what we stand for. We are open-minded, but that does not mean we will not stand up to deliberate provokation and or subversion of our agenda.

That answer your question?

Who has not done anything to provoke anyone except maybe try to respectfully challenge ideology

You are extremely vague with your broad brush description of DU.

Although I do believe that there is a problem with Liberals refusing to prioritize issues on their importance to the country as a whole. Does this make me a troll?

If that is the case my friend, you are in the wrong place.

What are your priorities? War, death, world domination, lack of human rights, lack of care for the elderly, poor and sick? Those are not liberal values.

I said I am A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT on every issue

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

Any edit I did was strictly for grammatical purposes (like everyone else on this board does)

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

Too bad my questions to you about the war were deleted. I wonder why?

If you would like to PM them to me I would be happy to answer them in a reasonable discussion.

You need to understand that concept.

As for whether you are a fascist or not, only you know that depending on what human liberties you are willing to take away from people.

trade off reproductive rights in exchange for social democracy. You didn't even FRAME it as a faustian bargian.

Either way that someone responds to that question they lose and here's how.

IF we err on the side of economic justic, then our belief that women and their physicians deciding what is best for them IS a civil right is skin deep.
If we err on the side of protecting that right we then compromise our values concerning economic justice.

But now that I have read two of your posts...the style is very familiar

The question is WHERE do we compromise you lose something either way, as opposed to having more right wing ascendancy and losing EVERY way

Do you support a woman's right to reproductive choice? What do you think about a constitutional amendment to prohibit Gays from marrying? What do you think about the Healthy Forest and Clean Sky initiatives from the Bush Administration? Do you think it was good that we invaded Iraq and that the Bush Administration LIED about WMD's in order to do so? Just curious what "Liberal Democrat" means to you....What do the words "Tolerance" mean to you? :shrug:

I am a social democrat who believes in strong welfare state (although also an efficient one), I am PRO CHOICE (although admittedly somewhat ambivalent), I DO NOT believe in an amendment against gay marriage (and philosophically I am for gay marriage),I am strongly against Bushes Environmental policies, I am a veteran of the war in Iraq, and was always strongly against it, although I am happy to see the beginning of democratic reforms in the M.E.. However I am not an ideologue,or a Utopian, and am willing to compromise some of my beliefs (for now) in order to help achieve the more important ones.

I've heard it, but I won't say from whom.

And if you DON'T share it, then WHY are you here?

I don't pay attention to ideology I think ideology is very counterproductive

So far, you seem AGAINST everything everyone else here is FOR...in spite of your protestations to that.

Why don't you come out and tell us what you are FOR...and YOUR priorities...rather than asking after ours. Or just staing what you are against?

And I mean, come out in plain ENGLISH and LIST what you are for...don't just post in vagueries, if you are FOR something, come out and SAY SO. and then start acting like it.

1.Returning to a sustainable economic model though more redistributive polices .
2.Investing in Human capital (education, training programs,health CARE) so we can compete in a global economy
3.A foreign policy that promotes democracy (but imposes it only as a last re sport)
4 Democratizing the IMF and other global financial institutions

Should I go on?

5. Strengthening our labor unions

6.Creating a living wage through some combination of increased minimum wage, negative taxation,free health care/day care etc. (this might actually be higher on the list)

7.Protecting our environment through Kyoto(and putting pressure on china to sign it too)

I could go on and eventually get to abortion and gay marriage, but YES I find other things more important, if our economy collapses and we can't eat, or if we get blown up by terrorists, Gay marriage probably won't matter that much. I want an America that is economically sustainable to be around long enough to progress culturally to the point of gay marriage being acceptable.
If you disagree I am more then willing to hear your point of view, but don't call me a homophone or misogynist/

Look..I KNOW you claim you only MEANT to be provocative, but I have now read every post of yours on this board.

On one thread you claimed to have worked for the DNC during the election.

You CLAIM you are for economic justice and in another thread you lamented ABB precisely BECAUSE you claimed it lacked an actual message about WHAT WE STAND FOR..then you use the fact that some of us DO stand for something to claim that it is evidence that we are closed-minded.

Did you consider that when you asked your hypothetical question?

What if you had asked..."if you could achieve economic parity, would you roll back the Civil Rights Act?" Do you think the welcome wagon would have been rolled out for you or do you think you would have gotten just as many flames back at you.

For some of us, civil rights is a STAND NOT an ideology.

What's so fucking HARD to get about that?

And WHAT NERVE to accuse our stand of being an IDEOLOGY and claim YOURS is a principle.

edited for clarity

Taking a stand on civil rights is NOT ideology, refusing to question where you put certain civil rights on your list of importance is.

If someone asked me about economic parity and the civil rights act. I would tell them no and go on and list the reasons(if you would like me to do so I will, but not on this thread)

And yes I did work for the DNC during the election, although I have no idea what that has to do with anything

I thought you claimed to be more principled?

on edit: and the DNC statement doesn't have anything to do with anything. I mentioned it to let you know I actually did read ALL of your posts.

on second edit: refusing to question WHERE one puts civil rights is HARDLY a matter of ideology. Trading OFF civil rights calls into question PRINCIPLES

Then the right to equality in education, job opportunity,entitlements, etc.
I believe in those rights every bit as much for gay people as I do for black people(as I mentioned in a post below)

As a gay woman, if I and my partner are in an auto accident and end up in an ER, I have NO SAY as to what they do. If she is my wife, I do.

I said I strongly support civil unions previously in this thread. My point is if your partner doesn't have health insurance, its really not going to matter what you think they should do anyway, is it?

have health insurance right now, and gets into a serious accident, they are taken via ambulance to a county hospital and receive emergent care regardless of their ability to pay. The difference being, a doctor says to the spouse WE HAVE TO OPERATE versus saying to a gay spouse WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION SINCE YOU ARE NOT NEXT OF KIN.

YOU DO NOT STAND FOR CIVIL RIGHTS no matter HOW you would like to parse it.

they will be recognized (which I am all for)

Yes you get emergency care, but if you get into a bad enough accident emergency crae does not suffice.

and i will not tolerate anyone who might impugne my credentials as a liberal democrat!

:hi:

Welcome to DU. Yeah, you will come across a rant or two that sounds most illiberal, but you gotta remember that this is where we go to vent. We don't deal well with freepers coming in and trying to tweek us, any more than we'd like them to step into our living rooms and start an argument.

There's a range of opinion here from (nearly) Zell to Kucinich, so things might get warm now and then, but rest assured, we are all fumbling our way to the light.

peace.

and then complaining that liberals aren't open minded.

How fucking cookbook rare.

Gets old after a while.

I just questioned where people put it on their priorities, and so for that I'm Pat Robinson, right? Again this is exactly what my OP was about

on a liberal message board knowing full well what the overwhelming majority of responses will be.....and when you get the expected response, you then start a thread to accuse liberals of not being open minded because they held firm to their beliefs and principles.

You have any idea how unoriginal that tactic is? You're not even good enough to be called disingenuous...


So don't flatter yourself...you're transparent.

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

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

I said it wasn't ABOUT abortion, not that it didn't involve it. Abortion was only a small part of the thread, I invite anyone to look for themselves

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

I said it wasn't ABOUT abortion, not that it didn't involve it. Abortion was only a small part of the thread, I invite anyone to look for themselves

"... if it meant overturning Roe V. Wade and passing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."

Baiting people to say they oppose women's rights and Gay rights. :eyes: HOW FUN! Let's see if we can get people to say these rights are not important.

To answer your question guy, NO! Liberals will not throw out our core values of our party. What a stupid question. No wonder people reacted.

Roe isn't going to get overturned anytime soon anyway. It would take two new Justices, in addition to replacing the old guy to make it happen.

I never advocated actually overturning it, you a reading into things I said (inaccurately)

where we put our priorities?

Rarerist rare.

and giving up Gay Rights! LMAO!

Circular logic at its worst.

that 'question' you posed on that thread you mention is foolish at this point in time. And posting it in GD:P, rather than GD, was at a minimum bad judgment and a definite lack of sense about the distinction between the two. People took you for a provocateur or oblique disruptor, rightly or wrongly.

Yes, there are a good bunch of ideologically silly people on DU. Yes, they are easy to troll. I have no idea why it's worth anyone's time.

It was a general political question so I thought thats where it belonged. It was meant to be provocative, not disruptive

Why would you show up in a well established forum and as the "new kid on the block" so to speak, attempt to provoke people?

And then, once they are sufficiently provoked, do you act as if they are being intolerant for reacting exactly as you admit you were hoping for?

Aren't libruhls supposed to be doormats?

I prefer being in Black Panther mode at this point


Suck it up, you'll get used to it

They exapect US to be "tolerant" and when we scream about their policies that have caused us REAL HARM...we are just supposed to smile and ask for more. That is what "tolerance" means to them. And if we DON'T just take their bullshit and smile, then we are "intolerant."

Well, no more, Bucko. I'm fighting back. I have fucking HAD it with RW policies designed to hurt me and my people, and I will no longer be a fucking doormat for the RW.

I'm sick of being walked on and my needs utterly disregarded...and my feelings utterly disregarded.

I am as tolerant as the other party. No more, no less. you want tolerance? Then BE tolerant. Display REAL compassion, care and understanding. Then present a different viewpoint...and you might get some tolerant disagreement.

but to come in here with a push-poll about which of our ideals we would be willing to compromise...no, that is flamebait. and not very creative flamebait, I might add.

Tolerant doesn't mean: be a fucking doormat and sacrifice your values. This is what freepers often become confused and accusatory about. Logic is not within their scope.

After 100+ responses, many of them directly to your questions, has anyone in this thread given an answer that you consider valid or informative in some way?

If so, would you be willing to list a few?

This is not meant as a command or an edict, by any means, but I think it would help us guage how the conversation is going so far.

:)

However many have attacked me as being a republican troll, or as condemning issues that I never condemned (just questioned). Again as far as my beliefs refer to post 114, if you consider me too far to the right to engage in this site, you're in trouble because I'm to the left of 95% of this country

I doubt seriously that you are to the left of 95% of this country. Not with what I have seen so far!

Because I know there's more than 5% that's further left than I am...and you sure as hell aren't to the left of ME, so far, by your stated viewpoints.

Yes I am more liberal then 95% and maybe more liberal then YOU

And by the way, I'm laughing. You aren't more liberal than ME. no way. Those who know me on this list know DAMN WELL i'm more liberal than most...and with DAMN GOOD REASON!!

But, let's test it, shall we??

FOR OR AGAINST

Gay Rights
Gay Marriage
Non Discrimination in Employment for Gay, Lesbian Bisexual AND Transgender People
Kyoto Treaty
Living Wage
A Woman's Right To Choose
Iraq War (I don't mean the troops, I mean the POLICY that got us there!)
Social Security Reform ala Bush

No commentary. Simply "For" or "Against" on each of these issues?
Other DU'ers...feel free to tack on other issues.

No commentary, BL611. Are you FOR or AGAINST each of the issues here named?

now do it specifically

Gay rights:Yes, strongly
Gay Marriage:Yes, but I don't put it as a high priority
Non discrimination:Yes strongly
Kyoto:Yes, strongly
Living Wage:yes strongly
Right to chose:Yes, however do not believe Roe V. Wade is worth the political capital spent on it
Iraq war:No I was strongly AGAINST it (but not for the Micheal Moore reasons), however still fought in it because it was my duty as a soldier
Social Sec:Yes strongly I would have put that on my original list however I thought it fell under priority #1

The responses you consider valid were those that agree with you.

What about those who were simply trying to explain how your actions might have been considered disruptive? Didn't they make any impression on you?

Seriously, I'm not asking you to succumb to group-think, but if a bunch of people in the room are telling you you're making a scene and pissing people off, doesn't that count for something? Might there not be something valid in what they're saying, too?

Again the point of the post was not to disruptive, and I apologize if someone consorted it as being, nor did I say those that agreed with me were valid, but it did help that I saw many agreed with me

You've certainly found yourself in a firestorm here, largely of your own making.

First impressions matter, and it doesn't seem you've made a good one.

Whether you'll stick around, I don't know. It's not up to me anyway.

:shrug:

If more people than not don't buy YOUR ideas...why must it say something about them instead of YOU?

I just asked them to tell me why, instead of assuming I'm some gay bashing pro lifer

would use a faustian bargain to ask of people would rather have economic injustice or civil injustice (which is what I consider any compromise of women's and gay rights to be)

Frankly, I think you need to look at why YOU would throw either on the table as a trade off. Something INFORMED your curiosity.

words matter and the way they are used matters even more.

to deconstruct your remark; "Aren't Liberals supposed to be open minded?"

is not a question, but a conscious declarative statement that they are not guised as an interogative.

as the thinking adult you present yourself as here and one who functions in this society you ought to know that and if you don't, you do now.

that you chose your words such indicates that you were not after a discussion here but were in fact making a statement that liberals are not open minded.

all ideas are not created equal and many, including those in the referenced post of yours have been debunked on DU for several years

that some here might be smarter, more informed and yes even a bit weary of other members who might be kind-hearted but clueless on topics seems to be beyond your comprehension.

if you want, i will remain and discuss with you tolerance, and objective analysis of any topic your heart desires.

but kindly now, know this, one who wishes to run with the wolves best grow long legs and thick fur, because wolves run fast and bit hard and there are those who are too gentle to live amongst wolves.

Except in that I thought SOME people on this site were very rigid and dogmatic.

As far as dealing with wolves, you don't think Republicans prioritize?Where was social security during the election?

That thread was the ONLY thread prior to this where anyone was the least bit uncivil, unkind or unwelcoming to you.

Did it even occur to you that you were asking people whether economics was more important than the rights of other human beings?

It was really more directed at observations I had observing this site before I joined.
Yes I do think the right to have a roof over your head and food on your table and a decent education for your children is more important then your right to get married,sorry.

with it.

You cannot have it both ways.

Stop saying you are MORE liberal than 95% of people on this site, when you are not. The ROOT of the word liberal is LIBRE or LIBERTY. YOu do not stand for liberty. You stand for limited liberty. You believe the liberty of women and gay people is less important than it is for others.

I stand for gays people and woman's right to food, clothing, and shelter, every bit as much as anyone else. I would also be perfectly willing to put heterosexual marriage on the table if it was a politically divisive issue.

food, clothing and shelter. If you looked BEYOND your limited political considerations, you would see that the two go hand in hand. Just look at the status of black Americans PRE-1965 and POST 1965. Civil rights ARE economic rights.

Frankly your NEW DEMOCRAT line of reasoning is what HAS divided economic interests. My father was a union organizer. The unions were strong with black, white, mexican, male and female working together until Democrats TOOK THEIR eye off economic rights for fear of being labeled class warfarists long before abortion became the wedge that it is now. The abortion argument did NOT create a wedge until AFTER usery laws were diluted.

Or atleast economic rights are CIVIL rights, But marriage and abortion are not economic rights.

Married couples have numerous economic benefits and the right to an abortion is INDEED an economic issue as much as it is any other issue.

And while the economy factors that effect the decision to have an abortion, it has nothing to do with the legal basis for it.

And I know why..because it doesn't affect you. Ten bucks says you are a white hetero male.

:boring:

"Open-minded" is usually used as a technique to win an argument...
e.g., "Oh really? And here I thought you were so open-minded."

A better description I WOULD use to describe the traits liberals as having is,
"willing to exchange ideas in a rational debate"

This doesn't mean that some liberals here are not "shell-shocked"
from taking so much abuse from radical righties. We are human
after all; I'm willing to bet you will get more rational responses
on this board than on any freeper board.

I will try to phrase the question differently next time

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

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

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

But I would get some people in here to actually trust you from having a good reputation and higher thread count before you try questioning the reasoning of a few liberal policies. Its like anything else you do in life. Don't get frustrated already! Just build a good liberal reputation and people will trust you enough to know you are just being open minded and not a sneaky repug. Maybe even then you will get some people questioning you, but I'm sure you will get some support as well.

Welcome to DU!! :hi:

(Hang on a sec, BL611 -- in the meantime, are you interested in writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about that hideous bankruptcy bill the GOP is forcing down our throats? See my post from earlier today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3218252 )

Please, DUers, please don't be so quick to jump on this guy. We lose a lot of newbies this way -- people who may not think the way you do, but who might come around to a more progressive viewpoint if they stuck around a while. I am extremely sensitive to the whole "newbie thing" since everybody assumed I was a freeper when I first started posting on DU. I am the first to admit that I wrote an inflammatory post early on at DU -- it takes a little while getting used to DU if you come from a "politically moderate" background like I do. He was apparently very upset about his other post was received -- give him the benefit of the doubt, please -- I think he was trying to pose a question about whether Democrats could win on economic issues absent the social issues that so inflame the social conservatives. Then he got upset and posted this. I can see why everybody's upset given the tone of this post, but I can also see why this guy got upset to begin with.

P.S. Please don't call me a freeper.

The poster was welcomed and was NOT flamed until he posted a divisive thread that he KNEW would be divisive as he stated he had read the board before.

To me, when one KNOWS they will cause a flame war and they post it anyway, they should live with the results. He admits as much in an exchange with me above.

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

will cause flames then they really shouldn't complain when they get flames.

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

GD politics that led to the OP of this thread.

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

Once again I have not antagonized anyone, just questioned things. Everyone rushed to read into things I said. Check the entire thread and name one time I said something derogatory about gays or pro choicers (unless again you equate any questioning as an attack)

and having read the board, you chose to structure your question like a bull in a china shop and then complained when glass broke. Very disingenuous.

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

I am female and gay..and even if I weren't, I would not put other people's rights on the chopping block for political expediency.

May I suggest you read this entire thread before responding as though you know what the actual issue is?

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

I'm saying that certain rights are more important then others regardless of race,sexual preference etc.

I'm sorry if you find my questioning abrasive, but no I don't believe I've done anything to constitute, being called, a Republican, homophobe, or misogynist.

I'm not complaining that people disagree with me I'm glad they do, if they didn't what would be the purpose. All I'm saying is instead of getting angry at people you disagree with reasonably discuss your point of view, don't call them names and rush to judge them.

Again my point was not to antagonize anybody, it was to say that we might have to compromise for the time being for the greater good. In both threads I have not called anyone any names or attacked their right to believe what they do. I didn't know I had to earn the ability to ask a tough question I actually thought thats what this site was for.

with the title "Aren't Liberals supposed to be open minded?"... yes... I think you might want to earn a little reputation first... Otherwise it would be construed as being quite insulting to make such a blanket criticism of people on this board, who are consistently quite open-minded. Aside from the few here and there and everywhere these days, that is.

is that there are people on this board who are not open minded, and I believe liberals SHOULD be open minded (as they normally pride themselves on being as such)

we all know who those people are... You know darn well that it is in your wording. "Aren't Liberals supposed to be open minded?" gives the impression that you think they aren't. And NOW you say "(as they normally pride themselves on being as such)"... how insulting, saying that we "pride" ourselves on being open-minded. Since being open-minded is pretty much a prerequisite for being liberal, the "some" people you describe probably don't belong here. You further insinuate some sort of PROBLEM of close-mindedness by implying that you've been reading the board for a while, and have come to that conclusion... based on that reading. The only logical conclusion to draw is that you see closed-mindedness as a problem here... not as a rarity only exhibited by some people. I don't see how you can paint it as anything but a generalization against liberals.

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

it's quite apparent what I'm talking about.

We are a diverse group of people with a diverse group of beliefs and a diverse group of personal beliefs and problems. There isn't a single quality other than human that all of us share, except that we disagree with conservatives.

This thread is not providing a productive discussion and has degenerated into personal attacks.