Tired Of Democrat-Hating Democrats

"How can you worship ___________, licking (his/her) boots like a mindless ass, when (he/she) did something I DIDN'T LIKE? (He/she) is a DINO!"

Fine, go ahead and delete the message or ban me, I'm sick and tired of reading one thread after another with some variation of the above message, written by some self-proclaimed "progressive" attacking a given Democratic politician from FDR to Bill Clinton to Howard Dean. You'd think a single policy or a single vote was grounds for execution, rather than disagreement.

I don't know if the "progressives" writing this nonsense are disguised freeptards, or if the idiots from ACT stUPid have found something more entertaining than hitting people with cat turds, or if they're actual ultra-super-far-far-left Liberals who think ELF doesn't go far enough and anyone who isn't an anarchist is a traitor to the race, or if they're simply bozos whose favorite goofball joke-candidate got less than one percent of the vote in the last election.

It all boils down to the same thing: they're wasting everyone's time. They're giving comfort to the enemies of America (i.e., Freepers).

Oh good, there's one about how Dan Rather "betrayed" us...

(EDIT: I see replies citing Zell Miller, Liebermann, and Biden. That's very cute. Now try justifying the attacks on the Dems who AREN'T popular with the Right Wing.)

to support. If a politician betrays the principles that got them elected, or acts to further their own interests and ambitions, then they should get kicked as hard as possible. Otherwise you don't affect their behaviour, and they become as arrogant and lazy as some of the members on the other side of the aisle.

This isn't a sporting contest - our faith lies in principles, not people.

Dems these days - have always voted how they had to. Nothing about how Lieberman voted should be a surprise. We also want people to vote their self-interest as a party - when that happens Democrats become President and win the House and/or Senate.

To attack your own kind because they are different than you or not perfect is unhelpful and unnecessary. There will be and election and debates for this man and his record in the years to come. And the people who actually voted for him and have the right to vote for him can kick his ass then.

I do think that it is a freeper to be copying the way wingnuts target one person for destruction. So if one is a freeper tool or a tool of the freeper (doesn't really matter) we have to act better than they do. Remember how mad we were when they started on Harry Reid? How we defended Dean when they tried to start a going after him last week?

The simple truth is that we have 20 posts all in a row about Joe Lieberman and fewer than twenty responses to each post. If it was a really catchy thing, to target our own for some perceived slight, I am sure that our leaders will tell us when such adolescence become Democratic Party Policy. But since progressives and democrats and liberals are not the ones using the tools or the sociopath or the scapegoating, example making, coercion, targeting of careers, slim jobs, etc....on people just because someone spoke or voted their mind. That is what the Repukes & rovbots do.

We are better than that and our leaders around the country demonstrate that every day. Enough with the targeting of Joe. You must have gotten your frustration out by now.

Thread about Bill Clinton claimed he was responsible for the mess we're in today. Why? He got a blowjob. In another "Clinton = Traitor" thread, the proof offered was, "well, he's rich now. Like Bush."

A single thread of such nonsense? No big deal. Thread after thread where the same "betrayal" claim is made, but with a different target? That's crap.

And we're not talking about the bankruptcy bill vote. These messages will dredge up something from the long-gone past to attack someone active in politics today. Something insignificant. Then they'll claim this politician is now unfit for participate.

On one such thread, someone (I won't name the person for their sake) said something very true:

"The New Left has always been more than willing to sacrifice Good on the altar of Perfect."

Prove it wrong. Find a politician who meets the standards that so many Democrats seem to fail in these threads.

(EDIT: I see replies citing Zell Miller, Liebermann, and Biden. That's very cute. Now try justifying the attacks on the Dems who AREN'T popular with the Right Wing.)

I am pretty pissed still at clinton for not keeping it in his pants, he does that and Gore is starting his second term right now, I am not typing this from a desk in Iraq, and our economy is still going along fairly well.

...I don't agree, but you're not dismissing his eight years as a complete sham and failure, nor are you screaming that he's a DINO. You're not calling his wife a Repug Whore in Dem's Clothing.

And that makes a world of difference. One that I thank you for.

...to vilify the Clintons and damage Gore's race for president.

Additionally, I see that you seem to have forgotten what really cooked our goose in 2000, and that was the manipulation of the vote counts across the nation. It wasn't just Palm Beach, Florida, that had voting problems, it was everywhere, particularly in the South. Polls closed early with voters still in line, police set roadblocks on routes to Democratic polling stations, polling stations were changed or shut down at the last moment, felons lists were used in more states than just Florida, and optical scanners were used in a lot of different sites with no receipts given.

If Clinton hadn't had an affair with Lewinsky, the rightwing of the GOP would have found something else to use against him, and probably something as fabricated as the so-called "rape" charges against him.

I get the sense that you just haven't caught on yet. Quit blaming Clinton and start looking at the big picture as to why we're in the current mess.

because Gore's running away from Clinton had nothing to do with the vote.

if Clinton hadnt had an affair he would have left office with a 65% or higher approval rating and Gore would have coasted.

"Mrs. X is not stupid enough to take a shortcut home through a dark alley and she's alive now, their kids aren't orphans..."

whatever, because nothing immoral about lying, nothing politically stupid about committing adultery in the white house, it had absolutely no effect, Gore didnt run away from the successes of Clinton in his campaign, none of that really happened...and Gore is president right now.

I wasnt aware we were in lockstep exactly on those principles, because tell ya what, my principles are probably not exactly the same as yours, and neither of ours is the same as others.

Principles are also not black or white, some things ARE more important than others.

A politician ALSO has a duty to think about what their constituents want as well, so what if that conflicts with YOUR principles? Does that make the politician unprincipled?

I agree to a certain extent with the original poster, there are far too many examples of people disagreeing with a politician on a single issue and writing them off right then and there as a DINO, or corrupt, or part of the RW, etc.

Heck cant there just be a difference of opinion? or cant they have just made a bad call, a mistake? been human?

the ones you elected are not all of them. For example, there is no way that someone is represented byu both Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein.

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

who want us all to fall lockstep in line with the BFEE reich wing agenda so as to not risk possibly offending the "mainstream moderates", but maybe that's just me...

just because joe leiberman gets a kiss on the lips from the chimp is no reason the bash him! :eyes:

But I hear ya!

That's why I patrol these waters, you see.

I'm on Dem Party Back Watch.

Glad to have you aboard, matey!

And here I've been, trashing Zell Miller. What the hell was I thinking? I'm sure that Joe Biden has good reasons for backing that bankruptcy reform bill too, reasons that have NOTHING to do with all the money he gets from credit card companies. Joe Lieberman is a helluva guy too, after all he does sport a 'D' after his name.

I'm with you. Hillary for prez '08!

:spank:

beyond being catty, that there is a difference between say a Zell Miller who is CLEARLY a RW nutjob and a Lieberman who is clearly a milquetoast appeaser but who if we all want to be honest has been very progressive in several areas.

Seems to me a bit silly to simply label someone as this or that when in reality it isnt that simple, if someone is progressive in some areas and not so much in others then what do we label them as?

Biden certainly has a different record than either Lieberman or Miller doesnt he? What about the distinguised senator from WV, he also voted on the Bankruptcy reform cloture, does that make him no longer a progressive?

What about Reid? This man is doing more as a Minority Leader than we have had in a long long time, bringing fight and fire and iron to our Senate Dems, yet he is anti-choice.

So clearly he must just be another RW DINO too right? After all, he is on the wrong side of an important issue.

Quite frankly, seems to me instead of focusing on how bad the person is, it might do better to focus on how wrong they are on a particular issue.

But hey thats just me.

...you do very little thinking.

Try thinking some time...it can be very invigorating.

where was Clinton in my response above? I will wait while you find it..cant find it?

try responding to the post at hand instead of making catty remarks, you might stumble along and actually contribute something.

Yes, heaven forbid I hold Clinton responsible for lying and for acting immorally. Because after all, responsibility and honesty, heaven forbid I consider those Democratic values. I have no problem holding fellow democrats accountable for lying or the effect of those lies on our election chances...doesnt mean Clinton is evil or wasnt a great president but does mean that he bears some responsibility for Gore's forced running away from him.

voting for IWR, voting for that piece of SHIT bankruptcy bill - it's beyond shameful, it is DISGUSTING

if you add up all the Dems that voted for IWR, and the bankruptcy bill, and the other 2-3 (being conservative) things I would assume you would call "unforgiveable" how many Dems do you think would be left over?

I just dont get it, what if someone voted for IWR but then the entire rest of the time was strong on progressive issues?

I just dont get the you voted for X so you suck for all eternity thinking.

I do get you voted for A B C and D and you arent a progressive or a Democrat (hello Zell Miller) and thus you suck for all eternity thinking and agree with it.

I do get the your vote for X disappointed me or was wrong and you've dropped a notch in my estimation thinking but this tendency to want to quickly "excommunicate" Dems who dont vote 100% of the time the way someone wants is a little frustrating.

You dont see Republicans doing it nearly as much, they end up biting their toungue when push comes to shove most of the time and taking the R over the D.

EVeryone talks about how power is meaningless but you cant do jack without it and its time we started focusing more on getting it and less on being "pure".

it is SICKENING how many so-called "Democrats" are SUPPORTING THIS FASCIST REGIME. LOOK WHERE IT HAS GOTTEN US. And PLEASE don't use the idiot goose-stepping sheep republican supporters as an EXAMPLE - we Democrats simply can never sink to that level of gutter worship.

progressive make up less than 1/5th of the country.

Tell me how you win any election when you have less than 20% of the voters on your side?

You dont. You have to compromise, that means sometimes guess what, to capture the other 31% you have to bite the bullet on some lesser progressive representatives.

Purity may make you feel all squeaky clean and morally sure, but it wont do anything to stop the conservatives from ruining this country.

question people about their beliefs and MOST OF THEM ARE PROGRESSIVE. The shit media has defined LIBERAL for us and THAT is why so many of them do not vote "PROGRESSIVE" but instead VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN SELF-INTERESTS.

most people are not liberal (most people are not conservative either, the majority are somewhere in between), but let us assume for a moment that you are completely correct and that people are duped.

Guess what, they STILL ARENT GOING TO VOTE STRAIGHT PROGRESSIVE!

You have to deal with the reality of the way the situation is before you can change it.

and not imitation republicans, period; we will NOT win elections by taking tips from republicans who lie, cheat, steal, KILL to win elections

I know if the American public knew the real truth about the republican agenda they would RIOT IN THE STREET WITH PITCHFORKS

Only true Democrats are 100% progressive?

Is Reid a true Democrat since he is anti abortion?

Hillary isnt a true Dem because she voted for IWR? Kerry even tough on just about every other issue he is one of the most liberal senators also voted for IWR, is he not a true Democrat?

What exactly is meant by being a Democrat, because it's always been a bit more of an inclusive term than you seem to be wanting to make it.

Does this mean getting rid of just the conservative blue dog dems, or the moderate dems as well, or the dems that go out of step on a particular issue (like Kerry with IWR or Biden with the bankruptcy bill?).

Because I tell ya, if its the last one, we wont have but about 10 senators left.

many of them are pro-choice because they believe it is NOT a government issue.

Voting to help fascist regimes start immoral wars is an absolute SIN.

Voting to help evil corporations screw the poor is SICK.

There are some issues I do NOT believe we can compromise on and ILLEGAL OCCUPATIONS and POVERTY are two of them.

I'm pro-abortion because that is what being pro choice needs, I have no problem with it.

So you listed two things you think we cant compromise, well guess what, someone else can find two OTHER things we cant compromise on, pretty soon the list gets rather large.

it's a f***ing republican meme

I don't give a DAMN what other people think - those two are what *I* find absolute, meaning I refuse to SUCK UP to so-called DEMOCRATS who vote for FASCISM.

I don't know of anybody who is in FAVOR of abortions, who would actually promote getting them. Eugenics people, maybe. That's what pro-abortion would mean. You could even argue that, if pro-life means forcing women to give birth, then pro-abortion would mean forcing women to abort. And that's exactly what pro-choice people abhor--the forcing of others. Pro-choice means It Is Up To You.

it's a big difference

occuring, prochoice is a nice touchy feely way of saying proabortion...I have no problem saying proabortion because I have no problem saying that abortion is not some evil thing unless done indiscriminately.

you can cower and worry about what republicans say, but i dont.

If you feel they waste your time, ignore them. But don't put yourself in the position of telling ME that they're wasting MY time. Who are you to speak for "everyone"?

And your overwrought rhetoric of "They're giving comfort to the enemies of America" to describe progressive opinions you don't like--well, it's drivel like that, on a Democratic board, that IS a waste of my time.

the poster was saying, he was not talking about "progressive opinions" he was talking about constant attacks on our own party that go beyond a fair "that was a bad vote or not the right policy" to "you are a DINO freeper".

I think talking about not tearing down fellow Dems on a Dem board isnt a waste of time at all.

to the enemies..." is clearly referring to "progressives" in his/her preceding paragraph. And it is clear in that paragraph what the OP thinks of progressives.

I agree with you: talking about tearing down fellow Dems is not a waste of time. But the original poster was asserting that certain threads are a waste of "everyone's" time--meaning my time--and it is overreaching and arrogant to claim to speak for everyone, and I resent it.

every time a poster talks about what he thinks should be done in any arena he is implying he thinks everyone should think/believe the same way because he/she thinks that is the right way to do it.

It's a little sensitive to be upset because someone speaks about "everyone", I am sure when you advocate a position/issue you feel strongly about you arent meaning it only to apply to you.

So you know that "every time" someone posts an opinion they are implying that everyone should think the same way. And you are "sure" that you know what I do!

It's presumptuous to claim to speak for everyone, or to claim to know what I think before I tell you. You may not mind it when someone does it to you. I do mind.

because when you advocated that people should be say environmentally sensitive, you really only mean just you, or when you are talking about any other issues important to you, you dont mean anyone else should do it or follow it, just you.

right.

with me or not. If my opinion is sound, and reasoned, people will agree with it of their own volition (or not, and then they'll tell me why). I won't need to preface it with the subtle intimidation that everyone thinks this way, or should, and to think any differently is wasting everyone's time.

My objection to the original post was a narrow one. I've explained it several different ways, and I can't think of any more that needs to be said on it.

then tell ya what dont ever advocate anything then, because by advocating you are telling me how i should think.

Dem hating Dems live and die on a vote by vote basis.

I always find it hysterical that they will condemn a Democrat for doing something then spin like hell (often squealing along the way) when it is pointed out that the Dems they love best have done the exact same thing.

For the most part (though there are excellent and active exceptions), they're all just armchair politicos.

are you going to change your signature line so that it does not reflect the RW use of the word "Democrat"???

The correct word usage in that sentance should be: "Vote Democratic. The ass you save might be your own!"

"Democratic" would be if I was using it as an adjective.

Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.

If I said "vote democratic" that could mean vote for a democratic action of government.

I'm sayng "Vote Democrat" I'm not using it in the improper was the right does.

Why not just stop talking about the kowtowing Democrats, and marginalize them as much as possible?

Then, at primary election time, select a new candidate who better represents our issues.

All this complaining is non-productive. The best way to deal with the Joe Liebermans of the party is to ignore them and promote their replacements.

Besides, the emphasis should be on issues and philosophies, not the relative popularity of individual politicians.

--p!

who's going to replace him?

Odds are no one, and then you've just driven off one more Senator when the fact is we do not have the LUXURY of losing a single one and in fact need every last one to have any success at all in stopping the conservative agenda.

I dont have a problem with calling out Lieberman and saying, Joe, that's the wrong position, bad call, and heck, I dont have a problem with stripping away committee positions if a member continually goes out of step with the Party, or in the extreme Zell Miller cases kicking them out of the party.

Just seems to me this isnt a black/white issue...Lieberman is NOT as bad as Miller, Hillary is NOT as bad as Lieberman, etc.

...at least we could trust Mr. Wilson to never stab us in the back.

Until we get 51 Senators with a BIG "D" behind their name instead of having to contend with a handfull of Senators claiming to be Dems who sabotage Democratic positions at every turn, we will continue to take a beating in Congress.

This is not rocket science...this is Basic Politics 101. If I have more votes than you, I'm going to beat you every single time. Until we have 51 Senators willing to vote the same way on every major issue, we are going to continue to take it in the shorts.

Our internecine dramas are a collective major drag. My suggestion -- imperfect as it may be -- is a proposal to steer the party leftward without major bloodletting.

There are other problems, too. For one thing, most of us can't really articulate a strong, positive and cogent philosophy of liberalism. And it's less of a risk to do battle within one's group over some trivial point (like language issues) than to take the fight to the tyrant and his armies.

Conformity, fortunately, isn't necessary -- but solidarity is.

--p!

supporting him/her, and not to be "cute", but we all know who they are. Many, one in particular, are rabidly hated by the Republicans when they routinely vote against us. Sorry, I'm on loan to the Dem party until they fix what's broken. And there's a lot broken. Not questioning is what got us into this damnable mess in the first place. You may take your elitist attitude away now. :hi:

Almost all the time (the usual suspects). And being mad at others at least some of the time.

But we do get a lot of well crafted, detailed threads criticizing Kerry or Clinton; one wishes all that venom could be directed against Republicans. And there was a string of anti Jon Stewart threads--a few dull shows does not make him an enemy of America!

... first off, I have never started a Dem bashing thread, but no doubt the Kerry and HRC cheerleaders here hate me.

I never waste my time talking about Holy Joe or Zell, because there is no point. It is like debating whether it is ok to kick your dog around, there is nothing to debate.

However, as a Dem I would like to take back the presidency. There are candidates who I feel, it is only my opinion (but I beleive in vigourously defending an opinion - something some of these candidates need to learn how to do IMHO) that they will not be able to win against any half-decent Republican. Why? Not because of one single thing, not because of something they did or did not do, but for a multitude of reasons.

If anyone wishes to characterize my opinion as "Dem bashing", that is fine with me. I have found, in the world of work, that there is no better way for a project to fail than to have a bunch of people who all agree with each other about everything high-five each other all year and on to failure. I consider my criticisms valid, and supported by my arguments. Anyone is free to disagree, and occasionally a point I make is pretty well refuted - and that is fine. I might change my mind tomorrow. But one thing for sure, we cannot afford bandwagons and we cannot afford a lack of a critical eye towards ourselves and our candidates.

...GOP issues on a consistent basis. That includes Biden, Lieberman, and Zell Miller.

We are already outnumbered without these turncoats voting against us. We're better off kicking them out of the party and finding people who will vote for Democratic Party values.

let me see if i get your reasoning here ... the posts you're complaining about criticized a Democrat because they voted against or did something that the poster objected to (you wrote: "did something I DIDN'T LIKE") ... and your argument about why Democrats should not criticize Democratic politicians (you wrote: "attacking a given Democratic politician") is merely because they are Democrats ...

your post lacks any sense of balance ... do some posters go too far? of course they do ... do some posters fail to support the criticisms they make? of course they do ... but first of all, you should have included an acknowledgement that many progressives level very legitimate criticisms against certain Democrats in certain situations? or don't you agree with that?

so, i would ask you this: is it ever appropriate to level harsh criticisms against an elected Democrat?

and next, i strongly disagree with your statement "You'd think a single policy or a single vote was grounds for execution" ... we all have a right to form our judgments and set our priorities based on any criteria we want ... i for one will never vote for another person, Democrat or otherwise, who votes to give bush another penny to continue his empire-building campaign in the Middle East ... one issue ... one litmus test ... that's that ... don't like it? tough !!! that's how it's going to be ... you want my support then don't vote for the corporate, empire-building agenda ... a politician who doesn't understand this fundamental point is unworthy of support regardless of party affiliation ...

you also made this unfortunate observation: "bozos whose favorite goofball joke-candidate got less than one percent of the vote in the last election" ... allow me to explain to you that I am very much on the fence about whether i will remain a Democrat ... your statement is totally disrespectful to what i consider to be a very serious decision i have to make ... you should understand that I am deeply concerned that if i continue to go along with a much-too-conservative Democratic Party, I am an "enabler" ... IF I leave the Party, one of the main reasons for doing so would be that I can no longer in good conscience support them ... ABB, which i supported in 04 is a morally bankrupt approach to voting ... i will not do it again ... so, if I join a third Party that will receive only 1% of the vote, I will do so for two reasons, not just one ... the obvious reason would be that i would select a candidate with whom i agree on the issues ... but the second important reason will be to stop supporting candidates with whom i do not agree ... the issues come first, not the Party or the candidate's ability to "WIN" ... nothing is "WON" when you vote for people you don't agree with ...

most importantly, the disrespect you show (you wrote: "they're wasting everyone's time. They're giving comfort to the enemies of America (i.e., Freepers)") fails to "get IT" ... whether you like it or not, we have some very deep disagreements within the Democratic Party ... instead of all the criticism you've levelled, a far more constructive approach would be to call for REFORM within the Party ... you made no mention of the alienation many on the left feel ... you showed no sensitivity to the fact that many on the left have not had a real voice and that the Party has drifted further and further to the right ... what is needed is a new process that provides for genuine, intra-Party dialog ... every Democrat, every single Democrat should have a chance to play a very active role ... calling for change is constructive; hostile criticism of those who are dissatisfied is totally, what was the phrase you used, "wasting everyone's time" ...

We ought to be discussing insurrecton. The Democratic Party has a large and well-developed machine apparatus that we ought to be in control of.

We can argue among ourselves as paupers or as potentates. So, what will it be?

Take the third-party route if you wish. I think there is still a lot to be gained "within" a party -- if the approach is leadership, not agree-to-disagree-and-split-the-difference compromise.

--p!

well, i have no significant objection to the spirit of your post ... for too long i have felt that just because the party preaches a "big tent" doesn't mean all are welcome within it ... or worse yet, many are welcome if they remain silent and lend their support and their money ...

my process starts with reform, not with insurrection ... we sit down as a community without political labels and we discuss our values, we discuss the issues, we discuss tactics and strategies ... and then we see ... nothing is too far left or too far right and all are invited to share their vision of where the party should be and what it should do ...

and from this introspection, a core document and a plan is laid down ... perhaps within the plan there is room for compromise and perhaps not ... such is the nature of coalitions and that's what the Democratic Party is ... if the left is able to prevail and, as the Party's right wing has done, seeks a tyranny of the majority, i believe the Party will continue to fail ... if the left can prevail and convince most Democrats that their ideas are superior, perhaps the Party can genuinely be moved to the left ... and if the left prevails and refuses to find any common ground, i'm afraid we've replaced one fractious structure with another ... while this would satisfy my own politics, it remains to be seen what it's practical outcome would be ... alienation and apathy can be very real forces as the Party's "Democratic wing" knows all too well ...

anyway, for me, step one is a dialog, an intra-party dialog ... no outcome is pre-scripted least of all some form of wishy-washy compromise ... the process starts with a new openness ... it may lead absolutely nowhere or to the watered-down blandness you foresee .... and whatever the final result, each of us still can assess whether we're in or we're out ...

btw, i was recently elected to my town's Democratic Committee ... i am trying, as a first step, to make a difference from the "inside" ... then we'll see about third parties and such ... enjoyed your post ... thanks ...

Is fine by you? Just keep backing your party as they continue to sell you, your family, friends, neighbors, and the rest of the country right on down the river? Democratic party right or wrong? Geez, talk about lockstep, rigid thinking.

Look friend, I've probably put more money, blood, sweat and tears into the Democratic party over the past thirty plus years than you've even dreamt of, so don't give me that crap about being an anarchist or worse, OK. Hell, I even voted for Kerry in '04 despite my misgivings of hime(which he has proven me correct on).

But we're looking at a party that has moved significantly to the right in the past thirty years, even the past ten. You say don't blame Clinton, well sorry, that doesn't fly. I don't give a rat's ass about who the Big Dog was sticking it to, but I do think it is outrageous that he failed to do anything meaningful about gays in the military, started the massive outsourcing of our economy via NAFTA, ripped away a large section of the social safety net with welfare "reform", allowed the media to be further consolidated and removed from the publics' hands via the '96 Telecom Act, and presided over the country when the gap between the haves and have nots reached record breaking proportions, bigger than those in the Gilded Age when robber barons ruled the country, among many of his disastorous moves.

I'm also dismayed that since Bushco has taken office, the Dems seemed to have lost their collective spine. Bending over for the IWR, the Patriot Act, Ashcroft nomination, prescription drug bill, NCLB, etc. etc. ad nauseum. And yet you're saying I'm supposed to support them right or wrong? Fuck that friend. I'm fully aware that politics is a game of compromise, but the Democrats these days aren't even bothering to try and compromise, they're simply doing what their corporate masters tell them to, and screw the rest of the non-wealthy portion of the country. How can one bitch about Bushco doing these things, yet give the Dems who enabled him a pass without looking like a hypocrite? Sorry friend, your logic doesn't fly.

Look friend, it isn't just one issue with me, it is a build up over a long period of time that has gotten so high and deep that it is time to simply say enough is enough. Sad to say, but the vast majority of Democrats don't have the interests of their constituents at heart, but instead they are letting money trump all. This is perfectly acceptable within the Republican party, after all, they are the party of big business. The Democrats however are supposed to be the party of the little guy, the working stiff. Yet the truism no longer holds, so what is one supposed to do? Continue to support the Dems as they sell you down the river for that bit of corporate lucre? I don't think so friend, at least not me. You want to damn me to hell because of it, fine, I've got a thick skin. But don't come crying to me when the Dems perform so other outrageous act that further enables Bushco's war on working folks, go complain to your precious Dem leaders, and see how much sympathy you get there:eyes:

I have a couple of reading selections for you that will help make the dire situation we're in now crystal clear. The first is Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy", the second is Howard Zinn's "The Peoples' History of the United States". Read those two books, and then get back to me with how great the Democratic party is.

and the very definition of a Democrat-Hating Democrat is one who eschews the name "liberal" and goes along with the ANY of the Bush agenda, which has NO elements that are not unconscionable.


And NO, DAMMIT, we are not "freeptards" for saying so. Who the hell else is going to put these people's feet to the fire?