Anyone else's rights you would trade off to desperately welcome new Dems?

I'm less disgusted by the alleged experiment than I am by all the "realpolitik" and claims that a person who thinks gays don't deserve equal rights and rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions is mainstream America!

Fucking prove it!

Many of you rolled out the welcome mat desperately welcoming a former Republican whose two main issues were oppressive to women and gay people.

Have you NO sense of decency?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4208822&mesg_id=4208822

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4208930&mesg_id=4208930

down my throat.

:hi:

disposable. I'm thinking, at this rate, we'll be a one party system within months.

I think middle class males are in many ways the most disposable of all.

no matter how repugnant, because they SAY they're a Democrat? :shrug:

Dems away when the mind fuck that just got pulled is far scarier than anything I am capable of?

:applause:

It was pretty disheartening to see so many people roll out the welcome wagon for someone who was willing to throw my rights out the window...particularly after a couple days in a row of being vilified in bloody in flamewars for standing up for those rights.

I'm all for the Big Tent. And I'm all for bringing people in and trying to educate them and talk with them and lead them along the path to enlightenment. But jeebus h christ...could people really not tell that guy was a troll pretty early from the way he posted?

party.

:sarcasm:

gays and women toed his line.

Anybody who claims that human dignity, poverty eradication, universal health care, workers' rights etc. is important to him/her, and in so many words says that continued support will depend upon trashing reproductive and civil rights of select groups, is not worth giving the time of day.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, IMHO.

I'm fine with letting Pukes go puke. That said, if they want to be dems, fine, but I WILL NOT SACRIFICE MY CIVIL RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU WANT ME TO. And if that means it gets a little hot in the big tent, so be it - the door is always open.

i guess all one has to do is claim that their anti-gay anti-woman views are part of their religion and DUers just embrace("the big tent"). fucking PATHETIC..:puke:

Should we exclude all the MIHOP'ers from the Democratic party too? After all, they're certainly not mainstream . . .

Spare us.

decisions regarding my own body and that marriage is only for heterosexuals hurts a good many people...IN REAL LIFE...across the board.

What would have been nice were MORE PEOPLE WILLING TO TAKE THE PERSON TO TASK, as you seem to be quite capable of doing with MIHOP'ers.

If anything, i am emulating your style...be flattered.

:spray:

that they're not welcome in the Democratic party. Democrats get into harsh ideological fights all the time--I'm okay with that.

However, the name of the party isn't the Abortion Party. Or the Anti-War Party. Or the Gay Rights Party. Or the Anti-CAFTA Party.

Single-issue litmus tests are not the way to go.

Why flame someone and burn bridges over one issue when that person can help achieve significant progress on nine other equally important issues?

That said, this little 'experiment' the person pulled was an exercise in poor taste and reflected bad faith.

One person's single issue is another person's MOTHERFUCKING LIVELIHOOD.

Get it yet?

No exceptions.

:wtf: Guess what everyone? Not everyone in this party likes certain things like you do, but supports your right to them and that is the most important thing. We need to understand this about our party.

MIHOP is a theory. We're talking about civil rights and bigotry.

What would NSMA's opinion subject us to, that we need to be spared? Perhaps a little specifity would make an otherwise opaque post actually mean something.
The Professor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4212603&mesg_id=4212881

See where you get us all?

was coming from.

Pro-life/anti-choice people can certainly fit under the tent if they share enough of our principles. But they can go to hell if they expect us to give up our principles to accomodate them.

between welcoming someone into a conversation, and pretending to agree with their views in order to get them to call themsleves a Democrat. I'll do the former, but not the latter. What is gained from a shout down, or telling that person to get the fuck out? Nothing. Engaging, disarming and listening to someone is more likely to make them more open to your viewpoint. It is possible to change someone's mind through respectful dialogue.

of course, I have no doubts that any of *your* rights were compromised in those posts...it's real easy to be open, welcome and compassionate when it ain't YOUR ASS being traded off, no?

I can see how you find some of his views and his style ignorant and offensive, and reading the posts further it appears he might just be a troll, but the tone of your post make me feel like you are attacking me unfairly. I do care about the basic human rights all people, not just the ones from groups that I am a member of. And I'm in complete agreement with you on the importance of both issues.

Let's just assume for a second he's not a troll. There are people who call themselves Democrats who think that way. There are Democrats who call themselves "pro-life" and Democrats who are uncomfortable with gay marriage. I completely disagree with them. I believe that the party should take a strong stand on both issues in favor of a woman's right to choose without any restrictions and for gay rights including the right to marry (not just civil unions). I think it would be (and is) immoral for the party to compromise people's basic human rights on either issue in order to court votes. But we're not writing the final draft of the party platform here. We're having a conversation, and if we just descend to shouting people down, it won't be a very productive one. Why not try to find something of value in what a person like that is saying (e.g. "I greatly respect human life." "I oppose war and the death penalty") and engage that person in a conversation from there that might make them more open to your position? They were curious enough to hear it to come here.

I challenged him to tell me how he could be probirth control being a Catholic and anti-abortion. I'm not going to allow someone to say their dogma prohibits something then in another breath go against their dogma.

And I have no bone with you. OK?

Welcoming someone and conversing to find out where they are coming from, what their view are is something I will continue to do. I will continue to welcome people to DU and converse with them. Respectful dialogue is the way I chose. If you chose otherwise, fine with me but calling me names, cussing at me, accusing me of desperately welcoming someone seems a bit of an over reaction.

Cussing at me and saying that none of my rights were being traded away and I wasn't risking anything will get us nowhere as how the hell do you know?


This rant is not just directed at you NSMA, but others here to who have expressed this opinion towards those of us who were respectful last night. No we are not trashing long term DUers to welcome in newcomers. No we are not so low in self esteem that we are groveling for newbies. We, at least I, are just dialoging respectfully. Atticus Finch, though a fiction character, has long been a hero of mine.

I just read through the whole effing mess. Geez! What a little shit.

Thought he was educable. :(

Democrats ARE appeasers. :eyes:

Trahsing the long-time customers and giving away the store just to entice new customers?

However, people should not be treated like heretics over a single issue and drummed out of the party. That's a sure way to help the Republicans.

Harry Reid is pro-life, but has led the fight against Bush's extremist nominees. Should we kick out the best Senate leader we've had in decades?

The party best able to keep its coalition together wins.

got a link?

Like I said...he got more welcomed than I did

There is choice or no choice. Not life or death.

That is, if they're not pro-choice.

But I won't use the phrase pro-life to refer to a person who is anti-choice. It casts a false negative on being pro-choice. I don't advocate death to anyone. I am, however, pro-choice.

His POV was intentional confrontational and was expecting people to agree that we should give up certain positions apropos the rights of certain minority segments of society just to win an election. He wasn't being treated like a heretic for the pro-life thing. He was being treated like a heretic because progressives don't give up rights for the sake of winning. It's anathema to the concept.
The Professor

I didn't get that from the 20 or so posts I read.

Anybody have a link?

Your moderation allows you to be focus grouped into compromising the things most precious to you.

up our commitment to civil rights for women and homosexuals.

Had I understood him to say that, I'd have been standing next to you with a pitchfork and torch.

Sorry for the caps! He stated that women who were raped and impregnated could give the baby up for adoption!

Sorry..but you missed a shitload of posts!

Anyway...peace..but my greater point is that someone like that makes it easy for people to trade off principles...

party's mainstream as long as they understand that our party will never come around to their way of thinking on those issues and will continue to lobby in the opposite direction.

The Republicans have pro-choice people under their tent, but the Republican party will ALWAYS be virulently anti-choice.

Anti-choice/pro-life Democrats should have the same expectations that pro-choice Republicans have.

:puke:

There ain't a tent big enough to hold the world, folks. Sad but true.

It is ok to talk with people politely to find out their views, getting them to state them clearly which he finally started doing before signing off. I took him as possibly a person who hadn't thought them through enough to clearly state, seems like he was unwilling to state clearly because he wanted to continue his experiment. Once he started getting enough rope to hang himself, and kept refusing to answer clearly, he left for the night.

When someone writes something like this, I will continue to ask and double check if they mean what I think they mean. Do not ever assume that because I do this it means I agree with them because it doesn't. I want to give them plenty of rope to hang themselves with.

THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF USING BIRTH CONTROL IF THEY'RE IN AN INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIOP.

Our fellow dems can be tooled like little gearheads..and some down below are still defending him a claiming he is mainstream!

This is why the party is as it is

I don't have the link, because i don't want to rehash it, but originally he went through a whole litany of how he is not feeling welcome, just because: He opposes gay rights, he opposes abortion, and that we need to give up on those issues in order to win.

In the second thread, he said he is such a devout Catholic that he has to have these positions, and then changed his positions three times in one thread. He obviously was uncommitted to his own positions, or was making things up as he went along. One is cowardly, the other is a lie.

Finally, he apologized and said it was all an experiment to see how DU'ers would react and that we FAILED HIS TEST. Well, that is just childish and punkish.

So, he starts a flame war, and runs away, and some DU'ers rushed to his defense because of the Big Tent philosophy. But, this guy was testing the waters to see if he could get the idea to float that we should relinquish our desire to EXPAND basic rights to all. That's not what liberals are about. And then he whined when he got hammered.

You can check on the rest of those threads. But, i'm quite sure you will agree that he wrote what i just described above.
The Professor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4212603&mesg_id=4212881

YOu were all part of a verite performance act!

But I certainly won't be rolling out the welcome matt. Dude's a major asshole.

Though, I'm not going to beat myself up for receiving someone in good faith.

You and I have had points of agreement and points of disagreement..but please tell me how you can receive someone in good faith who first posts that he supports limiting the rights of women and gays based on religious dogma then GOES AGAINST HIS OWN DOGMA cafeteria style on birth control and stem cell research?

I find NO good faith in that on his part.

look..I was forceful with the person but did not post a single personal attack against him.

I had REASONABLE democrats telling me I was going to scare a new Dem off for taking him to task on a DEBATE SITE!

I oppose abortion, with the exception of endangering the life of the mother, FULL STOP... okay, you guys convinced me, rape and incest too... well life begins with the heartbeat, so whatever you want to do before that is okay... yeah, morning-after contraception is cool...

:thumbsup:

I think we can do without a Zell Miller Wing of the Democratic Party.
(for one thing)

I suspected he was a freeper right after reading he had been an Edwards staffer AND he wanted to overturn Roe. YA RIGHT, an outspoken anti-choicer, Edwards staffer? Don't think so.

He was a fake and a liar.

but I would bet major money that somewhere in Edwards campaign at at least the rank this person claimed to have been was a person who feels Roe v Wade should be overturned. I realize for a lot of you Roe v Wade is the only issue on plantet earth, but for many others it is one of a host of issues. To name a few heavy weights in our party for whom was Bonior working? What about Reid? They may not have uttered the words "I want Roe overturned" but they have advocated laws which would eviscerate it.

And I bet Edwards didn't issue questionaires to his early employees in states like Wisconsin.

The real question here is how many of us know ANY anti-choice Dems? I live in a red state where you would think this would abound. It doesn't. I know Dem's who do not personally approve of abortion but would never vote against another person's right to choose. That's what pro-choice is all about, isn't it? Not taking it upon yourself to make life altering choices for another person? Even if it goes against your personal beliefs. Oddly enough the only place I ever run into this type of person is her on DU. Why do you think that is?

The fact that the OP was using the phrase "pro-life" should have been a huge red flag. It DOES imply that we are pro-death, people!

We still have lots here at DU who adhere to the "let's not sink to their level" philosophy. However, the data are clear. Failing to fight fire with fire back in the 80's is what got us to this point.

Had we taken back the language by launching a full-on, no holds barred, counterattack, these idiots and criminals would not be in control right now.

But, we still have those who think a big tent means we should cater to cretins.
The Professor

He didn't vote for Clinton in 1996. Even today, he'd vote for Bush over Gore. He was mightily impressed with Dubya's performance after 911. He does want to overturn Roe v Wade. Gays disgust him.

http://www.conservababes.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=51&t=12155&s=fe3176440581f42379369a89542d33c1
http://www.conservababes.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=24&t=14609&s=58fd8eb7254d5fc6e01de374503c206b
http://www.conservababes.com/forums/index.php?s=58fd8eb7254d5fc6e01de374503c206b&act=ST&f=24&t=12600&st=0&#entry100151
http://www.conservababes.com/forums/index.php?s=58fd8eb7254d5fc6e01de374503c206b&act=ST&f=32&t=12715&st=0&#entry101096

http://www.google.com/search?q=stewarde+site:www.conservababes.com&filter=0

he has no business being disgusted by anyone's bedroom antics (all links go to the same story, just pick one):

http://www.allhotcontent.com/StoriesArchive1/Big_Boned_Gals/STEWARDE.shtml
http://www.textfiles.com/sex/EROTICA/S/stewarde.txt
fer.com/stories/Amazon/stewarde.html

I have to say...that was awful.

He was NOT an Edwards staffer. He met him twice, is all, at events. And of course, he lied about how he voted.

Sounds like a mixed up kid, to me.

:thumbsup: :rofl:

I missed all the fun again.

I am in real catch twenty two here. So let me lay it on the line where I stand on these two hot botton culture issues.

1) Gay rights - first gay people are just people. Their human beings and tax paying americans. They have every right to the same marriage cermony and propery rights as anyone else. I honestly dont see what the big deal is. God says love everyone without exception.

2)Reproductive Choice _ I describe myself as pro neutreal. why it's not my place as a man to tell a woman what to do with her body one way or another. I will not vote for someone who wants to overturn roe and I cant stomach protestors just a bunch of bullies and thugs on parade.

Funnny I attend church weekly and my views are probably different from everyone youve ever met. I will say this I have to show kindness to new people because that's just me. I can't help it it's in my blood.

Anyhow I just had to vent and let people where I know I stand on things. Have a peaceful gentle night. Danny.

You included

Please have a peaceful gentle night and take care.

,...to allow anyone to push your buttons.

:hug: Your passion deserves to be nurtured and directed towards a stand rather than a reaction. :hug:

What's our stand? ALL people have the right to individual privacy (about their bodies and minds and religion to the extent such choices don't aggressively harm others) and people have the right to be treated equally (no matter what their lot in life, again, as long as there is no aggressive harm to others).

We actually advocate for the freedom of anti-abortion and anti-gay folks to practice what they preach without government intrusion. None of us seek to imprison them for failing to have an abortion or a gay member in their family. It's not our fault that they HATE our freedom. It's not our fault that they are aggressively imposing their beliefs upon us.

All we can do is take our rational humanitarian stand, without any emotional reaction to those who are skilled at emotional blackmail.

:hug:

imposing their beliefs on us..and the threads which are now gone completely prove it. We TOLERATE that aggressive imposition in the name of unity versus the principle of equal rights for all

,...last year's trend. :hug: Taking a stand is stronger than taking fault.

Don't do this to yourself,...please,...and don't pull others into this senselessness.

Focus on the stand for unity, for equality,...and march right through the obstacles and barriers (rather than focus so much energy on those obstacles and barriers).

:hug: STAY FOCUSED ON YOUR CAUSE AND STAND SOLID. please

Unbelievable how many non-progressives we obviously have on this board.

former republican at all. i thought he was an idiot from the first post. but, i read the threads, the whole time thinking "why the hell am i reading this garbage?"

it's pretty messed up NSMA, the tone of those threads. but when it comes to DU it's getting pretty difficult to shock me anymore either. there are some suprisingly unenlightened people around here.

thanks

ago, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I hadn't seen his other posts.

The Upper Midwest is full of people who are rock-solid on economic and even interational issues but stuck in a time warp on sexual issues because they're surrounded by people who think exactly as they do.

Driving around in Minnesota and Wisconsin, you come across towns that are dominated by a big nineteenth century Catholic or Missouri Synod Lutheran (fundie Lutheran) church and school and where everyone came from the same region of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia or wherever. It is possible to grow up in such a place and never hear a real live person (as opposed to someone on TV) express any opinions other than the conventional wisdom of the town.

My approach with people who aren't outright foam-at-the-mouth freepers is to talk with them about the difference between a personal religious belief and a law that can be imposed on citizens of all beliefs.

I made the switch, and it didn't come from being scorned or rejected by pro-choice advocates. It came from a long slow process of being reasoned with.

Some people really are hopeless on sexual issues, but I prefer to try reason first, just in case they're open-minded.

disagreement with his positions civilly. My issue was with people who told him he was like most Dems, and was mainstream and were completely accepting of him even as he advocated in the EXTREME against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

as one who grew up in the Midwest as well, I completely understand where you come from. Discussion is definitely necessary, but compromise is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Unfortunately it gets real personal real fast with these issues if you are living them (no offense but I'm guessing you've never been faced with either).

I remember sitting in a precinct caucus full of Dems, who were happy to vote for my platform plank against the Death Penalty in MN, but barely half were interested in opposing an ammendment against gay marriage (which is not even saying legalize it).

but it soon becomes clear who is teachable and who isn't, who's hostile and who's just ignorant.

My mom has come a long way over the years, especially after she married a musician and met uncloseted gay men and lesbians for the first time in her life.

I was really proud of her when she told a Republican pollster that she didn't care who slept with whom and that they ought to do something about all those people out of work.

This is a woman who asked me in all seriousness five years ago, "Why do they want to do that? The parts don't fit together." :eyes:

I'd love to get rid of the institution of marriage altogether and have civil unions for everyone, no matter what orientation. That, I'd gladly do in a second.

I saw this guy's posts, and it was pretty clear to me he was trolling so I didn't bother to respond to him. I figure he would get the T sooner or later.

I think everybody should be equal and have equal rights in this country, no matter their gender or sexual orientation. It's a no-brainer to me, and I'll stand w/ everyone to see that one day very, very soon we achieve that. We have to.

Like it or lump it. If you don't want people like him, we're wasting a crap load of money on the "50 state campaign".

I only read one, don't know how bad the other one was. But I stand by what I said. The thread I read is representative of Americans in general, whether the guy is a troll or not. Some variation of abortion control and support for civil unions, that's where America is at. If we don't want to welcome people who support 90% of the Democratic agenda, then we should stop wasting money on the 50 state campaign. Those people aren't going to change.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4212603&mesg_id=4212881

You make it easy for the party to be undermined and gamed...LOLOLOL...

Who that guy is doesn't matter. His post, that you and I tussled over, is STILL where America is at. That's the fact, read any poll.

Civil unions, control on various abortions. If you don't want them in the party, quit wasting money trying to attract them.

People who would trade away rights for votes have no right to have a "D" after their name. There are too many already.

Only about 25% believe in abortion on demand. The rest believe in some sort of control, "partial birth", parental consent, etc. Poll just came out yesterday. They don't want Roe overturned, but they don't believe in abortion on demand either, which is generally where the pro-choice community is.

This is just the reality of the people we're supposedly trying to reach out to and get to vote Dem. Welcoming them into the party doesn't mean changing the party platform, it just means accepting everybody isn't going to agree on everything.

You know what that means as well as I do. Just a term to define the difference in views.

And I support abortion on demand and don't care what they call it. I also choose to live in reality. Most people support some sort of limitation on abortion and that's just the way it is.

And most people support civil unions. That's a reality too.

Attacking me isn't going to change it.

invention..funny you should state I am attacking you when you did just that by claiming I was 15...

Yes it is a right wing term, and yes I generally don't use them. Which you well know.

But you also know what it means and refuse to discuss it, preferring to attack me instead.

I would venture a guess that you also know I'm a staunch abortion advocate, don't even believe sperm/egg combos are life, and couldn't give two hoots whether a gay couple got married or not.

But because I also recognize that not everybody thinks like I do, and that communication is preferable to alienation, you want to attack me as a right wing infiltrator.

Not very productive if we ever want to win again.

but when you claim most people are against "abortion on demand" as if such a thing even exists then DO expect yourself to be challenged much as I would challenge anyone who calls labor rights a "class war."

Hide your attack in the thread, such a nauseating ploy.

he was against abortion in all cases except the vague 'where the mother's life is in danger" then went on to say that not ALL cases of the mother's life being in danger were good enough for himj--basically, the mother's life is in danger only when HE thinks it's in danger.

He said rape victims should not get abortion--they should carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption

THEN
He said that girls/women in incestuous relationships shouldn't have access to abortion because THEY HAVE THE CHOICE TO USE BIRTH CONTROL IF THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN THAT TYPE OF SITUATION.

I'm sorry--I fail to believe that the majority of americans agree with such narrow definition of 'abortion on demand'

but in the event of pregnancy - tough shit, honey! You're the one with the uterus, you get to pay the tab. That, evidently, wasn't a big enough clue for some people.

God forbid we let one get away. :eyes:

I said I disagreed with his position on abortion and I do. My point is that most people don't support choice under the traditional use of the word, that it's the woman's complete decision. It really doesn't matter what his view is, because the point is still that most people support some control on abortion. That's where America is at.

Also, I didn't read both threads, the one I read didn't have the comments you gave.

NSMA knows that, she's mad because I point out that most people support civil unions over gay marriage and concludes that means people are tossing her overboard. The Oregon gay community has chosen "Protection, Not Perfection" in the fight to pass civil union legislation. I wouldn't say people who are working on that effort are throwing anybody overboard or making anybody second class citizens. Rather, we're trying to provide the broadest measure of equal rights possible.

The poster was exposed as someone who was trolling. Trolls are funny...but the truly sad part came in because so many people welcomed him with open arms...and the tragic part is - he was an obvious troll.


This particular troll had people all but inviting him home for dinner.

In fact, had he been a snake, quite a few DU'ers would be in the ER right now.

Not the other, the really hideous one.

The one post was exactly precisely where most Americans are at, no matter how much the left tries to deny it. And despite the fact that this particular guy was a troll.

It's a particular annoyance when people say they want to win the south or the west, but don't understand the kind of people they're trying to win over.

Exactly what kind of people am I? If you're going to preach "embrace" people, you might want to drop the stereotyping.

NSMA point is - the troll played people. He set them up and the people welcomed him and cheered him on...and then when it was too late, they were shown to be deceived...they were shown to be fools.

It's a parable. (just apply it on a broader scale)

Are known for their abortion rights and gay marriage advocacy. :eyes:
I live in the west, I guess I'm stereotyping myself too.

NSMA is willing to let the entire country be run by Republicans in order to take a stand for gay marriage while attacking anybody who offers legal rights alternatives as a bigot. Reality is reality. When NSMA has no rights at all, maybe she'll figure out something was better than nothing.

(IF)You are willing to embrace people, no matter how wrong they are, no matter how bad for Americans they are, just to get a vote.(what does that say about that kind of person?)

What does it gain to win if you lose everything else in the process?

It's not NSMA attitude losing our rights. It's those people willing to accept so little and call it a victory.

on edit: and to put this in perspective:

You are defending a right wing troll on a Democratic web site.

Don't you find that just a wee bit... ah... unusual?

:D

:)

We are all equals or we are all enemies.

Let's get together soon..K?

I'm not interested in trading off anyone's rights to gain more voters. :hi:

There's really nothing else to say about it. :shrug:

Continuation of a flame-war from other threads, which have since been deleted, having been posted by a person now expelled from the forum.