Our party should cherish its left, its liberals...not speak condescendingly toward them.

It is especially upsetting to hear a Democratic leader compare the "left" in their party to the "far right." There is no comparison in the two. There's a meanness in the far right that is not in the left.

Just think how easily the conservatives in the party have done away with many of the values that Democrats used to stand for, and while doing so have blamed liberals for it.

Values like the rights of women and gays to be free from harassment by the religious right. Separation of church and state is slowly being eroded. The privatization of everything is, I fear, underway now as much as it was under the Republicans. The movement to deprive education of needed resources is hastening the turnover to the private management companies.

The values of liberals, the left, are good values, caring ones, they are not the mean-spirited issues pushed by the far right.

For years though the party leaders have been conditioned to think that "left" is bad. They have been warned about the liberals in the party for a decade or so.

Back in 1998 Al From in a column at the DLC website declared that New Democrats are here to stay



In 2003 Evan Bayh had some powerful words about "the left". He was afraid we would take over the party.

Bayh under Fire



Vent or govern? What a put down of the liberals in the Democratic party.

Howie Klein of Down With Tyranny had a great post in 2007 discussing centrism and moderates.

Who you callin a centrist?



Recently Blanche Lincoln talked about the left wing of the party.

From TPM:

Blanche Lincoln calls out the Democratic Left



No, Blanche, the "far left" does not expect you to be with them 100% of the time. But we do expect the party that used to be for the people to stand up more for the rights of the people than for the rights of big business.

CQ Politics had an article last year in which the new CEO of the DLC declared mission accomplished.

Bruce Reed: “The political mission of the DLC has been largely accomplished"



I notice he did not mention the liberal vote.

The same article pointed out something called The Emanuel Factor, and that got my attention.



Meanwhile the right of a woman to make reproductive decisions with her doctor privately is being eroded. They are stalling on getting rid of DADT, and the votes won't be there later on most likely. And they are rushing headlong into turning public education over to corporations to run as cheaply as possible.

All the pesky "liberal" views ignored once again as the party heads ever rightward.

speak condescendingly toward me. If anything, I appreciate that the President talks to me like I am an intelligent adult.

I would also add I am proud of all the things my party has accomplished in such a short amount of time.


Another thing I would add is I don't need to be cherished, pampered or coddled. I just expect to be respected (plus have good government) and consider the appreciation icing on the cake.

Do you?

:hide:

my liberal standing because it will lend false importance to the opinions of others.

I'm really tired of this "we're more important than you" crap.

1-800-abcdefg

look into it.

:rofl:

the liberal brand like they copyrighted it or something

:smoke:

that's where are views of equal rights for all comes from

it's what guides us to protect worker's rights

it's where we are coming from when we push for regulations that protect people from corporate excess

it's why we believe every American regardless of birth circumstances should have a fair chance to succeed


No where do those values drive us to try and destroy corporations or start thinking of the government as inherently evil. In fact true liberals believe the government serves the important role of helping people accomplish what they can't accomplish on their own.

Very ...um,... convincing....:rofl:

"I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

I think TJ can more legitimately claim the title of liberal than many.

Also good is "I welcome their hatred of me." FDR

Thomas Paine, John Locke, Voltaire, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, FDR, Susan B. Anthony etc.

All of them had some baggage, but they were fucking lefty crazy liberals and they would all disagree with him.


However he knows what a liberal is.

He stood against authoritarianism, racism, and for equality. He opposed the Vietnam war. The FBI was desperately trying to make him out to be a communist.

Does that sound 'conservative' to you?

to educate yourself. Read and learn.

http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter.pdf

not a liberal?

When, if you read the document you cited, you would see that it says he was a republican BECAUSE he was a liberal.

That POS site claims that the republican party of today is exactly the same party of Lincoln - never mind all the racist Dems who fled our party to join the republicans after the civil rights act was passed.

One one page it claims those dems, like Wallace and Maddox, remained dems all their lives, and THEN a few pages later, talks about Wallace's 3rd party which attracted the disaffected racist dems (who then, under Nixon's southern strategy, moved on to the republicans).

You got nothing.

MLK was a LIBERAL. Today, he would be a Democrat. That garbage is propaganda put out to attract blacks to the GOP, nothing more. It is rife with lies and obfuscations.

Here's a test - who among his compatriots in the civil rights movement is still a republican?

well, that's your opinion but I'm not so sure. It is often sited that the AA move from the republican party to the democratic party ended about 1945 after the depression. Not true. Many AA in the south were still affiliated with the republican party following the depression. I know people like Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, etc., are all democrats and I will never understand Colin Powell, except that he may have been militarily indoctrinated and I know it SHOULD go without saying that MLK would most certainly be a dem but from the changes witnessed within the dem party over the years, I'm still not so sure.

because the Democrats back then included the southern contingent known as the Dixiecrats. With the Civil Rights Act in 1964, then the voting Rights Act in 1965, Blacks started becoming Democrats! Course MLK was killed in April 1968.

A little historical perspective....

They are human beings.

Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his wife and had numerous other indiscretions, FDR interned the Japanese, Truman kicked an entire people out of their homeland because he read too much Old Testament and dropped an atomic weapon. Susan B. Anthony was opposed to birth control.

Now, what you have to do after reading about the warts, is look to what they created.

I'm waiting for the President's legacy.

You would think they would be a little less obvious with the doggie pic. :rofl:

It says "all men are created equal", and yet it, also, was written by a slaveholder.

"aristocracy of....", well, I don't quite know what to say.

...of saying no one should quote Thomas Jefferson, who formulated some of the most important principles upon which this country was founded, who was one of the great intellects among our Founding Fathers -- well, your irony-meter is just broken.

We all know that Jefferson was a slave holder. He even impregnated one of his slaves. We know there is a serious disconnect between those things, and his inspiring writings. Shall we then discount all things written by Jefferson? Shall we dispense with the separation of church and state, as outlined by one Thomas Jefferson? Shall we give up on the idea that all men are created equal?

Historical ironies of this sort abound. We are all creatures of our times, and societal norms change. We need not approve of Jefferson being a slaveholder while espousing equality; the thing is, though, is that his thoughts on equality are self-evidently correct, while most of us believe that his actions w.r.t. slaveholding were incorrect. Oddly enough, thinking people can hold both thoughts without their heads exploding.

clause in the Declaration of Independence declaring slavery to be an abomination. The clause was removed by Franklin and Adams who believed they would lose the southern states if it were included. Adams himself abhorred slavery and in his wife's letters to him she called it 'evil'.

Here is Jefferson's clause included as one of the grievances in the DOI:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Since Jefferson never left us with anything to explain why, feeling as he did, he continued to own slaves, we can only speculate. But clearly at that time, when even raising the issue was dangerous especially in Virginia, he was willing to do so.

People are complex and they live in the times they live in and are often bound by the culture within which they live. But this clause gives a very good idea of his personal feelings about slavery and tells us that had Adams and Franklin not removed it, he was willing to risk the consequences.

slavery was wrong, but didn't advocate for its abolition. However, he did make arrangements for his slaves to be freed upon the death of his wife and arranged for care for the young and the elderly after his death.

Jefferson didn't even emancipate the woman who bore his children, who was his deceased wife's half-sister. It was left to his daughter to do that. Jefferson always encumbered his slaves to pay for his debts and showed little interest in emancipating them even when someone else left funds in his will to do so. Upon Jefferson's death, they were sold at auction. Apparently, he did give his two sons their freedom.

I believe that Jefferson also liked to have the slaves live at some distance from his primary residence. I'd say that gives a very good idea about his personal feelings about slavery.

I stand by my statement that it's ironic to use the words a slaveholder who as far as we can tell loved his life of luxury paid for by the misery of others, so long as he could maintain his status as an aristocrat, in a quote about "aristocrats...."

he is opposed to torture, yet, is continuing the Bush policies of refusing to allow torture victims to have access to U.S. courts, leading foreign nations to have to step in and hold the torturers accountable. Several countries are now issueing subpoenas that should have been ordered by THIS administration.

Worse, he is allowing the trial of a tortured child soldier to go before a Military Commissions court, a horrendous violation of Habeas Corpus rights, not to mention that no child soldier, particularly one who has been tortured by THIS country, should ever go on trial, according to every Human Rights agreement we have with the rest of the civilized world. Child soldiers are meant to be rehabilitated.

So, I wonder if we should take the word of someone who allows tortured children to be tried secretly on the issue itself.

As I said, people are complex, but at least we have from both Jefferson and Obama indications that while they did not take a real stand (although Jefferson was willing to) they were correct in their opposition to both travesties of justice.

the Thomas Jefferson's lifelong support of slavery. Wasn't Jefferson the guy who won election by using the 3/5 of a person rule?

As you note, other presidents have done things in support of national defense that some disagree with at the time and many later disagree with. While we may not agree with things done in our collective name in defense of the nation, most would likely place those actions in a different category.'

Jefferson actively supported slavery for his entire life through his deeds. It's amazing that you simply dismiss his active participation in every aspect of the slaveholding class because he wrote a few words against it. Words which likely were written with an eye to Jefferson's place in history so that folks like you could excuse the horror of being a slaveholder by saying, "But he was against it!"

Because of his stature, Thomas Jefferson was integral in the enshrining of that evil institution in the very fabric of our nation, with the resulting catastrophic events and the long-lasting divisiveness in our national politics that continues today.

I'd say that a better parallel would be Dennis Kucinich's long support of the most divisive issue of our day--women's reproductive rights. His support of an issue that doesn't involve national defense, but in which certain groups in the body politic attempt to disenfranchise and harm a large group of the citizenry. In Kucinich's case, it didn't matter to him because they were only women, in Jefferson's, slaves.

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

:applause:

Rights for all" really means because I don't think you really have a clue. Somehow reinforcing Hyde by executive order, FISA, reconsidering the application of Miranda, denial of Gay Marriage Rights, and refusing to take promised action on DADT don't really spell out "equal rights for all" and anyone who supports those items cannot be said to be a Liberal.

some here think they have others fooled..

THEY DO NOT!

EOM

:patriot:

and expansion of the war in Afghanistan :sarcasm:

"To me the core liberal values are fairness and compassion"

Complete and total hogwash. Those are not core liberal values and never have been. Fairness is a pipe-dream and having compassion just means you aren't a psychopath.

Fairness doesn't exist in the reality we live in. How is it fair that the lion eats the antelope calf? And how would it be fair if the lion were not allowed to eat? This reality wasn't "designed" to be fair, and no amount of wishing it were is going to change that.

Compassion and fifty cents will get you a ride on the merry-go-round. Compassion is not a principle. In and of itself, it gets you nothing. And, compassion for what and who? I have no compassion whatsoever for the warmongers in industry and government, the wall street banksters and their enablers, or the pigs at the trough from BP and the other mega-corporations who are destroying our environment without even a second thought merely in order to line their pockets.

In fact, as a liberal I've always been opposed to the death penalty. But, now I believe there is one exception to be made and that is for crimes against humanity. The fact is, I have so little compassion for that war criminal Dick Cheney that I'd gladly pull the lever myself that drops the trap door from under him and never lose one second of sleep. Actually, I'd probably sleep much better afterward.

The true core liberal values are Liberty and Justice. You know, those principles we give lip service to in the pledge of allegiance. They are the foundation that this democracy was built upon. Without them, we ain't got shit.

Liberty - freedom from tyranny whether by government, class, religion, ideology, or any other source.

Justice - equal treatment under the law whether you are a pauper or president. This means treating the rich and powerful the same way you treat the dark-skinned kid selling crack on the corner or the Middle-Eastern villager that reads a different bible.

Explain how your positions attack tyranny in order to enable liberty. Explain how your positions foster equal justice for all men and women. That is the true test of liberalism. I dare you.

Fairness and compassion ain't worth dying for. Liberty and justice are.

IMHO

adressing..that one is nothing but a con artist!

And I would bet the farm a " paid " con artist!

New Democrats are liberals, too! (except when they are throwing vile ad hominems at liberals online)

...cause their policies are similar. In fact some 'New Democrat' policies these days are to the right of St. Ron

This will tickle some, Reagan lived in socialist towns as a young man and retired by the last remaining socialist town, Solvang CA. Reagan played basket ball with the socialist and loved the new deal according to gramps. Think of it, Ron retired by the socialists he grew up with. My family helped found the town.

was head of the screen actors guild too. Look what he did to the Unions. He did more to ruin America than any president, or politician, in my lifetime.

and it left a deep scar on his emotions, so that when he became prez he decided to take down the lighthouse of their party, the USSR.

when Reagan became a republican then the president. I am not implying that he governed or made policy like a liberal (except that big tax increase on the rich people forget about). I did imply I was socialist from right here in the USA.

:wtf:

You mean the Reagan tax increase that the teabaggers are now screaming about? The one that they're burning Reagan in effigy over?

The DLC was a group founded by those that were referred to as 'Reagan Democrats.' So to me it makes some sense that they would occasionally be cutting our legs out from under us.

He wants to steal the label liberal. And has said as much:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=388&topic_id=20883&mesg_id=20883

He thinks as long as someone is a constant apologist for each action the Administration takes, he is a liberal.


Here is how he really feels about liberals:

You know there is a reason that the liberals only make up 20% of the population while conservatives make up twice that at 40%. Liberals have a bad habit of being self destructive. I suspect a major reason for this is that they are younger and lack the wisdom that comes with life experience.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=388&topic_id=17936

Great work there, tekisui!

:toast:

You are to liberalism as Matt Drudge is to journalism.

own words. I really don't think this OP is about you.

Adding more to my comments is a real "wonderment" if that's a word, as to WHY MJMaverick would even make a statement about being a Liberal!

I have YET to see it, so perhaps that's why I rarely agree with this person.

Not trying to be "crude" but just calling it as I see it!

Real liberals don't have to keep claiming what they are, it is obvious from the positions they take on issues.

I have never been able to get a clear statement from this commenter on where he stands on issues that are considered liberal, especially those Obama has flip-flopped on.

post, I don't see very much "LIBERAL" about you! I see you so MUCH more leaning to the right! I realize I don't know you personally, but from all the posts I've read from you... you most certainly Don't seem to embrace MUCH OF ANYTHING to the left!

I rarely reply to any of your posts because of my perception, but couldn't help myself on this one! Again, I'm only making my comments because of the many, many posts you've made here at DU!

JMHO!!

DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO ACCEPT GREATNESS
THEY PLAY DEFENSE NOT OFFENSE

f course. Democrats shalt never boast

SUBMIT IT TO MANY FORUMS AND PAPERS ETC

82 GREAT THINGS BY DEMOCRATS

ALL AMERICAN PARTY

Can anyone name ten for Republican Country Club Party

Credit for this “most” of this information goes to my friend, a great mind, and his terrific site
(Rev.Ray Dubuque—www. Liberals like Christ.org)

Republicans fought most of these plus WWII Draft

A good Fun Test-List ones Country Club Party fought tooth and nail
And wanted to drown in a bathtub
If it was good for Middle Class and Poor Conservatives fought most of them

Thanks to: Since 1980-- 20 years of three Conservative presidents—18 years of Conservative Senate-12 years of Conservative House-6 years of Total Conservative Control= 2 unneeded wars—destruction of Wall Street-- Housing Industry--and collapse of Economy to deep recession

Country Club Party got what they wanted—

Redistribution of Income-Wealth

1% own 21% of national wealth—10% own 71%

Viva Third World Nation

2009 Health Care Reform—70% want it per polls—Kill it say GOP

1. social security act

2. medicare

3. gi bill of rights

4.national industrial recovery act

5.national housing act

6.federal communications act

7.national labor relations act-wagner act of 1935

8.fair labor standards act (min wage & max hours laws)

9.public works adm-works progress adm

10.civilian conservation act

11.Tennessee Valley (power) Authority (TVA)

12.rural electrification act (REA)

13.full employment act

14.permanent school lunch program

15. Truman ended segregation in armed forces

16.veterans emergency housing act

17.public health service act

18.marshall plan

19.peace corps

20.aid to dependent children program (schip)

21.small business investment act

22.establishment of arms control and disarmament agency

23.consumer drug protection laws

24.equal pay act

25.manpower development and retraining act

26.clean air act

27.mental health and mental retardation act

28.college and vocational education act

29.civil rights act

30.voting rights act

31.mass transportation act

32.omnibus poverty act (office of economic opportunity, vista, job corps and public assistance programs)

33.war on poverty

34.head start (for pre-school children)

35.land conservation fund

36.permanent food stamp program

37.appalachia regional development act

38.elementary and secondary education act

39.higher education act

40.older Americans Health act (medicare and medicaid)

41.law enforcement assistance act

42.immigration reform act

43.freedom of information act

44.clean water restoration act

45.coal mine health and safety act

46.Schip Health Care for 11 million children-Clinton bill 1997
Bush vetoed reauthorization twice. Is he sane?
Why do Republicans hate little kids?
Reauthorized in early 2009 under Obama and democratic senate

47.federal ethics code

48.civil service reform

49.creation of superfund (cleanup of toxic waste)

50.secretary of health joseph califano(fight tobacco health threat)

51.votings rights act extension

52.highway and mass transit funding bill

53.civil rights restoration act

54.head start expansion

55.Americans with disabilities act

56. small tax increase on the wealthy to fight
deficits created by Reagan-- 250B on top 1.2%

57.family medical leave act

58.attempted to extend/or improve health insurance coverage for millions of Americans—Truman--Nixon—Clinton--Obama

59.restoration of democracy to Haiti

60.restoration of peace to Bosnia

61.promotion of peace in South Africa

62.promotion of peace in Northern Ireland

63.promotion of peace in Israel and Palestine

64.increases in minimum wage

65.promotion of spending on inner-city schools

66.opposition to abolition of safety net for the poor

67.protection of social security and medicare from Newt raids.

68.promotion of justice for victims of racism

69.protection of children from cancer inducing tobacco industry

70.Gop constantly frustrated efforts to enact thorough campaign finance

71.appointment of many minorities and women to cabinet positions

72.resolution of long-standing black farmers discrimination issues

73.leadership role in Nato’s campaign to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

74.major efforts to challenge the dangerous proliferation of assault weapons in America. Bush cancelled Clinton exec. order banning import of killer machines. How many slaughtered in schools since then? Police killed?

75.ameri-corps

76. Pay Their Way Party— all American party=Democrats

1960 to 1980—National Income grew 418%--Debt grew 210%

1980 to 1992 National Income grew 102%--Debt grew 300%.

Democrats= Income increased twice as fast as debt—
Republicans= Debt increased three times as fast as Income

Democrats Pay Their Way-Republicans party of Spend And Borrow-our kids pay Tomorrow

77. party for strong defense—carter increased defense spending by 50%--

Democrat presidents in charge in WWI—WWII--Korean—Kosovo
Bush I was great in Gulf War—
Son was disaster in two illegal wars

Nixon-Ford cut Army troops by 41% and Reagan-Bush cut by 11%

Clinton cut due to death of Cold War mentality by Military-Industrial Cadre
Clinton targeted Pentagon Spending to Hi Tech weapons which gave us in 2003, per GW Bush, “The Greatest Military in History”
Bush Sec. Of Defense, Rumsfeld, planned to follow Clinton with small, fast reaction units with air power not massive ground troops.

78. Party of Integrity---Reagan had more(138) charged with crimes than cumulative total for all presidents of 20th century. (One) person convicted of a felony committed while working for Clinton.
Even though Newt Congress spend $110 million on Hearings and Investigations in an effort to destroy the Clinton administration. $110 Million number from GAO. Thirteen hearings on a simple innocent land deal Whitewater which they used as Platform to launch attacks. Evil people.

79. vacation with pay

80.trade union schools—forerunner to community colleges

81.worker retirement pensions

82.veterans administration

83.earned income tax credit—senator russell long bill

84. Fair Pay Bill passed 1-09

85. Cobra-2008—health care for laid off workers

86. HEALTHCARE REFORM????????????

Great Gop achievements—
Eisenhower initiated Interstate Highway
Reagan signed Martin Luther King holiday
Nixon signed affirmative action law
Nixon initiated EPA
Nixon initiated OSHA
Bush created two wars, moral and economic collapse

Ike was good--Ford was good--Bush I was good

Reagan + Bush II were bad for America And the world--Unrestricted Gambling=Disaster

Redistribution of Wealth & Income Upwards via 2500 Billion in Tax Cuts mostly for rich and increase by Spending and Borrowing.

2500B Tax Cuts and borrowed 5700 Billion to pay for them and major increases in spending(80% Reagan + 65% Bush II). Clinton + 24%.

Which party won every 20th Century War but one??

Which President created most jobs per month?
Which President increased Total Stock Market Value by more than thrice all predecessors combined
Which President never told the people a single lie on policy.
Which President got more of his Legislation passed in first two years under a Democratic Congress than all but one President (LBJ).
Which President released more secured documents than total of all preceding presidents?
Which president implemented more anti-terrorism programs than any in history?

answer below

LORD WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

In smears please use numbers not guesses.

OK Amigo! Si Senor!

cswinney2@triad.rr.com
political research historian
lifeaholics of america
author-Lifeaholic--success by working for a Life not just a Living
author-unpublished 9-09
ALL AMERICAN PARTY—how the Democrats built the GREAt MIDDLE CLASS and conservatives are destroying it--

left catches the eye. I think that is a big factor in defining what is the center. A more apt comparison would be the left fringe who go largely unnoticed because they are usually busy going from library to library, encrypting their emails to themselves. This is Becks equivalent nut case comparison. I would like the politicians to please define center and left fringe for once.

My first post so go easy.

This is from 2003. Even Howard Fineman was laughing about the absurdity.

Fringe Activists

I was raised Southern Baptist, raised moderately in a family of Republicans.

I am now a liberal because I see what is happening to our party and it must stop.

campaign to hang out at the cool kids table.

No, you are still a wishy-washy moderate. It is ok to be that. Celebrate the inner you!

it's okay to admit you are a centrist.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and please stop trying to speak for liberals. You're just not that good at it.

Thank you

What liberal positions do you support?
How do you think the liberal position is being misrepresented?
And why to you think Obama avoids the labels liberal and progressive?

I'm not even nearly as liberal as I sound at times. I was definitely to the left of Clinton, but I was frustrated with Carter's COMPLETE lack of pragmatism at all. Most of my disillusionment with Obama has been that he started out much further left than he is actually governing. And it is fairly obvious that it is by choice, not by force.

But I'm against regressive taxes like Cadillac taxes and mandated health insurance.
I'm for civil rights, even for homosexuals, and I believe that justice delayed is justice denied.
I believe in due process, even for "terrorist" suspects.
I believe that torture is illegal and wrong even if conducted "within the four corners of the policy".
I believe that indefinite detentions are unconstitutional.
I believe that health CARE is a right.
I believe that reproductive medical CARE is part of that and also a right.
I believe that wars of choice are wrong and that sustaining them is wrong.
I believe that Hilter was a RESULT of war, not that war was the "answer" to Hitler.

you're no liberal. You are a centrist, which is fine.

It is ok to be a centrist. If that is what floats the person's boat. No need to pretend to be something you are not to try to impress other people...definetley not a liberal thing to do.

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'm Donald Duck.

doom and gloom for our economy

How are those unemployment and foreclosure numbers looking. How effective is that mortgage re modification program going. What did the empire state manufacturing survey say about April? What does the California budget crisis mean for the economy?

Lastly, the trillion dollar bailout of the European banking sector 2 weeks ago, I remember all you hopeful ostriches telling me how tiny Greece was...how have the markets been since that ;-)

Just because I'm educated and intelligent does not make me a doom and gloomer.

It makes me able to spot the obvious.

As far as your definition of a liberal, it is about as childish as a Disney Cartoon. Grow up.

Sorry I missed it, wah:(

You're so funny!

lol.

I think that is a simple question.

I support fairness and equality is something a Miss America candidate says.

Pat Toomey would give the same answer. Answer the how you get there.

Seriously, a liberal is a person who asks why and searches for answers. I rarely see that quality from you. I see someone who looks to leaders for direction and than accepts it blindly.

for me I will stand by the compassion and sense of fairness that are the core liberal values.

That is an ideal. How do you implement that son.

How old are you? And perhaps that isn't the correct question, but your answers seem a little childish to me!

And yes, a bit like Disney World too! C'mon down to Florida, you MIGHT get to see some black GLOBS upon our shores real soon!! MMS, and the rest have done a fine JOB of protecting our beaches! I'm sure you won't agree, but Obama has leaned to the right when it comes to oil drilling IMO and I'm surely pissed that where I live the beaches may be destroyed!!

Where I LIVE, it's been touted that we have the "whitest" beaches in the world!! Yes, THE WORLD, and I fear this will certainly be some sort of "waterloo" in and of itself!

I concur, this ISN'T about the oil spill, but it does tie in!! As a Liberal I'm against OFF-SHORE drilling especially because of where I live!!

Too much.

LOL. Where do you come with this stuff? Brilliant....

Anybody can wear the name tag but those who are the real deal know the difference.

The peanut gallery is waiting for your brilliance.

I have laid out my credentials multiple times up thread. PS, falsely claiming the economy is going to collapse is also not a liberal credential

Where do you stand on any issue and why? Not too specific.

Drop me for a second let us hear your brilliance.

Exactly how that would make one feel "respected" and talked to like an intelligent adult, I am not quite sure. But each to his own, I guess. And yes,the COS does speak for the President, and it is reasonable to assume they share the same philosophy if not the same manner of speech.

Afghanistan, Healthcare, welfare, unemployment, civil rights for the LGBT community, Financial Reform.

Pick one, anyone. I support whatever Barack thinks is not an acceptable answer cadet. You want to be a liberal, lets be a liberal. A liberal can talk about such things in the abstract outside of a politician.

I have already laid out my liberal credentials up thread multiple times, while I notice you have laid out nothing. Hating Democrats is not a liberal credential you know.

I was right. Did my talking about the European debt crisis cause it? Did my saying the re-modification program cause it to fail? Did my talking about unemployment cause it to be not improving at the ratio it should given supposed GDP growth?

How about me thinking BP is a bunch of idiots and have no clue how to stop the oil from pouring into the gulf. Do my thoughts cause BP to be idiots?

If so, I am God, and I'm doing a terrible job. I must start thinking more positive or I will doom us all!!!!!!!!!

Am I God NJMaverick?

and I have seen you claim the economy was going to collapse right before it took off. So what are your credentials for calling yourself a liberal?

Define taking off and define who it took off for.

What was GDP growth last quarter and what was the % of deficit spending to GDP.

that I agree with you. This is why we know that people like Rahm Emanuel and his DLC following are not Democrats.

And since you appear to agree with them on every issue, including their disdain for liberals, you have earned the reputation you are now denying.

DLCers are the rightwing of the Democratic Party. They are infiltrators who admire Ronald Reagan (what do YOU think of Reagan btw?) who support war, who believe women and gays and minorities should have rights, but they are 'pet issues' that should not be allowed to interfere with the party platform, whatever their idea of that is.

I don't know you, but I've seen your comments and you defend DLC policies all the time. DLCers are not Democrats.

How does that make you feel as a Liberal?

...a valued employee. ;)

so quit saying that.

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

You're not a liberal. You're a hawk.

I don't think you're deliberately trying to mislead: I believe you think you're a liberal.

You've yet to answer what it is that makes you a liberal other than to claim you believe in fairness and compassion. There are a lot of people who claim to believe in that it doesn't make them a bloody liberal. There's not a damn thing that you've argued for on this board that I've seen that passes for liberal by any stretch of the word unless you count your liberal helping of mindless parroting and imbecilic invective. People who actually understand what words mean however, aren't buying your spiel.

thank you for keeping this thread bumped. :P

Please don't speak as a liberal, you know you are not one.

LINO to coin an acronym.

to go along with the "New Democrat" rebranding of the DLC?

Then, we would be vilified even further.

They have quite cleverly put us in a no-win situation, and are having many laughs over it.

I'm going to edit this to add that it really is like being an abused wife.

And if they do, I'm sure they wax on 'those times' like they are all grown up now and don't hug trees anymore. I have a few DINOs in my family and RINOs too...the way they think and behave are nearly identical. The way the handle their money OTOH is completely different.

Sort of like dick cheney saying he is a man of the people.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I doubt they use it at the Message Discipline meetups.

They like the title only when it suits them... ie Democratic Primaries when they need to lie to us and convince us they're one of us. Obama was amazing at this.

Rp

Liberals aren't threatening to kill congressmen or joking about poisoning the speaker of the house. Liberals aren't being led around by corrupt corporate sponsored astroturf organizations. I've even heard Howard Dean make the same comparison. I wish they would stop it. But when they make those statements I wonder what side they are on.

Either the party will have to scrape the liberals or the conservatives off the bottom of the ship of state. The "New Democrat" has taken the left for granted for far too long while damaging the party as a whole.

If history repeats itself, the GOP will fade into irrelevance and at that point, the left will split off from the Democratic Party with specific aims in mind. Once those aims are achieved, the plutocrats will take over the now apathetic, smaller liberal party.

FDR broke that pattern by coopting a lot of the good ideas from the left and ushered in the biggest sustained boom any country has ever seen, along with insuring that boom would not be grabbed by the top 0.5% of the population.

Whether or not the Democrats will follow FDR or the party that gave birth to the abolitionist GOP is anyone's guess at this point.

What we do know is that the left will stay captive only so long.

The current administration is hoping they can eke out one more election before the revolt.

They will eke out that last election under the old paradigm, otherwise the revolt is coming faster and harder than they anticipate.

Economic realities have a fine way of focusing one's attention to the actions of the political class, what you can get away with when things are prosperous are not possible when things are tough.

For all the funny bikini graphs and good news porn distributed, most people are pretty fucking pissed off at political leadership in this country.

And while it may surprise some, I've http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6855602">said as much. :toast:

K/R

that I've been holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

;-)

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002055/

"All I’m saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it’s both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else."

Sigh!

Just WHO I will be able to turn to and support in 2012!!

Was even going to ask this in a post here! I DIDN'T like Rahm BEFORE Obama and said so many, many times!! For me, it's gone down hill from there!

Making DEALS with Specter too!!

The quote from Rahmy-baby also sealed the deal. 1. I'm not retarded and 2. retarded is a very offensive description of anyone, get a clue Rahm it's developmentally disabled.

http://www.correntewire.com/obama_got_little_single_payer_advocates_here

From a town hall meeting ... there is a video somewhere.

Sheesh!

SP advocates, then comes the condescending comment from Obama.

extreme right with the base of his own party. Wants to show the right how 'fair and balanced' he is. The fact that they never give him any credit for it, and that he royally pisses off those he will need to vote for him in the future, makes you wonder why he does it.

The right has capitalized on this weakness of Obama. Polls indicate that many people perceive Obama to be a far left radical when he is in fact a right leaning centrist, take the Healthcare Reform, you would think from the rights lockstep refusal to support any parts of it that it was full of liberal goodies, but that is the furthest thing from the truth. In fact it looks like something that the Republicans themselves would have come up with had they been in charge of Congress. Its all becoming political theater and for the people if we don't start demanding accountability of our elected reps then all is lost.

politically? Bayh left rather than have tough re-election fight.

Sure sounds like Lincoln is in some trouble in Arkansas.

It appears to me the more rightward they have gone, the
more likely they will lose their seats in Congress.

She's running in Arkansas but spending advertising money in Missouri. It should be noted that since HDTV I have been unable to get any of the Arkansas tv stations and therefore is not unreasonable to assume the ads she's paying for in Missouri aren't being seen by Arkansans. You have to wonder if she had access to an excess of campaign funding.

they appear to be ignoring that it may have anything to do with people being angry at Democrats - especially corporate Dems - who took their huge majorities in the House & Senate and used them to sell us to the insurance companies.

who voted for stimulus -- and we don't want Specter ---

Completely different reasons -- but same target!!

When given a choice between voting for a Republican or voting for a democrat that acts like a Republican, the people will vote for the Republican every time. Every good thing this nation has ever done, accomplished or achieved has been the result of "radical" activism on the part of the left wing of this nation's people, without exception. Centrism is just mediocre re-branded.

over the Repubs before gloating.

And are the challengers really going to be considered progressives? Any Democrat that gets elected from Arkansas is going to be progressive enough for the DU left? Unlikely. If these people win, I predict they get called corporatist DLC within ten days of being sworn in.

...the "middle" is way left of where everyone claims it is.

I don't know anyone who doesn't want to help the poor.

I know almost no one who doesn't believe all Americans have a right to health care.

I know exactly zero people that think oil companies and other big corporations deserve tax breaks.

....those found guilty should suffer very severe consequences for violating the public trust.

why not cherish each other

My friends on facebook have been getting a valued education thanks to your links. Bravo!

The problem with some of the left is that they do not know how to connect to the moderates and independents. They view everything as a fight of us vs them, which alienates the moderates and loses elections.

The tea party movement is in danger of doing the same thing for the GOP. Republicans in the past at least acted like they were moderates like George Bush preaching compassionate conservatism.

The criticism has nothing to do with the actual liberal values, it is just how you sell yourself and govern the country.

That is a talking point sent out by the so-called right wing of the Democratic party.

It is one which is getting old and tired and trite.

I have that on centrist authority.

:hi:

Which is little surprise since that's what the dominant american institutions promote from cradle to grave

To defy the Laws of Tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

And courage is very impractical. Double whammy.

and tell us what wonderful pragmatist they are and how we need to stop whining and you are telling us to behave. That is fucking rich.

:rofl:

And it often makes things worse than they were before.

For example:
"Perhaps instead of two wars we should have one."
"Let's support half equality instead of full equality."
"It's ok if we give tax money to religious organizations, we'll just nudge and wink and say they aren't allowed to discriminate - tee hee."
"We can't have universal health care at the expense of the insurance companies! I know, let's try and do both."

...back a guy who actively campaigned for the Republicans, let him caucus and have his senior committee positions when he comes back as an indempendent, and NOT have some sort of "insurance" that he'll back your agenda in return;

...stress "bipartisanship" so much it takes all the pressure off the opposing pary EXCEPT from their hard right, allowing them to reinforce their already-established phalanx-like party-line voting block;

...don't aggressively pursue investigations of corruption and illegal actions by the previous administration. You don't even need to lead off with something controversial, like war crimes; there was plenty of more conventional misdeeds to keep up a steady stream of news linking "Republican" with "criminal", which would also help to break up the lock-step voting block mentioned above. How is gaining justice AND political leverage not "pragmatic"?

...don't throw a bone to a part of their base that they need to win. Geez, Al D'Amato was one of the most obvious sleazeballs ever to get to Washington, but he stayed in by being "Senator Pothole", keeping his constituents satisfied enough to send him back a few times.

And the fact is a real liberal would win over a conservative if he didn't attempt to triangilate. Voters respect a candidate with a solid POV. They haven't been getting that in very many instances. The right respects Alan Grayson as much as the Left. Why is that if Liberals can't win?

He isn't in politics to build a fortune unlike some our noble leaders.

... while telling them to fuck off.

Sometimes you just can make these levels of hypocrisy up. LOL.

Doublethink is a personal fault, do not project it onto others.

BTW, nice attempt at making orange juice from my post about apples. LOL.

As for unpleasantness and insults, on DU that comes from the left. the "being told to fuck off" is playing the victim, that has never been the way the centrists have been - with them it's been more like join us or you could get the repubs - which is realistic.

Any support for corporate power over government will bring criticism --

rightly so!

as 'left' are actually moderates, like me. So when Obama and Rahm insult a whole range of Democrats every time they compare them to the 'rabid right' or they exclude people who represent popular views, such as:

Universal Healthcare

No Bailouts for Wall St.

An end of torture policies.

An end to useless, expensive wars, we can't afford them.

Accountability for those who brought down the economy and those who committed war crimes.

Ending DADT which a majority of Americans support.

they are losing a broad spectrum of people who put them in power in the first place.


All these issues are supported by a majority of Americans. Independents, Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates in both parties.

You are mistaken in your opinion that 'liberals' don't know how to speak to moderates and independents. I can speak to them and even to Conservatives and find common ground, easily.

Corporatists have taken over the Democratic Party and they do not like anyone to disagree with them. So they label EVERYONE, which you have just done, as 'left' who has any ideas that are not part of the DLC platform.

Your comment is exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for the example, speaking of not knowing how to communicate with people.

prove your point!

Just look up above and it's there. They feel so entitled to push everyone around.

basement somewhere near Baton Rouge, or something. I certainly haven't seen his ugly mug recently.

.... whispering into Obama's ear --

My country was founded on the liberal principles of protecting rights, establishing justice, extending opportunity and personal responsibility. These remain liberal principles. I don't believe in the political spectrum, and I think this is just another case where the "left/right" paradigm is being used to dismiss the opinions of millions of Americans. I'm freaking sick of it.

Don't worry whether I'm on the left or the right. Listen to me! Don't worry whether I am a liberal or a progressive or a conservative; I can back my opinions with strong arguments. Don't expect me to pass litmus tests; I don't want to play. I just want my government to run properly. But since I self-identify as a liberal some don't want to listen to me; I tell you, that's the whole reason for the labels! We don't want to listen to one another.

I've been telling people for a couple years now: the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008; the left hasn't won anything yet. We have to get more liberals elected. We have to win the argument in the grass roots.

My poor Krell!

As if you couldn't guess. That's one of my favorite scenes from it; unable to control his demons, Morbius suffers an apparent stroke, as if his unconscious knew precisely what he had to do. For a fifties scifi with a flying saucer and all that jazz, Forbidden Planet has some depth.

I'm glad someone else gets the reference. Morbius was the name of a villain in a Doctor Who episode; last week someone here thought my name meant I was preoccupied with death. :D I just love that great machine of the long-dead Krell.

I knew the other Morbius, but assumed you had to be referencing the original.

Me too.

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
- George Washington

That is pinko commie pussy talk. That surrender monkey would most likely get squashed by a real 'merican like Reagan with all his extensive WWII fight experience (those double takes for the movies were hell I tell you!).

and if you're constantly putting out negative vibes and vitriolic language, that's what you'll get back in return.

Once a system goes out of balance (or a sociopath enters the dynamic) anything can happen and it doesn't depend on what you put out there.