How Long Until DU Bans Me?

[The Duke]

here's a more fair summary of DU's position on Castro: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1204461

That poster has a link in his sig that goes to a page describind Cuban communism as a "humane, socialist system".  Thanks for proving our point.

read beyond the first post.

It's a place for only liberals to converse, just like FR is for conservatives. If you want debate there are loads of other boards you can go to. DU is still full of debate though.

Its no different than the debate on Al Jazeera, where everyone agrees, America is evil.  The debate is over how evil at DU.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you obviously didn't read it much during primary season.

I didn't read it much during primary season, thank god.  but you make my point for me: They debated which Democrat was best for America, I'd guess.  That sounds a lot like Al Jazeera, where, again, they debate which type of Sharia would be best to impose on the decadent westerners.

A decorating show that spends all its time debating which shade of blue goes best on the walls is not a real debate.

[??????????]

BRTD would fit in very well on DU

I have exactly 8489 posts, so yes.

though he's probably considered a bit to the right

yes, I am considered one of the more conservative posters.

Lets hope those people never get power or we are really going to need an American Pinochet.

[Keystone Phil]

How long would it be until I get banned on DU as a Santorum-Toomey Republican?   (that is, assuming I became a member which I'd never do)

Simply saying something like "I love Rick Santorum" even once is grounds for a banning.

Oh I'd have fun with those clowns. 

[Akno21]

My first post there in a month is a response to a "Boxer in '08" thread. She was getting some good support on that thread.

If these people ever got their way...

Howard Dean?

No, I'm probably going to get banned for providing opposition in the Boxer '08 thread.


Me:
She has a long senate record, she's a senator, she's a liberal.

Which state will she win that Kerry did not?

Senators don't work. Get that into your heads. Goldwater, Humphrey (was), McGovern, Mondale (was), Dole, Gore (was), and Kerry. Learn the lesson.

Other Guy:
Because she's not afraid to stand up for an issue, because she represents the American people rather than playing for cameras. And because she's not a proven loser.

Hell will freeze over before John Kerry gets another presidential nomination.

Me:
She doesn't represent the American people. You underestimate how much of the USA is made up of homophobic bigots. She represents the liberal state of California, she is not representive of the American people.

It doesn't matter that she has conviction, her stands are not ones that will win an election nationally in the United States. You are also ignoring the fact that she is a senator. Senators cannot win.

Other Guy:
Kerry can't win either, so you ask why she is better than he, I gave a list of reasons. I could give lots more. The Democrats obviously have done very poorly at trying to guess who Americans will vote for. They vote for Republicans. Gaming the elections isn't work. It's time we try standing up for principles for a change. And if you don't like Boxer, don't support her. But I really don't appreciate this so-called pragmatic argument that has a proven track record of unmitigated failure.

Feel free to nominate a bigot if that is who you prefer. That, however, belongs in another club forum.

Me:
but we can do things that will enable us to win.

A) Don't nominate senators. They have unaviodable baggage, and many of them have adapted senate-speak. Just look at the results. They don't win.

B) Nominate someone moderate, perferebly from the south. Face facts, the last 3 people who got elected and were Democrats since the political shift of '68 (Carter, Clinton, Gore -He won Florida) were from the south, and most of them were governors, Gore was a senator but also a VP and had the benefit of being VP during the most glorious time in American history.

Kerry, for all his faults, was a slim margin in one state away from winning. I don't think Barb Boxer could be in that position. She is a liberal senator, just like John Kerry. We did stand up for our principles in 2004. Kerry was a lot closer to the average liberal than you might think. He was an intellectual, socially liberal, typical northeasterner, etc. If we were really going to pander to the social conservatives in 2004, we would not have nominated Kerry. He was the most liberal candidate outside of Dean with a credible chance at the nomination. it didn't work.

A moderate Democrat is better than Bush, or whoever the GOP puts up in 2008. All our elected presidents have been moderates, Carter and Clinton.

Other Guy:
I dispute that, the moderate part anyway. We keep trying that, and it's not working. When confronted with a real Republican and a pretend Republican, people choose the real thing.


You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but it is not okay to dump on the idea of a Boxer group because she doesn't fit within your narrow idea of permissible speech in our political system.
Take it to the DLC forum, Bayh group, or somewhere else you think appropriate. They are doing a very good job of plotting the complete destruction of the party. Feel free to help them continue it.

Me:
Kerry was not a moderate, at least by most standards. He is a liberal, not a moderate. When we tried to be moderate with Clinton, it worked. John Kerry was not a pretend republican. Joe Lieberman would be a pretend republican. We did not nominate a moderate in 2004.

Nominating someone like Bill Clinton will get a Democrat in the white house, not destroy our party.

Other Guy:
The difference between Kerry and Clinton had to do with personal skills, not some amorphous notion of what is "moderate." At any rate,the purpose of this thread is a DU group proposal for Boxer 2008. That's it. Save your speech for Fox News.


Me:
One can be a liberal Democrat and still think a Boxer candidacy is a death omen. Boxer isn't exactly mrs. charismatic either, from what I've seen of her.

As a loyal Democrat, I feel it is my duty to do my part to prevent valuable resources (through persuasion, not anything criminal) from going to candidates who cannot win.

I don't see how opposing a Boxer candidacy shames me enough to be on Fox News. And it's against liberal values to stifle opposition, as you are trying to do.

[dazzleman]

My first post there in a month is a response to a "Boxer in '08" thread. She was getting some good support on that thread.

If these people ever got their way...

Howard Dean?

No, I'm probably going to get banned for providing opposition in the Boxer '08 thread.


Me:
She has a long senate record, she's a senator, she's a liberal.

Which state will she win that Kerry did not?

Senators don't work. Get that into your heads. Goldwater, Humphrey (was), McGovern, Mondale (was), Dole, Gore (was), and Kerry. Learn the lesson.

Other Guy:
Because she's not afraid to stand up for an issue, because she represents the American people rather than playing for cameras. And because she's not a proven loser.

Hell will freeze over before John Kerry gets another presidential nomination.

Me:
She doesn't represent the American people. You underestimate how much of the USA is made up of homophobic bigots. She represents the liberal state of California, she is not representive of the American people.

It doesn't matter that she has conviction, her stands are not ones that will win an election nationally in the United States. You are also ignoring the fact that she is a senator. Senators cannot win.

Other Guy:
Kerry can't win either, so you ask why she is better than he, I gave a list of reasons. I could give lots more. The Democrats obviously have done very poorly at trying to guess who Americans will vote for. They vote for Republicans. Gaming the elections isn't work. It's time we try standing up for principles for a change. And if you don't like Boxer, don't support her. But I really don't appreciate this so-called pragmatic argument that has a proven track record of unmitigated failure.

Feel free to nominate a bigot if that is who you prefer. That, however, belongs in another club forum.

Me:
but we can do things that will enable us to win.

A) Don't nominate senators. They have unaviodable baggage, and many of them have adapted senate-speak. Just look at the results. They don't win.

B) Nominate someone moderate, perferebly from the south. Face facts, the last 3 people who got elected and were Democrats since the political shift of '68 (Carter, Clinton, Gore -He won Florida) were from the south, and most of them were governors, Gore was a senator but also a VP and had the benefit of being VP during the most glorious time in American history.

Kerry, for all his faults, was a slim margin in one state away from winning. I don't think Barb Boxer could be in that position. She is a liberal senator, just like John Kerry. We did stand up for our principles in 2004. Kerry was a lot closer to the average liberal than you might think. He was an intellectual, socially liberal, typical northeasterner, etc. If we were really going to pander to the social conservatives in 2004, we would not have nominated Kerry. He was the most liberal candidate outside of Dean with a credible chance at the nomination. it didn't work.

A moderate Democrat is better than Bush, or whoever the GOP puts up in 2008. All our elected presidents have been moderates, Carter and Clinton.

Other Guy:
I dispute that, the moderate part anyway. We keep trying that, and it's not working. When confronted with a real Republican and a pretend Republican, people choose the real thing.


You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but it is not okay to dump on the idea of a Boxer group because she doesn't fit within your narrow idea of permissible speech in our political system.
Take it to the DLC forum, Bayh group, or somewhere else you think appropriate. They are doing a very good job of plotting the complete destruction of the party. Feel free to help them continue it.

Me:
Kerry was not a moderate, at least by most standards. He is a liberal, not a moderate. When we tried to be moderate with Clinton, it worked. John Kerry was not a pretend republican. Joe Lieberman would be a pretend republican. We did not nominate a moderate in 2004.

Nominating someone like Bill Clinton will get a Democrat in the white house, not destroy our party.

Other Guy:
The difference between Kerry and Clinton had to do with personal skills, not some amorphous notion of what is "moderate." At any rate,the purpose of this thread is a DU group proposal for Boxer 2008. That's it. Save your speech for Fox News.


Me:
One can be a liberal Democrat and still think a Boxer candidacy is a death omen. Boxer isn't exactly mrs. charismatic either, from what I've seen of her.

As a loyal Democrat, I feel it is my duty to do my part to prevent valuable resources (through persuasion, not anything criminal) from going to candidates who cannot win.

I don't see how opposing a Boxer candidacy shames me enough to be on Fox News. And it's against liberal values to stifle opposition, as you are trying to do.

They're pretty bad if they ban you for this.  You included the obligatory statement implying that people vote Republican because they hate gays (keep telling yourself that one), and that Gore won Florida in 2000 (not according to the recounts performed by that citadel of extreme right wing conservatism, the New York Times).

You were clearly arguing tactics, not philosophy, with a pretty unintelligent person, which I imagine is the norm on in that group.

[Akno21]

I don't neccessarily think people vote GOP because they hate gays, but I disagree that there is a silent socially liberal majority simply waiting to be inspired to go and vote. As for Florida, I'm not really sure (and I'll never really be, although I wonder where Mike Moore got a clip of Jeff Toobin saying under every possible scenerio, Gore won the election, or something to that degree)

In any event, these people are so out of touch it's almost funny.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You definately won't be banned for that Akno.

[Alcon]

For what it's worth, sites like DU and Free Republic tend to ban people who disagree with them because the site is not for open dialogue, and they cannot manage looking for possible trolls. The sites are both meant to be groupthink central, and it's just not the right place for reasonable discourse.

[Jake]

I joined DU, I'll report in as tensions rise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I joined DU, I'll report in as tensions rise.

If you post on there like you do here, you'll be banned pretty fast.

[Gabu]

I joined DU, I'll report in as tensions rise.

Make sure to keep a record of all of your post in case they get deleted.

[PBrunsel]

After reading this thread I must give thanks I post on a forum that welcomes all opinions from opebo to Phillip.

[KEmperor]

I love the way Akno made some reasonable points, and he is told to take his crap to Fox News.

[A18]

a forum that welcomes all opinions from opebo to Phillip.

Philip was banned, in case you don't remember.

[Gabu]

I love the way Akno made some reasonable points, and he is told to take his crap to Fox News.

DemocraticUnderground has always been a place where no opinions other than those of absolute left-wing hacks are even given consideration.  If you're looking for rational discourse, go somewhere else.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I love the way Akno made some reasonable points, and he is told to take his crap to Fox News.

DemocraticUnderground has always been a place where no opinions other than those of absolute left-wing hacks are even given consideration.  If you're looking for rational discourse, go somewhere else.

There's actually a variety of opinions on DU, even though they tend not to tolerate right-wingers.

[Alcon]

a forum that welcomes all opinions from opebo to Phillip.

Philip was banned, in case you don't remember.

Not successfully, though, Phillip.

[Akno21]

Is Keystone John someone on here? He's a newbie on DU, but the Keystone part made me wonder.

[phk]

DemocraticUnderground is MUCH better than FreeRepublic.

But the quintessential forum for the ultra-left is www.revolutionaryleft.com

[Jake]

I love the way Akno made some reasonable points, and he is told to take his crap to Fox News.

DemocraticUnderground has always been a place where no opinions other than those of absolute left-wing hacks are even given consideration.  If you're looking for rational discourse, go somewhere else.

There's actually a variety of opinions on DU, even though they tend not to tolerate right-wingers.

Everyone from rabid socialists to barely in touch with reality far left wingers.

And Akno, "Keystone John" is me.  Blatant rip off of Phil's name because it rolls of the tongue.

[Akno21]

I love the way Akno made some reasonable points, and he is told to take his crap to Fox News.

DemocraticUnderground has always been a place where no opinions other than those of absolute left-wing hacks are even given consideration.  If you're looking for rational discourse, go somewhere else.

There's actually a variety of opinions on DU, even though they tend not to tolerate right-wingers.

Everyone from rabid socialists to barely in touch with reality far left wingers.

And Akno, "Keystone John" is me.  Blatant rip off of Phil's name because it rolls of the tongue.

I figured it was one of you. Way to let your true self out

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

DemocraticUnderground is MUCH better than FreeRepublic.

But the quintessential forum for the ultra-left is www.revolutionaryleft.com

RevLeft is currently down for maintenace until at least April 8th.

[Jake]

I think the forum Republicans should do a mass invasion of DU and pretend to be in touch Democrats. Later, we can go on a trolling binge and all get banned.  Who's with me

[phk]

DemocraticUnderground is MUCH better than FreeRepublic.

But the quintessential forum for the ultra-left is www.revolutionaryleft.com

RevLeft is currently down for maintenace until at least April 8th.

It'll be up soon hopefully. It has a lot of in-depth theoretical and philosophical discussions going on.

Maybe http://www.marxist-leninist.com/forum/ shall hold us over.

[Jake]

How about this post on Hilary Clinton for President.

I can tell you though, if she ran, alot of people, including myself, would vote Green in the general. Just because the Democratic party is supposed to be the left-wing party doesn't mean it always is or that we always have to vote Democratic.

LOL