Democrats Are Enablers

Flame if you will, and I admit I am using a very very broad brush, but in the end I think it is the truth. We allow the Republican party to beat the shit out of us, right in front of the house, in full view of everyone. 29% of people approve of what Bush is doing BUT SO WHAT? In the end, we aren't stopping Bush . . . Democrats Are Enablers.

As it is with any enabler, the rationalization is bulletproof. We must keep our powder dry, if we stoop to their level we'll be no better than them, if we fight back we run the risk of losing our next election. Oh yeah, one more: We TRY to fight back but the media just doesn't cover it.

Yeah well, I am getting to the point where I don't want to vote for us anymore, because what "we" end up doing is letting Republicans and Corporations run this country into the ground. And what if the media doesn't help . . . is that enough reason to give up?

Remember how the Republicans went after Bill Clinton like a pack of wolves on an injured elk? I do. And you know what? It's because that's what they do. They are active and brazen. They work in concert fairly well, they don't rest, and they certainly don't second guess themselves.

It seems that in general we are gatherers more than hunters. We think in terms of "the village" and while we are thinking, the Republicans seem to be acting. And their acts put them up on the stage, a spectacle of THEIR own design that is the show. The Democratic "show" is confined to the orchestra pit. So the Republicans effectively call the tune, and even if the Democrats succeed in changing the tune, or influencing the outcome of the show, the audience is still transfixed by the Republican show. The Republican plan. The Republican stars. The Republican script.

We Democrats need to PUSH VERY HARD for impeachment RIGHT NOW. Like other Kossacks have written, it doesn't even matter if the effort is a total failure, the American people need to see that we have some fucking blood in our veins.

But hey, maybe the fix is in and the leadership of the Democratic Party likes it like this. I certainly wouldn't know. The moves of the party leaders have totally baffled me for quite a long time. Maybe they figure enablers get their time in the sun too, if they provide cover and pay the bills and don't squeak too much.

•  Delete,,,

  before you embarrass yourself any further.

  by Miss Blue on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:42:19 AM PDT

  •  Seconded

    although I'm always up for a new store of good recipes.

    by Superribbie on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:50:59 AM PDT

  •  Delete yourself

    Before your sad attempt at censoring like a good little sheep embarasses you.

    This diary is accurate and more  of the pansycrat wing need to wake up and get the message.

    by cdreid on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

    •  TR'ed,,,,

      for unnecessary insults.

      You don't agree - go ahead and recommend.  No need to insult me.  

      And calling me a sheep?  Bwahahahaha!  

      And to answer just one more of your little, inane, so-called points:  this diary is crap.

      by Miss Blue on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:02:31 AM PDT

      •  unnecessary insults

        this diary is crap

        Delete , , , before you embarrass yourself any further.

        by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:02:31 AM PDT

    •  Isn't it amazing...

      ...that censorship has devolved in meaning from "active suppression of dissenting or objectionable materials on political grounds" to "you posted something I disagree with"?  Wonderful times we live in.

      by DH from MD on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:08:30 AM PDT

    •  Uprated....

      this commenter basically just repeated what the first commenter said.  Both were mildly insulting at best.  Come on people, let's have a little thicker skins around here.  

      by cometman on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:11:57 AM PDT

      •  "pansycrat" alone deserves the TR IMO n/t

        by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:25:50 AM PDT

  •  Speaking my mind is not embarrassing

    Please tell me how you disagree with what I wrote.

    by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:00:05 AM PDT

    •  Here ya go.

      Democrats Are Enablers.

      My answer to that nonsense:  Russ Feingold.  Nuff said to prove it wrong.

      maybe the fix is in and the leadership of the Democratic Party likes it like this

      With facts like that, I could be on Redstate.  Good job.

      they provide cover

      Another "fact" that isn't.  Frankly, I should have just answered all of these with "Russ Feingold".  And Russ is just one of many Dems who have stood up and tried valiantly to fight every crime this Republican Party has committed.  In fact, I can count on my fingers the Dems in Congress I have been disappointed with these past six years.

      So yes, I disagree with almost every word of your diary, and several of them are nonsense.

      by Miss Blue on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:14:07 AM PDT

      •  Russ is Great

        No argument. But is he indicative of the party as a whole? Answering me with a blanket Russ could have drawn a response of Joe . . . or the other Joe.

        I like Democrats, don't get me wrong, but in the end we are being dominated by this other party. And even though we made big gains in terms of seats, we are still spectators when it comes to the agenda that our country is following.

        It's great for you, I guess, that you are disappointed in so few Dems (really?? less than your fingers??). Maybe my standards are too "Pure" as someone pointed out in a new tag for my diary.

        That's cool. To each, her (or his) own.

        Anyway, thanks for responding with some dialogue. Much appreciated.

        by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:23:45 AM PDT

        •  Joe

          Joe is not a Dem.

          Russ is not the only Dem I could have cited, he's just a man I worship as a politician. A Dem politician.

          Here's a few more Dems:  Leahy, Boxer, Schumer, Reid, Whitehouse, Webb, Durbin, Obama, Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Brown, Byrd, Kennedy, Feinstein, Clinton, Klobucher, Stabenow, Reed, Kohl.  Even the Dems in Red states have spoken out against this administration, and have voted with our Party when push comes to shove.

          I view impeachment as a separate issue.  I am in the "pro" camp, and would love to see it happen, but I'm not going to trash Dems on that issue alone.  As far as the war and the other issues we need them on, the vast, vast majority have consistently been on the right side.

          by Miss Blue on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:36:42 AM PDT

          •  Obama caved on supplemental

            In fact, he was one of the first ones to cave.

            I agree with KOTCrum. There are very few Democrats like Russ.

            by sdgeek on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:14:45 PM PDT

•  Nothing that hasn't been said before

  I think I'll spread out the carpet sample and have a Kindergarten-style nap. Who's with me?

  by droogie6655321 on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:52:55 AM PDT

  •  Naps are what pooties do best! Zzzzzzz

    

    by PhillyGal on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:09:16 AM PDT

    •  Aww... de kittayn

      It's almost blueish? What a weird fur color.

      by droogie6655321 on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:12:36 AM PDT

•  I'm afraid

  you fucked up.

  I'm strongly in favor of impeachment.

  This diary isn't helping.

  Try again, blame some republicans and I'll be happy to rec.

  by kidneystones on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:57:27 AM PDT

  •  Fucked Up?

    I will admit that I am not the best writer around, but it seriously strikes me as if the dominant party in this country is continuing to get away with horrible and abusive acts while the submissive party is not making it stop.

    And I actually think it might be constructive for people, lots of them, to look at the Republican/Democrat "relationship" from this psychological viewpoint.

    I am not a troll. I am frustrated beyond what I thought was possible. If people could disagree with me in some more constructive ways that would be great. But telling me I am embarrassing myself is silly.

    Gonzales is the attorney general. THAT is embarrassing. Cheney sits in office unfettered. I'm for impeachment too, but unless MY party and its elected officials make it happen, it ain't gonna happen.

    I think that Daily Kos has a far greater influence on the Democratic party than the Republican party. Is it more constructive to blame them here over and over and over again?

    I don't know.

    Like I said, I am extremely frustrated at this point.

    by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

    •  Excuse me.

      Unless several REPUBLICANS vote with the Dems, it ain't going to happen, is what you should be saying.

      Pay attention.  We've had calls for impeachment.  We've had bills put forth to end the war.  We've had hearings to get rid of Abu.  How did they all end?  WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES.  We must have Republican crossover votes, and we ain't getting them.  

      Why?  Because Republicans are lying, cheating, corrupt sons-of-bitches that don't give a flying fuck about our country, our Constitution, our laws, or common decency.

      Be pissed at the occassional Dem lapse, or spinelessness.  But face reality - that is not what has enabled Bush/Cheney/Rove to decimate our Constitution, military, and treasury.

      Your enablers are the Republicans supporting these criminals.

      by Miss Blue on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:18:36 AM PDT

      •  But premise-wise

        Are you saying that we are not in a relationship with the Republicans? That we have no influence on their actions? That we are helpless against their abuse? That there is nothing more we as a party can do except disagree as we have so far?

        That we are valiant, yet basically screwed until the next election? (Hopefully)

        by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:41:08 AM PDT

        •  Ding! Ding! Ding!

          You're getting it now.

          We are screwed.  Royally.  It all comes down to votes - always has, always will.  Unless Bushco becomes a fiefdom.

          I'm sure these were rhetorical questions.  Put your anger and frustration aside, and you don't need me to tell you this.  We haven't had a speck of influence on any Republican since Goldwater, I don't think.  They are not a Party, they are a crime family.

          And I for one do not for a second believe the Democrats have any sort of relationship with these criminals.  I do not believe in a "vast conspiracy" to trash our country, our Constitution, our military, our treasury.  Not one that involves Democrats, in any case.

          Look, I get as frustrated as you.  I fear we won't survive another year and a half.  I fear for my kids, my grandkids, my planet.  I feel helpless more than I ever thought I could.  But we can't give up.  Check the news from a year ago - public opinion, Bush disapproval, and a slow train to ending this war have all made dramatic turns this past year.  The tide is turning, it is just taking far longer than we wish.  But it IS turning.

          America is waking up.  Repubs worried about re-election are breaking ranks.  And some, just a couple, I think honestly are broken up about what has been done.  Think Hagel.

          We just have to keep screaming, keep calling, keep investigating, keep fighting.  

          by Miss Blue on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:50:33 AM PDT

          •  The Republicans didn't have the votes on Clinton

            The problem is that the Democratic party still behaves like a minority party. "We can't accomplish anything unless we have a supermajority."

            If that's true, how come they let the Republicans get away with "accomplishing" so much?

            For that matter, how come Roberts and Alito weren't filibustered?

            No, the Democrats have the majority, and now it's their job to prove that they can use it.

            by sdgeek on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:23:53 PM PDT

          •  I don't think I am getting it

            I feel that we DO have a relationship with the Republicans. We are their better half, and we could use the power of the purse to begin to put broken glass down in front of barefooted Republicans.

            The mainstream media and the Republicans would attempt to have a field day in calling us unpatriotic.

            And I think it would be worth it.

            If we are gonna get "royally screwed" I think that we should scratch their eyes out while they are doing it. Not because it would make me feel better or less frustrated . . .

            because it would show voters, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, that we care enough to try and fight back against these unpopular dimwitted assholes who enjoy 29% approval.

            by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 04:51:55 PM PDT

            •  I agree with,,,,,

              fighting.  Leave scars on them for life.  Good idea.  Truly.  And that is where I get my frustration from - that the Dems don't do more scratching and clawing.

              But forget that "power of the purse" stuff.  Same rule applies to cutting off funding - votes.  We need as many votes to cut funding as we do for anything else.  And if the Dems just don't put forth a funding bill, the Repubs will.  And they'll get it passed, because of traitor Joe, and possibly a couple Dems.  And that hurts, but that's the reality.  And the whole group of Dems will get blamed for the actions of a few.

              by Miss Blue on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:56:44 PM PDT

    •  Frustrated? You're not alone.

      You use to too broad a brush against Dems and say too little about the criminals who are the true obstacles.

      I've re-read your diary. Most of the problem comes from the title, IMHO, which places all the blame on Dem shoulders, not that it matters at this late date.

      I find this exchange with Miss Blue commendable. I think she's wrong, btw.

      Dems have played this very poorly, but the game isn't over.

      I expect one or more officials of this administration to be impeached no later than October.

      Seems like an eternity, I know.

      Keep banging the drum, KOTCrum.

      I'll happily rec any diary that isn't a de facto attack on Dems.

      by kidneystones on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:18:11 PM PDT

      •  Thanks Renal calculi

        I knew it was a broad brush when I was writing it, but I wanted to view things this way. I have made huge personal sacrifices for causes and yet I feel like a real fuck-up when I discuss the realities of American politics with my 2 teenage kids.

        On the whole we seem to be a submissive party. Of course I, or anyone, can point to great individuals but the bottom line is that an obvious criminal is sitting in the White House and there "seems" to be little we can do.

        7 months ago I would have bet $100 that there would be massive protests in DC this summer, just like the ones I used to go to 20 years ago, and 14 years before that. But it hasn't materialized.

        Why is this the case??

        Why is there so little protest? Is it a lost art? Or are too complacent?

        by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 04:37:24 PM PDT

•  pay taxes?

  you're an enabler, too.

  as is everybody in the U.S. who didn't go out and get arrested, over and over again, to stop this invasion.

  OK, that's settled then. Now, the question is, how the fuck do we 1. get the hell out and 2. ensure that it doesn't happen again?

  you want to bolt to a third-party, after we've taken about 1 step out of the 100 mile journey needed to Take Back the Country -- which of COURSE includes taking back the Democratic Party from the Big Money status quo Democrats and their enabling "advisors" -- then feel free.

  It may be a diary-worthy revelation to you that the D.C. Democratic Party -- the result of our pay to play electoral system -- is part of the problem; but many progressives have been aware of that for 30 years. Some of us, thanks to Howard Dean in my case, have finally decided that carping from the sidelines about how it isn't fair that only 2 parties get to play, doesn't win elections, doesn't Take Back the Country, even if it feels good to disgruntled citizens who are generally too lazy to do much of anything except carp from the sidelines. (ever tried organizing Green Party meetings? Maybe youll have better luck than all of us in the decades proceeding, but I doubt it.)

  There'll always be those who want reform handed to them on a silver platter, while they lead their comfortable lives, thinking they're better than those who engage in participatory democracy, because democracy is for suckers. Hopefully, you'll decide to stay and fight, instead.

  by jennifer poole on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:00:19 AM PDT

  •  Whoa! Wait a minute.

    I thought we were in

    Round 2 of a 15-round fight

    I can do 14 more rounds.

    99 more miles? That's asking a bit much.

    by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:27:11 AM PDT

    •  well, probably Eternal Hope's metaphor is better

      but neither one gets it quite right -- because I don't see the "fight" being over, ever, really.

      maybe some day we'll evolve beyond war, slavery, power-mongering and greed as tools of national policy -- and we'll feel as compelled to help our wider human family when they starve and suffer as most of us feel compelled to help our brother or our neighbor -- maybe.

      by jennifer poole on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:24:24 PM PDT

      •  Amen! n/t

        by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 05:01:20 PM PDT

  •  You assume that I am not progressive?

    And also that this diary indicates cutting and running?

    Hopefully, you'll decide to stay and fight, instead.

    To me, speaking my mind on this point IS staying and fighting. Just giving money to my party and "hoping" for the best is not something I'd be proud doing.

    I canvass, I phonebank, I attend meet-ups, I hold office, I care.

    by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:50:23 AM PDT

    •  no, you misread. I assume you ARE progressive,

      that it's because you're a progressive impatient with the Democratic status quo that you say you're "getting to the point where I don't want to vote for us anymore," not because you're considering becoming a Republican!

      So, thus my comment about: "Hopefully, you'll stay and fight" -- I mean stay and fight inside the Democratic Party. given your list of the stuff you do, I say it again, and even more emphatically -- we orogressive Democrats need your help.

      by jennifer poole on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:10:52 PM PDT

  •  One of the things I don't understand

    is that if politics is ultimately all about the ugly art of compromise then why aren't the elected Dems, now in the majority however slim, willing to get down and dirty and twist some GOP arms behind the scenes and compel a little aisle crossing.  It is a truism in politics that everyone wants something and everyone has a price.  Until Dems are willing to put the GOP's survival and self-interest instincts into play, then I'm compelled to question whether everything that can be done is being done.

    I also appreciate that it is an incremental process but I'll tell you who is never afraid to get down in the gutter, fight like hell, and say FU to incremental . . . the GOP, that's who.  We can always take the moral high ground and run the risk of failure or we can start setting prices in the political marketplace and see if we can get enough of the GOP to buy.  Not forcing the GOP to enter the marketplace leads to goods not moving off the shelf.  Start threatening every GOP sacred cow and every bit of corporate friendly law on the books until the GOP starts to fracture.  And while your doing it sing out about it loud and clear.  Engage in a little progressive message discipline.  I'm all for a fire sale right now if done right.

    by rrheard on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:45:40 AM PDT

    •  what does any Democrat HAVE to offer a GOP

      member, to compel such "aisle crossing"? Are you talking about blackmail? certainly, "I'll vote for your bill if you vote  for mine" won't work on a large national issue like Iraq. Constituents are the ones who need to do the arm twisting, to urge  their GOP reps to support various Democratic withdrawal bills.

      Again, you seem to suggest that Democrats would all be in favor of "threatening ... corporate friendly laws." In fact, of course, the status quo Democrats have been just as dependent on corporate and Big Money campaign donors, and often just as friendly to big corporate donors, as the GOP.

      yes, this sucks. This is why we offer candidates "people power" as a way to get elected instead -- so far, our successes have been spotty, but real. Of course, if you really look at the $$ numbers, despite unbelievably huge numbers of grassroots donations this time around, the Big Money the established candidates get (and need in our pay to play system) is still coming in from Big Donors, and that's why some of us here support Clean Money financing of elections and other reform measures.

      It seems to me that "putting the GOP's survival and self-interest instincts into play," is exacctly the reason why we're getting the criticism of Bush's Iraq policy from GOP figures that we have been getting in recent weeks -- today's losing vote on the Webb amendment gave Republicans yet another chance to show that they really "supported" the troops -- and most of them proved they don't.

      by jennifer poole on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:40:47 PM PDT

      •  not blackmail but a little less nicey nicey . . .

        go back to your home state and bash them when they deserve bashing.  A little less "we're all buddies" in Congress and a little more "there will be consequences."  Log rolling, whatever, the idea is that they need to make it clear to their colleagues that if the next election casts the GOP further down the path toward irrelevancy they should not expect to get any sort of assistance on pet projects, judges, taxes, good or bad, period when they are in the "permanent minority."  

        Compromise has been a one way street for too long for the Dems and I think it is time to let the GOP know that a striping crew is coming through and changing the flow of traffic.  How long do you think a rep or senator holds his seat if he is completely ineffectual at delivering results for his constituents . . . not very long and the GOP should be made very aware that Dems will stomp every unworthy effort and take credit and coopt every worthy effort for the foreseeable future if they don't start cooperating now.

        Addressing your other thoughts, I'm in total agreement that we're all in favor of Clean Money financing of elections and limiting large campaign contributions but given the free speech implications per Supreme Court rulings, the results will be mixed or ineffectual at best (and I'm not one to see union dollars restricted alongside corporate dollars anyway so we go to war with the system we have IMHO).  It's about tactics, message discipline, party discipline, and ensuring that we build on the majority and sink the giant GOP turd before it causes any more damage to the plumbing.

        by rrheard on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:26:30 PM PDT

•  Why bother with stupid shit like this? eom

  by Geekesque on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:01:25 AM PDT

•  I think I've heard this rant before.

  by clonecone on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:02:33 AM PDT

  •  Yay!!

    by Elise on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:43:44 AM PDT

•  The diarist has joined the Cindy Sheehan cult.

  by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:10:03 AM PDT

•  Whether people like it or not

  The Democrats aren't pushing hard enough, period.  If people on here cannot admit that Dems are not pushing hard enough they have chosen the same path as Conservatives who won't admit Bush is wrong.

  The truth is the Democrats need to hear that other Democrats are not pleased with their behavior, call it a motivating factor.

  Being in a political party is not dedicating yourself blindly to politicians or their ideology regardless of the decisions they make.  

  It's better to question the motivations and reform the party from within and demand answers and solutions.

  And what's with the calls for deletion?  Are you Liberals or not?  Free speech anyone?

  by miproggrrl on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:14:26 AM PDT

  •  The calls for deletion

    were calls for the diarist to voluntarily remove his steaming pile of horsey dung "before you embarrass yourself any further"--not for Big Brother to swoop in and blast the thing.  

    We all have the right to say what we want.  We all also have the ability to control what spews forth from our pie holes.  There is nothing wrong with appealing to people to exercise some of that control.

    by Superribbie on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:18:57 AM PDT

    •  I'm not going to argue with you

      I made my point.  

      While I believe the author could have framed his opinion in a better way I think you people are way overreacting.

      by miproggrrl on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:20:29 AM PDT

    •  Horsey dung!

      Please give me more detail as to the nature of your disapproval, the blanket mocking of what "spews forth from [my] pie hole" doesn't really explain much.

      by KOTCrum on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:53:48 AM PDT

  •  You need to read the FAQ.

    Free speech is not an issue on a privately owned site.

    by clonecone on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:21:54 AM PDT

  •  Aren't calls for deletion...

    ...just a way of expressing free speech?  The point about it being free means that there are many ways to express oneself, not just the way one person sees fit.

    by DH from MD on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:22:24 AM PDT

    •  As I said

      I'm not going to argue with you.  By "you", I mean all of you.  I have no desire to argue with other lefties, I try to save all that negative energy for the other side.

      But in a way, you are reinforcing the point of the diary.  

      Instead of saying "Yeah, I'm going to write my Democratic Congressman today and demand more accountability!" You have opted to attack the diary and demand for it's deletion, hence enabling the enablers.

      Pressure from within in harder to resist.  What I mean is criticism from other Democrats has much more of an effect on the actions of Democrats than criticism from a Republican.

      You should know that.  As well as you should have observed that the Democrats are not doing enough to end the war or stop the mad men in the White House.

      They need to hear the criticism from other Democrats and Independents in order to understand something must be done, immediately.

      Good day party people.

      by miproggrrl on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:45:25 AM PDT

      •  exactly....

        i think it's ridiculously funny and a sign of the times that the folks on this blog would attack the diarist in terms of 'delete yourself', then begin discussions on the FAQ regarding that request instead of engaging in SOME kind, ANY kind of discussion about the gist of the diary.  i have been a progressive lurker here for quite some time, and i believe my welcome is worn now.  i must go elsewhere, for while i understood that this site was founded in order to elect Democrats, i thought we were sort of all working to make the party what t should be, not supporting the status quo.  now, if you think that the status quo is fine -- that the D party is marginally a lesser evil thatn the Rs -- bully for you.  i do not think that's fine.  we have been through years of conservatives getting what they wanted because the Democrats whined that they were in the minority.  now they are not and what i see is the brilliant politics of obstructionism, forwhich the Republicans will NOT get hammered.  the Democrats could have done similar things (and did sparsely) in their days as the minority, but did not perform adequately.  in the least.  they are not in the majority, and i want to see some brilliant politicking.  i do not see this.  i see a bunch of whiny pussies trying to blackmail the citizens into voting more of them in in 2008.  it sickens me and i'm tired of it.  they can accomplish much if they want to.  they simply don't seem to want to.  no, folks, i'm not intereseted in Democratic victories as so many here are, i'm interested in what's best for the country.  the REASON i lean to the left is that the philosophies of conservatism have been proven to be inadequate.  if they could SHOW me that supply side economics worked without propagandizing their data, yay!  i'm on board.  if they could show me communism works as a pragmatic system for the people, yay!  give it to me.  i'm not here for the Democrats, i'm here for the country.  and if you can't admit that the Democrats are a bunch of spineless pussies, then you are blind, and i am in the wrong place.  now, go ahead and get back to your FAQ discussion i suppose.  sickening....

        by funknjunk on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:59:06 AM PDT

        •  Agreed---the 'meta' on here is amazing. n/t

          by quantumspin on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:01:20 AM PDT

          •  The meta may be amazing,

            but the SCOTUS is extraordinary!

            by Marcus Tullius on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:14:18 AM PDT

•  When freedom of speech is granted

  only to ideas you agree with, it is not freedom of speech.

  Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

  The Occupation Project

  America in Solidarity
  

  by chesapeake on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:22:20 AM PDT

  •  Amendment 1

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Please correct me if I missed the memo, but I don't think dailykos is Congress.

    by clonecone on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:26:03 AM PDT

    •  Freedom of speech is an inalienable right.

      Congress cannot create or take away that which is ours by virtue of our being human. It simply recognizes that it has no business abridging that right, and neither does any other group of people.

      Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

      The Occupation Project

      America in Solidarity
      

      by chesapeake on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:38:14 AM PDT

      •  Very simple

        You have NO right to freedom of speech here.  You may disagree with that, lobby the site's owner about it, etc., but that's it.  You are a guest here, and agreed to respect and uphold any and all site rules upon registration.  No guarantee of free speech was ever made to you.

        Any "speech" made here must fall within the guidelines outlined in the FAQ.

        by Marcus Tullius on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:44:06 AM PDT

        •  I've never accepted the argument that

          private property trumps an inalienable right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

          Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

          The Occupation Project

          America in Solidarity
          

          by chesapeake on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:46:12 AM PDT

          •  Is a newspaper

            required to print every letter it receives?

            by clonecone on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:48:05 AM PDT

          •  No, we will not.

            I did not say I agree with the principle.  I said that we are guests at Markos' site, and that posting here requires adherence to simple guidelines.  You agreed to those guidelines when you registered your account.

            by Marcus Tullius on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:48:33 AM PDT

            •  I agree that there are rules here.

              That is certainly undeniable. But regardless of any rules, rights do not change. Inalienable.

              Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

              The Occupation Project

              America in Solidarity
              

              by chesapeake on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

              •  You have a right to speak.

                You don't have a right to use someone else's platform.  If you have something to say that falls outside of the guidelines of the site, say it somewhere else.

                Period.

                by Marcus Tullius on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:59:53 AM PDT

              •  If speech is inalienable

                why doesn't CNN allow me to read the news whenever I feel like it?  Why can't I write articles for NewsWeek?  Why is The Nation denying me my inalienable right by not printing whatever I send them?

                by clonecone on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:01:08 AM PDT

                •  I think there is a useful distinction to be made

                  between the power to do something and the right to do something. Often, in my opinion, people confuse the two. Privately owned media (including this site) have the power to exclude people. Do they have the right to? I don't know; I think it's a matter of debate.

                  An interesting difference between the internet and traditional media is that there is now a wider participation of people as contributors/authors. Should they all be participating? Seems healthy, in spite of objectionable statements some are inclined to make. Do they all have the right to be in on the exchange of ideas? Yes, it seems to me they do. That they've traditionally been excluded to me is not justification for further exclusion.

                  Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

                  The Occupation Project

                  America in Solidarity

                  by chesapeake on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:12:47 AM PDT

                  •  Not disagreeing with your points.

                    Take it up with Markos.  Until he changes the rules, certain restrictions exist here, and violating them will results troll ratings and banning, I imagine.

                    If you don't agree with that, build a better soapbox, ya know?

                    by Marcus Tullius on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:17:02 AM PDT

                    •  Actually, for all my talk of freedom of speech,

                      I haven't gone out of my way to challenge the rules here. And I much prefer reasoned discussion to beating each other over the head (modus operandi for many here). Occasionally I will defend someone else's right to say what they want (which is how I got into this thread to begin with). But I haven't exactly been storming the ramparts.

                      If this is a group of progressives here, then it is reasonable to expect libertarian left beliefs will show up among the users---you know, if we're supposed to be the folks who are challenging the status quo inside the Beltway.

                      Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

                      The Occupation Project

                      America in Solidarity

                       

                      by chesapeake on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:30:08 AM PDT

      •  You and Rusty should get together

        and actually read the fucking constitution.  Freedom of speech does not apply here because this is not the goddamn government.  You have the right to say what you want, but no one is obligated to give you the platform to say it.  

        by clonecone on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:45:11 AM PDT

        •  Human rights pre-date the Constitution.

          The Constitution is a recognition of their existence. They weren't created out of thin air. And they cannot be abridged or destroyed.

          Tell everyone you know about Iraq Moratorium Day!

          The Occupation Project

          America in Solidarity
          

          by chesapeake on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:53:32 AM PDT

          •  Wow.

            Sad.  You just don't get it.

            by clonecone on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:54:42 AM PDT

            •  Stubborn and dense might be more appropriate

              in that he is comparing apples to oranges.  Put it this way, if I'm an invited guest into another's home do I have the right to say anything I want to the host?  Right or power?  Both? Maybe. Regardless of which it is, you say the wrong thing you should and will be asked to leave, and if you don't politely leave as asked you will take a beating until you get dragged out.    

              I'm far from an absolute property rights guy but there will always rightfully be a tension between the two.  That this gentleman doesn't want to accept where the line is drawn or the particular balance is struck is his problem not this site's.  Set up a site where any opinion on any subject is welcome and have at it.

              by rrheard on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:59:35 AM PDT

              •  yes, that's the metaphor I like to use, too.

                Somebody gets invited into my home for a dinner party, and they start spouting off about how, say, women who have abortions are murderers, or how anybody who isn't a Roman Catholic is going to burn in hell -- they get their ass kicked out the door. and it doesn't infringe 1 ATOM on their right to free speech.

                by jennifer poole on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:51:40 PM PDT

                •  amen sister . . . everyone has a right to speak

                  and think like a deluded moron but I reserve the right to tell you to F off, get the hell out of my house, and take it to the nearest street corner to see what kind of play you get in a true public forum.

                  by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:46:39 AM PDT