I am so far to the Left, I....

Imagine my surprise to find out that the Democratic party may well move too far to the Left, just to accommodate me.

I am so far to the Left, I believe our invasion of Iraq has been a strategic disaster, has thwarted progress on fighting terrorism, and has left us less safe.

I am so far to the Left, I believe we should have a plan to exit Iraq and not nation build on a 20 year plan.

I am so far to the Left, I believe our foreign policy should include diplomacy, talking even to our enemies and those with whom we disagree, in order to move forward on issues of importance.

I am so far to the Left, I think all of our citizens should have healthcare, with some kind of national plan that can also take the pressure off companies, allowing them to better compete globally.

I am so far to Left, I believe our government should follow the rule of law.  Even the president.

I am so far to the Left, I believe we should have three co-equal branches of government, to provide checks and balances.

More....

I am so far to the Left, I believe that all Americans should have the opportunity to chase the American dream, not just the rich.

I am so far to the Left, I value each and every person's right to practice religion.  Or not.  

I am so far to the Left, I believe we're all created equal.

Have I missed anything?

•  I am so far to the Left,

  I'm hoping for a tip!  ;-)

  by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:31:22 PM PDT

  •  Good to see you around

    Tetrachloride.

    by Spruce on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:40:47 PM PDT

    •  Thankee!

      ;-)

      by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:12:44 PM PDT

  •  Brilliant!

    You can be the left's Jeff Foxworthy!

    "You know you're far to the left when --

    "O'Reilly calls you a Nazi."

    "You think a Sunday MTP panel with Bill Kristol, David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer just might be a tad biased."

    etc.

    by Upper West on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:50:03 PM PDT

    •  You know you are far to the left

      when Republican candidates are secretly wishing they could go to Yearly Kos! ;)

      by Pithy Cherub on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:10:29 PM PDT

  •  I'm so far to the left

    that almost everyone I've ever voted for seems really conservative to me. But I still cry when they lose.

    by denise b on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:16:55 PM PDT

•  makes you wonder where this

  mainstream everyone is swimming in is, doesn't it?

  by Chrispy67 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:33:16 PM PDT

  •  You have to wonder,

    where do they get that crap?

    Cause it sure isn't listening to us.

    by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:35:39 PM PDT

    •  they get it from listening to $$$

      they listen to us - and figure out a way to placate us.

      by Chrispy67 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:37:03 PM PDT

      •  All we have to remember is,

        they have a vested interest in the status quo, which is corporate control over us.

        by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:40:29 PM PDT

        •  That was the underlying theme of SICKO

          Social control through keeping us scared and in hock up to our eyeballs.

          by Bronx59 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:56:40 PM PDT

          •  They're doing a damn fine

            job of it, aren't they?

            by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:57:24 PM PDT

        •  the msm is just a division corporate america

          and government is just another division

          and as long as the powers that be can make the general public fearful of something they have us by the balls

          they want us to be afraid of terrorism, socialized medicine, and democrats that will tax us into the stone age

          and mostly they want us to be afraid to protest, talk back, or make waves

          by KOTCrum on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:57:08 PM PDT

    •  It's the hegemony

      Part of the way hegemony shores itself up is to convince those that would benefit from even very mild progressive reforms that such reforms are left-wing extremism.  And, for over 30 years, it's been working.

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:51:07 PM PDT

      •  Yes, it has

        but now they've moved so far to the right, that as a matter of course, what used to be centrist is now the Left.

        by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:53:41 PM PDT

        •  And I mean FAR left

          by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:54:30 PM PDT

  •  It ends in a cup.

    by ben masel on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:09:10 PM PDT

  •  actually, I do know where it is

    They're filling the bathtub with it, to try to drown the government.

    by egc on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:05:23 PM PDT

•  I have to crane my neck way out to the right

  to even see Dennis Kucinich.

  by melvin on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:33:39 PM PDT

  •  LOL

    Good one!

    by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:36:10 PM PDT

    •  It's the truth for some of us.

      There hasn't been a leftist candidate in decades.

      by rserven on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:46:38 PM PDT

      •  There hasn't been a left

        by melvin on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:53:10 PM PDT

        •  Only because, as noted

          by someone, the Left has been so thoroughly demonized for the last 30 years.

          by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:58:58 PM PDT

        •  If you ever come to the Real Left

          (Clallam County), I'll buy you a beer.

          by skwimmer on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 09:16:48 PM PDT

  •  The Kucinich comment is kind of Top-Commentish!

    I guess you could call that a left-handed compliment - lol.

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:57:11 PM PDT

  •  hahahahah!

    you ARE a classic melvin

    by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:05:01 PM PDT

•  That's great and all, but

  it's called the Democratic Party.

  by Simplify on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:35:51 PM PDT

  •  Whew!

    Fixed!

    by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:37:14 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      And can we not all agree on all of these things?

      The thing is, too many citizens are not aware of what they really mean or why they're important, so our political discourse is full of unprincipled mush.  In today's political climate, moderate equals lack of governance principle.

      So, it becomes a matter of who can "win," who is "electable."  Then we explicitly eschew principle for power.  That's what the argument against impeachment comes down to, that power is more important to us than our freedom.

      (I think the power argument is wrong, too, since I think impeachment is a winning electoral issue.)

      by Simplify on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:05:33 PM PDT

      •  I was late

        coming to the impeachment table.

        The argument that made it for me was, if we don't impeach Bush and Cheney, then the precedent is set for future presidents.

        That would be a travesty.

        by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:07:29 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left and accelerating that

  the negligible curvature of the universe comes into play...I can't even see The Middle anymore. Everything is all Orange-shifted...

  by indeterminate cutlery on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:36:02 PM PDT

•  I am so far to the Left, I...

  am shocked at how this man could have ever been our House Majority Leader (On charges that DeLay violated campaign finance laws):

  "I believe it was Adolf Hitler who first acknowledged that the big lie is more effective than the little lie, because the big lie is so audacious, such an astonishing immorality, that people have a hard time believing anyone would say it if it wasn't true. You know, the big lie — like the Holocaust never happened or dark-skinned people are less intelligent than light-skinned people. Well, by charging this big lie liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler."

  and that College Republicans still idolize him today.

  by Wufacta on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:37:14 PM PDT

  •  Delay troubles me.

    I mean, he really, really does. He puzzles and troubles me like few other Bush cabalists do. Does anybody else come away from reading news of Delay or quotes from him feeling all cross-eyed, thrust for a few minutes into a deep, almost trancelike WTF state? I just, I can't understa--arrrh....he makes me sputter. I think he actually kind of dazes me.

    by aitchdee on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:34:57 PM PDT

•  I am so far to Left,

  I get all warm and fuzzy about the Constitution!

  by EKO on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:37:18 PM PDT

•  I am so far to Left,

  the Bill of Rights gives me goose-bumps!

  by EKO on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:38:21 PM PDT

•  What I've never understood about...

  ...conservatives is: can't they see the trend of human history?  Things don't become more conservative as time goes on, they become less so.  Yes, for brief (in the grand scheme of things) periods there may be more conservative interregnums, but overall the trend is toward progress, not regress.  Ideas that were once considered left-wing lunacy – like men and women being equal, for example – are now accepted as the norm.  Conservatives are on the losing side.

  by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:38:22 PM PDT

  •  had to look that one up

    interregnum |ˌintərˈregnəm| noun ( pl. nums or na |-nə|) a period when normal government is suspended, esp. between successive reigns or regimes. • an interval or pause : the interregnum between the discovery of radioactivity and its detailed understanding. ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting temporary rule between reigns or during suspension of normal government): from Latin, from inter- ‘between’ + regnum ‘reign.’

    (no link... just what my MacBook's dictionary told me.  And it is seldom wrong!)

    by newfie53523 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:42:32 PM PDT

    •  Ironic...

      ...I typed that comment on a MacBook.

      Eerie.

      by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:49:24 PM PDT

  •  Those who oppose change in a society

    are labelled 'conservatives.' In the former Soviet Union and China today, the 'conservatives' were the orthodox Politburo types opposed to reforms.

    For all that conservatives like to point out the differences between modern and classical liberalism, it at least approaches something like a coherent belief system (democratic, market society but not dogmatically libertarian) while conservatism is simply defined positionally.

    by Wufacta on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:42:58 PM PDT

    •  Without change,

      there is no progress.

      by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:48:55 PM PDT

      •  And there can be no progress

        without controversy.

        So all those moderates calling for comity and bipartisanship can eat our dust.

        by Simplify on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:09:33 PM PDT

        •  In a class I took

          we called it conflict, not controversy.

          I was almost lynched when I said that conflict was good, because if we do not have conflict, we all agree, and nothing will change.

          It was a fascinating class.

          by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:11:28 PM PDT

          •  Funny, that

            Good on ya for braving the conflict, in support of conflict!

            That "no progress without controversy" bit is actually a quote of a professor from the text of The Handbook of Model Rocketry.  It was something like, "Gentlemen, we have seen many excellent and thoughtful presentations at this [engineering] conference.  But no controversy!  How can there be progress without controversy?"

            by Simplify on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:15:18 PM PDT

  •  Control

    over ideas is the idea.  Liberals put them forward, the people test them, and conservatives wring out all the profit then blame the liberals and the people for not supporting the idea sufficiently.

    by cjbeals on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:46:12 PM PDT

    •  Ideas

      I think one of the reasons that the Democrats fared so poorly for a long time is that we really didn't have any new ideas.  The GOP, on the other hand, was full of ideas.  They were bad ideas, but at least they were something.  It seems that we are finally getting back to being not just the party of new ideas, but of good new ideas.

      by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:52:00 PM PDT

      •  our problem is our NEW ideas

        common good in the way we understand is so vastly different than what i imagine it was thousands of years ago.

        common good: not killing others for territory to maintain resources for just one tribe but finding a way to get people to live together might just be an incredibly RADICAL idea

        and we're just not at the point in evolution to really make the shift that sharing  what's MINE may now be the key to surviving

        well... it's an idea i've been working on anyway, so it's a little rough

        by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:00:24 PM PDT

        •  Before we can get to...

          ...getting a way for all people to live together, we need to get to making sure everyone in our "tribe" has an equal shot.  Now, I agree that subscribing to tribalism just leads to problems, but even in our "us-and-them" mentality world we don't take care of all the "us" part equally.  For a lot of people even that small step would be monumental progress!

          by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:05:30 PM PDT

          •  America isn't a tribe

            that's what's radical about it

            but i'll get back to you when i work out my thoughts on it

            by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:09:05 PM PDT

            •  No...

              ...I was using the terminology only in the loosest sense.

              See, the GOP likes to perpetrate an "us vs. them" philosophy, particularly as regards Iraq and the "War" on Terror.  It's an asinine philosophy.  But, if you're going to be an "us vs. them" proponent, then shouldn't you at least be in favor of taking care of the "us?"  They don't even do that.

              So basically what conservatism boils down to is poor logic applied incorrectly.

              Hmmm...  Maybe that could be their new slogan.

              by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:13:35 PM PDT

              •  eXactly: poor logic applied incorrectly

                that's what i'm thinking about... how to turn the "might is right" argument

                the exercise i keep using is this: cigarette smokers are responsible... not the cigarette companies. COMPLETELY ridiculous that one little guy has to bear the responsibility of a multi-billion dollar industry plotting to get you to smoke and then keep you smoking... how do we crack that argument? cause i can't believe how many people shrug and say hey, it's the smokers choice. drives me NUTS!

                and i think i got it... but i'm working on a diary about it, but it's all about restructuring our arguments to incite people's willingness to both think and ask questions... we don't need to give answers... more powerful to get them thinking

                we don't need to agree on issues, or all be Dems... we need to focus in on the problems of greatest urgency and be able to the see how/what and who in those problems

                the vast ideas in tackling the problems: GREAT... analogy gene pool...

                anyway... you are exactly right!!!

                by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:23:45 PM PDT

                •  Right

                  Because if smokers are solely responsible for their own lung cancer, then isn't the COPD patient who spent a lifetime eating red meat and butter solely responsible for his condition?

                  I believe that the responsibility is shared.  Individuals have a wealth of information available to them, for example, making clear how dangerous smoking is.  However, that information is drowned out by the marketing and promotional might of Big Tobacco.  Solution?  In my book it would be strict regulation of large corporations.  

                  Once upon a time a company had to get a charter from the government to operate.  Part of getting it was demonstrating that your proposed company would serve some public good.  Once granted, the charter limited you to the terms of the original agreement, meaning that a widget maker could make widgets, not buy up media outlets and oil refineries, etc., etc.

                  It's our country.  If companies want to do business in it, they should be made to do so on our terms.  In that kind of society individual responsibility really would rest on the individual.

                  by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:33:16 PM PDT

                  •  again, agree!

                    i tell all my republican friends who are disgusted: don't switch parties (cause we need more than 2 anyway). . . but they need to become pro-regulation republicans

                    but the share of the smoker is small... btw...

                    by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:45:03 PM PDT

                    •  Mostly agree

                      But on the smoker?  I don't know.  It seems to me that it's been pretty common knowledge for quite some time that smoking is really, really bad for you.  Hell, I've known it since I was 9.  I realize that once you start, it's very hard to stop.  And I further realize that young kids, who typically have the decision-making capacity of a hamster, start smoking for a variety of reasons over which it's hard to exercise control.  But, believe it or not, there are adults who start smoking – and for that there is little excuse.

                      Of course, if Big Tobacco weren't allowed to sell – or at least promote – their noxious product in the first it would be a moot point.

                      by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:50:50 PM PDT

                      •  jon, again eXactly

                        most smokers started as

                        ...young kids, who typically have the decision-making capacity of a hamster, start smoking for a variety of reasons over which it's hard to exercise control.

                        and this is KEY... because we only look at older folks who are sick from it and don't link it back to the 14-year old ... i've been causing people to STOP and rethink the whole thing when they get hit with that

                        and this is the way to start to unravel might makes right::: it applies across the board (from pig farms to plastics), but this is a clear way to begin the exercise

                        btw... once past early 20s, if you haven't smoked, most never do and most start in teens

                        anyway, thanks for the conversation... gotta go to bed now, but enjoyed it!

                        by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:03:06 PM PDT

            •  The Hellenes understood what our country is about

              The amazing thing is that they understood that the people are sovereign.  They understood that constitutions are the compact between the people and their rulers.  You could even have tyrannies be accepted as long as the tyrants adhered to the constitution of the particular city state or region (Makedon had a constitution as well.  Alexander was a constitutional monarch.  It was different than ours, but existed none the less).

              by rjones2818 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:51:06 PM PDT

              •  And some countries,

                such as the Scandinavian ones, are still constitutional monarchies.  Which is why I used to bug people about calling bush a king -- there's nothing wrong with kings necessarily.  But now bush gets called so many things -- king is the least of it.

                by DSPS owl on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:10:38 AM PDT

        •  That reminds me of the American Indian

          view towards ownership of land - protection of food gathering areas was OK but no one owned the land itself.

          by llbear on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:59:29 PM PDT

      •  We don't need new ideas

        so much as we need old ones — about 230 years old.

        by Simplify on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:11:46 PM PDT

        •  Well...

          ...maybe in the largest sense.  But let's not forget that the Founding Fathers' idea of "progressive" was that only white landowning males should have a say in government, and that black people were really only 3/5 of a person.  Even the really tall guys.  That's not so different from the current administration's attitude!

          by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:37:46 PM PDT

  •  Sometimes

    the backslides last thousands of years.  Consider the time from the fall of the Roman Republic to the Enlightenment, for example.  

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:53:00 PM PDT

    •  True

      But that was a cataclysmic societal collapse which – hopefully – is not likely to recur.  And, interestingly enough, even during the so-called "Dark Ages," there was social progress being made.  Indeed, in some surprising ways they were more progressive.  One excellent book on this is Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell.

      by Jon Stafford on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:58:00 PM PDT

    •  one thing to consider

      There was not just a period of backsliding.  There was an entity- the Catholic Church- with a vested interest in being the only ones who knew things.

      The priests were the only ones who could read (other than the very rich), the priests told people what to do so they would be "saved", and the people had to obey or they knew that they were going to be eternally punished.  So the powerful- the rich and the Church- wanted to keep the people ignorant and stop them from investigating and learning things that might lead to an overthrow of the then-current scheme.

      It wasn't until people from inside the system (Martin Luther and England's Henry VIII) pushed for change that it really began to blossom, though there were small flourishes of scientific thought before that time.

      Sounds eerily like now, doesn't it- we have the media and the rich/powerful telling us how it is, and telling us they know better than we do and we'd better obey because otherwise the terrorists will get us.

      All we need is a reformer or two to start our revolution.  Or perhaps we can crash the gates on our own.  :)

      by egc on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:15:13 PM PDT

  •  Well, principled conservate thought wasn't

    that things never changed, it was that human nature persisted and that mores and institutions provided needed structure, and therefore should be conserved.

    Bush, his neocons and his christianists, are radicals.  They want to destroy all institutions and rejigger or end their functions entirely. They've broken two countries of any continuity with the values and institutions that held them together.  It's the opposite of conservative.

    by Inland on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:21:59 PM PDT

    •  I agree,

      the neocons are a new deriviative, having started with some conservatives, toss in a bunch of AIPAC lunatics, and lastly, throw in the religious right.

      They said it themselves, they're creating their own reality.

      by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:26:13 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left...

  ...that I don't wet myself whenever Bush says "al-Qaeda".

  by DH from MD on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:38:23 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left

  I fell of the impeachment table.

  by arcana on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:41:29 PM PDT

  •  Excellent!

    by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:45:17 PM PDT

•  I am so far out to the left that

  I think that campaigning and fund raising should be restricted to, oh, say 6 months before the election, and that campaigning via regulated media, i.e., TV and radio, should be done on an equal-time basis for all parties including the Greenies and the American Socialist Worker's Party.

  by mskitty on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:42:19 PM PDT

  •  I'm with you.

    by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:44:13 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure this is true, but my sister told

    me in Japan you can't advertise in elections.  You have to meet people.  I think that would be fantastic here.

    by masslib on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:53:04 PM PDT

  •  Early primaries are h-h-h-h-hurting democracy.

    Although I would rather lift most restrictions on campaigning and fundraising and instead mandate full and immediate internet disclosure of associations and finances.

    by Simplify on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:17:39 PM PDT

•  i'm so far to the left

  that i hugged two young vets friday night, thanking them sincerely for their service.

  by homo neurotic on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:43:05 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left that

  I can see the Right's fat ass from the backside

  by newfie53523 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:44:00 PM PDT

•  I am so far to the left...

  ...that I make Orange County quake in its boots when I return there, the land of my birth!

  by keirdubois on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:44:33 PM PDT

  •  OC in NY?

    like Newburgh, etc?

    yeah... i'm thinking quaking might not cover it...

    by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:54:43 PM PDT

    •  This Orange County?

      As in choppers?

      by Bronx59 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:19:23 PM PDT

      •  yep, that very one

        by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:25:41 PM PDT

    •  Nope

      CA, as in the crappy Fox show.

      by keirdubois on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:08:21 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the Left, that

  I don't even think this is snark! :)

  by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:55:06 PM PDT

•  Methinks its the country that's moved right

  25 years ago, I was a conservative --but partisan-- Democrat.  

  I don't believe my opinions have changed much, but few wouldn't call me a liberal.

  by Bronx59 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:55:15 PM PDT

  •  The elites move right

    I don't think that the people move back and forth so much, either right or left.

    by Inland on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:24:41 PM PDT

•  I am so far to the left my favorite Senators are

  Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb.... Maybe I'm just confused.

  by leftbird on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:56:22 PM PDT

•  Hmmm

  Does this mean I am to the right of you?

  by Jay Elias on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:57:23 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left

  that I got there by starting out on the far right.  There's a back door, you know.

  by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:58:04 PM PDT

  •  oh, activist guy, we even have Trap Doors

    clearly, you haven't been provided the secret maps, yet.

    by Chrispy67 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:04:58 PM PDT

•  The fact of the matter

  is the Republicans have overplayed the whole librul thing. Things are are changing even in my area of Red Texas.

  by Ex Con on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:00:45 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but did they tell

    Broder, or Brooks, or Cokie?

    I mean, that's what's important.

    by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:03:34 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      And they relayed it far and wide. After all its their job to listen to their masters' voice.
      

      by Ex Con on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:22:23 PM PDT

•  how far left am I...

  well, i'm here, aren't i

  by pfiore8 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:04:32 PM PDT

•  You're a moonbat! nt

  by Inland on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:17:13 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left that I still say...

  liberal rather than progressive

  by leftbird on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:22:19 PM PDT

•  I'd like to thank you all

  for participating, I've got to go search for the cat.  

  All I want to know is, WHO voted for Stalinist?

  LOL

  by xyz on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:35:06 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left

  I believe that birth control should not be banned.

  by Upper West on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:46:03 PM PDT

•  I Really AM to the Left nt

  by Gooserock on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:03:20 PM PDT

  •  Gotcha by fifty miles.

    Did you get a "God's Apology" sunset this evening?

    by skwimmer on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 09:21:32 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left that

  I know the difference between "Fair and Balanced" reporting and reporting where the information the reporter is given is checked for accuracy.

  ... I'm so far to the left that I Recommend this diary.  :)

  by egc on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:03:43 PM PDT

•  I am so far to the left

  I own a copy of the Constitution and wish people would even take a passing interest in it.

  by Dianna on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:15:06 PM PDT

•  How far to the left am I?

  There are no right answers.

  by dirtfarmer on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:42:06 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left

  I'm a lefty-handedly.

  by Sun spots on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 09:04:27 PM PDT

•  I'm so far to the left,

  when the Winds of Change stop blowing, I'll fall down!

  I'm SFTTL, I'm not satisfied with TWO female senators and a female governor.

  I'm SFTTL, Hillary looks like a neocon!

  I'm SFTTL, I want the Seven Principles taught to all humanity!  http://www.uua.org/...

  by skwimmer on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 09:26:48 PM PDT

  •  ISFTTL, This is the Fringe! (n/t)

    by skwimmer on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:02:23 PM PDT