... because you, who professes loyalty, with this ("Left Puritans" and Why I Continue to Defend President Obama) seem to have profoundly different meanings for loyalty than I, and further, you seem to have a profoundly different definition of Progressive Liberal ideals, then I.
- I am loyal to Obama's progressive liberal goal to foster an AWAKENED ELECTORATE.
- The Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC) has one and only one ideal: Critical Thinking, Detailed Dialectic, and Open Discussion to support INFORMED OPINIONS.
- The very essence of what distinguishes the Democratic party's culture from the Republican party's culture, is our passion for TRUTH, born of rigorous brutally honest discourse.
- Anyone who wants to stifle (for any stated reason what-so-ever) open discussion of valid criticisms is, as far as i am concerned, an ally of the DLC CORPORATIST interests.
My rant ...
What follows below are from comments I posted over the past 2 weeks:
FIRST THINGS FIRST
This is the painful truth ...
Democrats, Obama Failed by Abandoning Core Consumers
Weak Marketing Effort Beside the Point After President Ignored Passionate, Engaged Coalition
And, that is a fact. So, either we acknowledge that fact, and respond accordingly, or we loose in 2012. Deaniac's approach is superficial DLC-esq cheer-leading rhetoric with his Corporatist attempts to discourage dissent with insulting misleading MEMEs.
As a passionate enthusiastic member of the PLC, I wholeheartedly agree with pkohan.
I advocate ...
Starting tomorrow, the message needs to be this:
These are the things we are going to work on to pass into law. These are the nominees I will want approved so our courts do not atrophy. Lame duck or no lame duck - this is what I feel - and what Democrats feel - is the best path forward, so we are going to get stuff done RIGHT NOW so Americans can see improvements to their lives. People's lives did not stop on Election Day, and neither did ours.
We push forward.
Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires - GONE.
Step up and be part of America's recovery.
And you say that message...
EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.
... until Election Eve 2012
and then you say it...
IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK
Now, Deaniac, on the other hand, promotes what appears to me to be, PURE DLC Corporatist propaganda, if we want to speak in "pure" terms.
Correction, Deaniac, you are "challenging the left" (in an insulting manner) when you begin your diary issuing (unnecessary) slights of categorizing and framing (ie, "promoting the MEME") that VALID CRITICISMS for failings or lackings is "whining."
So, stop with the bullshit:
You do. And you know you do.
And you do so, in a disrespectful dismissive insulting manner, and THAT's the problem with your propaganda. Or rather, that's what makes your diaries weak and cause many people to view them as superficial propaganda. And, that negative perception is only gonna grow, the more you resort to underhanded insulting slights. The sooner YOU stop with the hyperbole.
You see, if you were just "challenging the left" in a forthright respectful honest manner, then this would be a contribution to the dialectic, which fosters an awakened electorate, and this inspires enthusiasm, but superficial cheer-leading, which does less to inform, and more to white-wash with your own PRO-OBAMA "no matter what" a hyperbole, is the very thing that is SAPPING ENTHUSIASM, which is causing the divisive attacks from the progressive liberal caucus, who feel betrayed.
Let me say this to you in the strongest of terms,
DO NOT FUCKING EVER CATEGORIZE VALID CRITICISMS as "WHINING."
Amidst the plethora of right wing victory celebrations and left puritan whining ...
DO NOT EVER CATEGORIZE VALID CRITICISMS AS WHINING.
I repeat: DO NOT!
You become a part of the problem when you do so.
You become THE PROBLEM when you do so.
You insult my intelligence, when you do so.
And, you become a voice whose words are empty and meaningless, when you do so.
And don't even try to suggest that you are "The People's View" when you insult THE PEOPLE in this manner, dismissing VALID CRITICISMS as "whining" ... because, you become the enemy of the Awakened Electorate PEOPLE, when you do so.
You become the enemy of independent thought and free critical thinking, when you do so.
And, you WILL NEVER NEVER NEVER foster an "Awakened Electorate" with such bullshit.
And, in case you were ignorant of this, (which it sure does seem like you are,) but the "Awakened Electorate" is the core progressive liberal base that got Obama elected.
And, the members of this community can smell bullshit a mile away.
So just stop. Do yourself a favor. Do Obama a favor. Do everyone a favor. STOP. I am totally fucking serious.
Cause, if you think you are helping Obama or our nation with these bullshit statements labeling valid criticisms as "whining" then you are fucking more wrong than you will ever know. All that you are doing, is making enemies of the very informed populace that you want to, not only vote for Obama, but you want them to be enthusiastic activists for the Democratic Party.
You are proving yourself to be a fool, with such trite flippant deriding of those who know for a fact that their criticisms, in most (not all) instances, are irrefutable.
So ... JUST. FUCKING. STOP.
As John Stewart would say:You. Are. Hurting. Us!
Look, I am not attempting to say that we should not give Obama the benefit of the doubt, in certain instances, but also, "being loyal" does not mean that one is not critical. And, being critical does not mean that one is cynical.
You are publishing diaries with insulting slights, condescending half-truths, wherein you do, (YES! YOU DO...) cherry-pick the statistical determinants which you use to promote the probabilistic metrics to derive the resulting projections to support your cheer-leading ...
... and you think you are fooling us, and you are not!
... and you think you are being loyal and helping Obama, and you are not!
You are misguided in the extreme.
I remember, many years ago, when I worked at McGraw-Hill/Business Week Magazine, we had an entire statistics department, whose sole purpose was to run statistic analysis after statistic analysis after statistic analysis , until they found the right "skew" that portrayed BW as better than the Economist, for a given segment.
Please. A well-trained statistician can make anything look possible, with the right skew.
Yes, you DID cherry-pick, and you know it.
And any trained professional knows it.
So, just stop with the fucking hyperbole bullshit.
Your lies are about as transparent as the fucking wind.
Yeah,, for the record, you are not speaking to a neophyte plebe here, I am a professional in the domain of which you are working, and no matter what people try to tell you, statistics is NOT a science, it is an art, and the basic flaw of such assumptions is rampant and glaring in your diary's analysis. Please do not insult me with such hyperbole again, not if you want the segment of Obama's constituency that I am representative of, to read your diaries with any degree of respect or credence, again. Much less, not if you want our support.
And, I assure you, you will need our support if you want to beat the Republicans.
So, you would do well to heed my warnings, of which I have posted several on your diary, and on other previous diaries already.
Yes, I am in full support of Obama, and I applaud what he did do, but still, I am critical of what he did not do, but I find such insulting diaries from people like you, and the other allies of the DLC CORPORATISTS, to be fucking insulting.
And fucking can the fucking condescending bullshit too.
You are really beginning to piss me off.
Not Obama, not what he may or may not have done .... YOU, deaniac, are pissing me off.
And so, no, sorry, deaniac, dude, but you are NOT a member of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC), not as I define us, because, my definition is the following:
- Anyone who supports CRITICAL THINKING (CRITICALLY CHALLENGING), is of the mindset of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC).
- Anyone who attempts to discourage or disparage, in any manner, such CRITICAL THINKING / CRITICALLY CHALLENGING, is NOT of the mindset of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC), and given the fact that your insulting dismissive remark (categorizing VALID CRITICISMS as "whining"), sets the very core TONE of your diary, this proves that you had a very clear and unmistakeable agenda to dismiss such CRITICAL THINKING / CRITICALLY CHALLENGING.
And, yeah, I know that you want to think that you are a "Progressive Liberal", and I know that you want us all to believe you are a "Progressive Liberal" but ...
NEW FLASH: YOU FUCKIN' AINT!
Not by a fucking long shot.
Not when you post diaries like this insulting piece of crap whose sole purpose is to promote a CORPORATIST LIE: How'd That Pissing on Obama Thing Work Out for You?
- ... whose sole purpose is to PISS ON THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS,
- ... whose sole purpose is to discourage critical thinking and informed dissent,
- ... whose sole purpose is to promote the MEME that critical thinking and informed dissent were the cause of the mid-term losses,
- ... and seeks to "frame the messaging" as if the cause of the mid-term losses was due to Progressive Liberals' mindset of CRITICAL THINKING / CRITICALLY CHALLENGING
Which I took patient time to dissect for the bullshit piece of shit propaganda CORPORATIST LIE crap that it was.
SEE MY COMMENT HERE: Interesting hypocrisy you've got there
No, Deaniac, sorry, but you are clearly NOT of the mindset of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC). In fact, what you fucking reek of, dude, is the Corporatist DLC mindset, whether you are a fucking paid operative for them or not, only you can say, and it matters not, because, as the saying goes:
"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck ...."
Now, after much heated criticism, deaniac responded with the following, in his defense:
So what does "left puritans" mean? It means people who are not simply on the left, but simply put, those who would obstruct or oppose progress - even some progress - because it did not meet a certain litmus test or it "didn't go far enough." I have said it many times: in my view, one cannot call oneself progressive and then stand in the way of progress. What I should not do, and what I will take care from now on not to do, is to call people left puritans or but refer to left puritan actions instead.
Yes, I will agree that some movement is usually better than no movement, but not always, but more importantly, if you are attempting to suggest that Detailed Critical Thinking that results in Valid Informed Dissent is at odds with progress, then I must challenge your premise in the strongest of terms. And, most importantly, no matter what progress has been achieved, if there is not an accurate detailed assessment of what has been accomplished, AND WHAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, then those alleged "accomplishments" might just be superficial stop-gap measures that might very well cause more harm than good, and there is ONLY ONE WAY to know the difference ... HONEST DETAILED CRITICAL DISCOURSE.
Therefore, deaniac, if you are, in any way what-so-ever attempting to discourage dissent, then, in reality, you are NOT contributing to the cause of progress for "THE PEOPLE'S VIEW" ... but rather, you are serving the interests of progress for the Corporatist's view.
Deaniac further writes ...
I also want to say this: there is a fundamental way the most ardent ideologues understand or view those of us who are pragmatists. Most often, people view pragmatism to mean simply compromise. That is not the case. Pragmatists are not revolutionaries; that much is true. But pragmatists do not compromise for compromise's sake, and we hold our principles as strongly as anyone. As people who are not revolutionaries, we also understand the system within which legislative and political progress needs to be made. In that system, in a body of legislators that represents all sorts of constituencies holding all sorts of opinions, pragmatic progressives believe that making some progress is more important than "drawing a line on the sand" and getting nothing at all. Now, you can argue about just exactly how much give and take is required and if we "gave too much" on a certain piece of legislation, but at the end of the day, if something makes progress, our inclination is to support it.
Again, my dear deaniac, it all depends on what interests you serve. And, you cannot call yourself a "Progressive Liberal" if your PRIMARY GOAL is to serve the interests of the DLC/Corporatists, so much so, that you will attempt to stifle informed dissent and valid criticism, when such dissent and criticism is entirely warranted, from THE PEOPLE'S VIEW-POINT. And, if you are pragmatic about serving the Corporatist's interests, then, sure, you will consider those pieces of legislation that serve those masters as progress. And, let's be clear, those masters do not compromise on their interests. And, if their interests are at odds with the THE PEOPLE'S interests, then guess whose interests are served.
The basic assumption is that all of the stake-holders were involved in the process of HCR, but if they were not, and if "THE PEOPLE's VIEW" was not included, then it stands to reason that maybe (or quite possibly) someone else's interests were served, as was the case with HCR, wherein the Corporatist's interests were served, far more than the people's. This is obviously not something you wish to acknowledge, which reveals your agenda. The discussion obviously has to do with the PUBLIC OPTION(PO). And, whilst it would be pointless to rehash, yet again, that debate, but the point is, due to the BLUEDOG/Corporatist Democrats' disloyalty, we were not able to get the PO, and everyone who was paying attention, knows this. By and large, although that HCR legislation does constitute "progress," in the simplest of terms, as you put it, this HCR legislation was clearly a case of the Corporatist Interests being served. How much were the People's interests served? That remains to be seen. Yes, there were obviously some beneficial measures for the people, no doubt, but please do not hand us hyperbolic propaganda, like "30 million people will now be insured" when all that really means is that 30 million more people will be forced to buy insurance from insurance companies .... CASE IN POINT: CORPORATIST INTEREST SERVED.
Okay? So stop with the fucking hyperbolic propaganda!
I know it and you know it AND EVERYONE WITH HALF A FUCKING BRAIN KNOWS IT!
You fool absolutely NO-ONE!
So why the fuck do you insult my intelligence by attempting to dismiss the failings with dismissive insulting remarks, like "left puritans." Let's get this fucking straight, it is NOT about being the "most ardent ideologues" .... it is about being fucking honest, dude. Because, I assure you, the criticisms that the PLC have about the HCR are SHARED by BOTH Republicans and Democrats, alike. So save your "loyalty" speech for your choir, we ain't fuckin' buyin' the Corporatist Lies, and the undecideds in 2012 sure as fuckin' hell ain't gonna be buyin' that bullshit crap either.
CITIZENSHIP AND THE AWAKENED ELECTORATE
For the record, I am not cynical of the President, what I am, is critical, and so should you be. And there is a profound difference between the two. Being critical, (ie, being informed, being aware, applying extreme attention to detail with acute critical thinking,) THAT is what it means to be a responsible citizen.
This is called: Citizenship.
Irrespective of the sphere of thought, "a well cultivated critical thinker":
- raises important questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
- gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
- comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
- thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
- communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems; without being unduly influenced by others' thinking on the topic.
Note that last one, worth repeating:
*** without being unduly influenced by others' thinking on the topic ***
Obama's Campaign was run and won based upon one single theme, and that theme was NOT "HOPE" as many people mistakenly believe, the real theme (the real metal, the real substance) of his campaign, was the Awakened Electorate. Any attempt to discourage detailed critical questions and accurate honest assessments (is considered by me to be an ally of the CORPORATIST DLC) and such practices will not be tolerated by those of us who wish to further the founding core ideals of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC) of fostering an Awakened Electorate through open-minded free-thinking discourse.
Remember when Obama spoke of the AWAKENED ELECTORATE!
You should watch this video and heed my words well, and ponder long and hard what it was that actually inspired our nation, and as such, what it will actually REALLY take to repeat this in 2012, before you and your friends next attempt to discourage critical thinking that bears informed dissent:
Citizenship and the Awakened Electorate ...
Someone responded to my comments yesterday, with the following challenge:
In the first two sentences in your reply you (1+ / 0-)
would seem to indicate that you see this site as one working to promote progressivism. But then the rationale seems to fall apart. Who decides what is "critical thinking and informed dissent" and what is "superficial corporatist propaganda"? Even worse, who decides what will "be tolerated here"?
Who decides? No one! (1+ / 0-)
Please. No offense, but your question is childish in the extreme and represents a complete ignorance of the basic elemental principles of higher learning in our modern educated world. And, as such, your conclusions are nonsensical. Do you have a college degree? Have you never written/read an essay? Have you never read/written a legal argument? Have you never read/written a literary criticism?
Your points are absurdly childish:
- "Who decides what is 'critical thinking and informed dissent'?"
ANSWER: No one.
Must I state the painfully obvious ...
The Thesis Statement states the thesis or argument of the author in an essay or similar document. Usually no more than a sentence or two long, it is a focused section of text that clearly delineates the argument that is presented in the work and is usually found at the end of the first paragraph of a paper. The thesis statement says what the author or authors are trying to prove in the document. The subject of the thheesis statement reflects the topic of the paper and the predicate is usually what the author of the paper is trying to prove. The thesis statement is invaluable when constructing an outline, as it shows what points need to be proven.
A what is a proof?
A proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition.
The concept arises in a variety of areas, with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent. In the area of oral and written communication such as conversation, dialog, rhetoric, etc., a proof is a persuasive perlocutionary speech act, which demonstrates the truth of a proposition.
- "What is 'superficial corporatist propaganda'?"
ANSWER: MEME's that discourage critical thinking.
FURTHER: Any "Thesis Statement" that is not substantiated with a substantive "verifiable proof", (ie, a logical argument that can withstand the rigor of contrasting challenging debate.)
Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.
"Critical" as used in the expression "critical thinking" connotes the importance or centrality of the thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern. "Critical" in this context does not mean "disapproval" or "negative." There are many positive and useful uses of critical thinking, for example formulating a workable solution to a complex personal problem, deliberating as a group about what course of action to take, or analyzing the assumptions and the quality of the methods used in scientifically arriving at a reasonable level of confidence about a given hypothesis. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises.
- "Even worse, who decides what will 'be tolerated here'?"
ANSWER: We all do.
FURTHER: We all, each and every day, challenge each other in respectful debate, to further the critical thinking.
Must I educate you on the basic principles of learning?
Just please ...
- Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems
- Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem solving
- Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
- Recognize unstated assumptions and values
- Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination
- Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
- Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions
- Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
- Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives
- Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
- Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life
So, either the commenter is completely ignorant and uneducated, or he has a DLC CORPORATIST agenda.
And, what was his response:
Yes I read essays, have written more than my share. No, I did not mention my Masters in Liberal Arts from St. John's College in Annapolis (a Bachelors in History by the way from Lincoln University ...
A "Masters in Liberal Arts" ... Really? You don't say?
Look, folks, this is not a vendetta, nor is it a pissing match. More than anything, I am disgusted and insulted, and with good reason, and so should you be. So, do not take my use of harsh impassioned curse words to imply that I am not level-headed. I am calm. Passionate. But calm. Just as the Samurai who wields the sword beheading his opponent is calm. I am attacking no one, personally, rather, I wield a sword of truth, the purpose of which, is to cleanse and hone the spirit ... to cleanse and hone the spirit of the Democratic Party. I am, yes, passionately eviscerating arguments that I deem to be: insulting, empty and bullshit. This diarist, deaniac, is publishing insulting empty bullshit, all the while, attempting to discourage valid criticism, labeling such as "whining."
I do not know who he speaks for, or who he thinks he speaks for, but:
- He does not speak for the Democratic Party.
- He most certainly does not speak for the Progressive Liberal Caucus(PLC): maybe for the DLC, but NOT for the PLC.
- He definitely does not speak for President Obama.
- He ASSUREDLY does not speak for me.
And I am a fan of Obama. Yes, I am critical, but I am, still, a fan, and I will still endeavor to get him re-elected, but NOT by insulting tactics that seek to discourage valid criticisms.
This diarist is hurting our party and our nation with his bullshit. He does not represent nor foster the Progressive Liberal ideals of an Awakened Electorate, the core ideal that got Obama elected. Yet, this diarist seems to believe that superficial CHEERLEADING will help Obama. He is naive in the extreme. He is childish beyond compare. He is foolishly full of himself, thinking that he is helping. HE IS NOT. HE IS HURTING. And, the sooner he stops with this empty bullshit, the better Obama and the Democratic Party will be. And, if the Democratic Party uses this sort of empty Corporatist Bullshit, they will be destroyed in 2012.
- Anyone who encourages ANY FORM OF CRITICAL DETAIL ORIENTED ATTENTION TO THE FACTS (whether they be for or against a given legislation) is a progressive liberal.
- Anyone who discourages, in ANY WAY, the process of DETAIL ORIENTED CRITICAL QUESTIONING/ CHALLENGING/ THINKING, is not a progressive liberal.
Everything else, is bullshit rhetoric.
In response to my comments yesterday, I received this, from the man with the "Masters in Liberal Arts" ...
And as someone much more liberal than he, the (1+ / 0-)
diarist, I celebrate his position. The people we have to worry about, to convert, to woo come to this site to see who and what progressives are. Many do not think, they simply react. These are the people on the brink, those who, even with all that is so damned obvious, are unsure. These are always the targets. What they want to see, form my experience on the line and in that world, is similar to being in a union. At the union hall everyone screams, argues, even calls names. At the end of the day a united front is presented.
OK, I am questioning the whole concept of open discussion, ONLY as long as that discussion is "open" to the enemy and those you wish to woo. Questioning, get that?
The people we have to worry about?
Well, As far as I am concerned, the ONLY people we have to worry about, are people like YOU, and deaniac, namely, the people who are attempting to discourage dissent.
And, getting those people who "do not think" TO THINK was exactly precisely how Obama swayed a nation, inspired a people, and won the seminal election of our age. Go back to Obama's 2008 election, and listen to his theme, which was a dialectic that rose above the din.
THAT DIALECTIC is what fostered an Awakened Electorate.
It was substantive discourse, not empty fucking bullshit DLC Corporatist rhetoric.
- THAT, detailed dialectic, is what won the election, not the 15 second empty rhetoric sound bytes.
- THAT, critical discourse, is what inspired a nation, not superficial cheerleading flag waving bullshit.
- THAT, substantive debate, is what fostered the awakened electorate, not the dismissive insulting deriding of valid criticisms.
Were you here on dailykos during the primary wars, especially, those between the Clinton and Obama supporters?
Do you have any clue why the Obama supporters won?
Answer: SUBSTANTIVE FUCKING CRITICAL DEBATE.
... not the superficial empty cheerleading bullshit that deaniac keeps spewing that any 2nd year statistics college student can pick apart in 20 fucking minutes. He insults our intelligence with this crap, and there just aint no fucking way in hell that he will win over the Fiscal Republicans with that shit ... so don't even bother talking to me about wooing undecided voters with it. I know, because I WAS A FISCAL REPUBLICAN, well, not really, cause I never voted, but yeah, I was registered as a Republican, for 25 years.
And, the ONLY way we will forge a united front is with substantive detailed honest candid truth, not with CORPORATIST BULLSHIT LIES, which deaniac is spewing.
So, if you are seriously questioning the validity of "open discussion" ... then I have to question what planet you are living on? What country you are living in? ... seriously, I mean, THE FIRST AMENDMENT was the FIRST AMENDMENT because the bastion of free speech is our most sacred ideal, and you would dare suggest that we stifle it, and that such a practice of stifling valid criticisms would EVER be something that we, as a people, would embrace?
Are you seriously trying to get me to believe that stifling valid criticism will get people enthusiastic?
Are you for real?
No offense, but you really need to hear this:
Let me repeat this in the strongest most ardent words ... in no uncertain terms:
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO STIFLE (FOR ANY STATED REASON WHAT-SO-EVER) OPEN DISCUSSION OF VALID CRITICISMS IS, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AN ALLY OF THE DLC CORPORATE INTERESTS.
Now, do you want to ask me that question again. Oh wait, here is what you wrote:
OK, I am questioning the whole concept of open discussion, .... blah blah blah blah
Like I said: AN ALLY OF THE DLC/CORPORATE INTERESTS.
The very essence of what distinguishes the Democratic party's culture from the Republican party's culture, is our passion for TRUTH, born of rigorous brutally honest discourse.
And you are ..."questioning the whole concept of open discussion" ...
And I am questioning your and deaniac's agenda!
Like I said, worth repeating:
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO STIFLE (FOR ANY STATED REASON WHAT-SO-EVER) OPEN DISCUSSION OF VALID CRITICISMS IS, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AN ALLY OF THE DLC CORPORATE INTERESTS.
To any who choose to dismiss my rant, let me caution you, again, in the strongest of words.
- You will NEVER win the 2012 election for Obama without me and people like me.
- We, who are challenging Obama, also happen to represent Obama's strongest most passionate base.
- Our enthusiasm is AUTHENTIC and cannot be duplicated or contrived by DLC CORPORATIST PROPAGANDA.
- The Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC) represents the youthful questioning spirit (the young generation), and as such, WE are the future of the Democratic Party, and WE are the future of this nation and planet.
So, don't even try, cause you're just spittin' in the wind.
"I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking."
~ Franklin D. Roosevelt ~