Is DU a Liberal Message Board?

[el_bryanto]

By your definition of the word liberal.

Bryant

37 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	16 (43%)
	Supposedly
	4 (11%)
	No
	3 (8%)
	Shut up with your bullshit polls!
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	It Used to Be
	14 (38%)
	At Times
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Its a Democratic board...

its in the name!

But you are welcome to start Liberal Underground.

[NightWatcher]

4. but a relative few of us live underground

[WorseBeforeBetter]

13. Let's delve a little deeper, shall we?

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
•Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
•Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
•Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
•Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
•Having fun!

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

I know it's difficult for some to wrap their heads around...

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Yet STILL Democrat...

not hard at all is it?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

31. democratunderground.com? I can hear Limpballs saying that.

"Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change... "

Indeed, not hard. Depending on where one is coming from, that is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. DEMOCRATS.....not hard at all is it...

It wasn't named "Liberal Underground" was it?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. Again, delve deeper.

I do realize many have trouble beyond the superficial...

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. don't have too...they didn't choose Liberal Underground...

or anarchist underground either for that matter. Some people oppose ANY govt.....I don't think this board is meant for them...do you?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

58. Does the Mission Statement specifically mention anarchists?

It does reference "liberal," more than once.

[sabrina 1]

15. I think you need to read what the Admins wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!

Do you have something against Liberals btw?

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. but the Liberal part is secondary to Democrat...is it not?

and WHO decides WHO is or isn't?

Shouldn't supporting Democrats be the overall goal?

Or is this the bash Democrats because you don't think ANY of them are Liberal board?

[Scootaloo]

104. So, in your book, Dov Hikind > Bernie Sanders

well, I think that about sums you up, to be perfectly truthful.

[sabrina 1]

105. Why are you so upset that this forum is advertised as a liberal forum. As a Dem I am thrilled.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. No I don't I just have trouble with what SOME people's definition of one...

I also don't think "purity trolls" should be encouraged...

[sabrina 1]

45. I don't think we use Third Way/Conservative/Neo Liberal talking points especially designed

to attack the Liberal Wing of the party, here on this Liberal Democratic Forum. 'Purity Trolls being one of their favorates. 'Reality Based Community', 'Purity Trolls', 'Malcontents' etc. I can provide the list, from one of their Think Tanks most obviously, if you like. People might associate you with that Right Wing of the Party which is what we are trying to correct, the Right Wing, Corporate infiltration into the Party of the People. They have their own party.

[OilemFirchen]

47. Who is "we"? (n/t)

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. I agree...who IS this WE she is speaking for?

[Mojorabbit]

83. Well most of the people who have answered the poll

so far? This used to be a liberal board before it was infiltrated by a contingent of conservadems and authoritarians. They seem to disrupt and prevent thoughtful conversation in a lot of threads. It is a shame really but it is what it is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. Not exactly a scientific poll is it...

And you seem to have an Anarchist symbol as an Avatar...so there is that...doesn't exactly make you a typical Democrat does it? But everyone to the Right of you is a "Conservadem" right?

Could be Wiccan I suppose....but you know what...73% of Dems support Hillary Clinton right now...are they all Conservadems and Authoritarians?


If I am basically a law abiding citizen does that make me an authoritarian?

[Mojorabbit]

91. It is not an anarchist symbol and your statement is pretty creepy isn't it?

It is a religious symbol and not particularly Wiccan either. All the republican women both in my family and friends support Hillary as well. My republican sister wrote her name in in the last election. She has name recognition and no doubt would win if she wins the primary. I don't know what the authoritarians on this board and the percentage of people who support Hillary have to do with the discussion at hand. This was a liberal board and it is a shame what has happened to it. I still love this place even so.

[sabrina 1]

92. Since only about 32% of the population now identifies as Democrats, and only 29% as

Republicans, and since there is no one else running in a race that is three years from now, that means NOTHING.

I imagine registered Dems when polled would say 'yes' when they are given only one choice. It should be 100% right now to whoever the Dem is. And that means that even out of that 32% 27% do not support her with no opposition. When others enter the race and people have a choice, as happened when Elizabeth Warren was placed in a poll against Hillary, she won hands down.

Hillary will not get the Independent vote, those Dems who have left the party due to the Corporate takeover. Without them no candidate can win.

I doubt she will be running when the Party wakes up and realizes the voters are not kidding this time, no more going along because they 'have no choice'. Things have changed drastically over the past decade.

[Fumesucker]

134. Plenty of authoritarians are anything but "law abiding citizens"

George Zimmerman and the retired police captain that shot the guy in the theater are two strong authoritarians.

[sabrina 1]

87. Democrats. Are you a Democrat? You asked that question as if it's okay

to have the Democratic Party infiltrated by Conservative 'moderate' Republicans. I can't imagine, and have never met yet, a Democrat who welcomes the Corporatization of the People's Party.

[OilemFirchen]

112. Though I'm loathe to reveal much about myself on this board,

I'll give you a few snippets:

I've been a registered Democrat all my life. I was a marshal in the second Vietnam Moratorium, November of 1969. I cut my teeth on Krassner's The Realist. I suspect my FBI file is longer than your diary.

I presume you know nothing about Ma Bell, Lockheed or the NFWA. I'd guess you'd research "Kick out the Jams, Motherfucker!" on the Martha Stewart website. Don't deign to lecture me on "corporatization" or "conservatives" or "moderates".

As it turns out, I simply happen to disagree with you on virtually everything. You have no grasp of history, no understanding of the political process, and a bizarre unicorn-infested view of the future.

I don't ever remember questioning the loyalty or passion of other Democrats - and in my time they included rich and poor, "corporatists" and (eventually) hardhats, veterans, Catholics, migrant workers, musicians and everyone else registered to the party. There was no fealty required on any issue whatsoever.

There were half a million marchers at that moratorium, including all of the above and we were, almost to a man and woman, a polite and organized crowd, understanding the need for order and dutifully avoiding conflict with the thousands of law enforcement personnel amongst us. Now, if I tsk tsk at half a dozen Occupiers who won't move a half a fucking block away to accommodate a city christmas tree dedication, I'm an Authoritarian, a neo-Fascist, a Centrist, a Moderate, a DLCer, a Third Wayer. Since I've contracted with Fortune 500 companies and the DoD, I'm a Corporatist and a Warmonger.

Speaking only for myself, I don't need to prove any bonafides to you. And I'm happy not to be one of your bullshit "WE".

[sabrina 1]

117. There were over 200,000 Occupiers in Oakland after the Robo Cops nearly killed

two US Iraq Veterans. They came from different backgrounds, economically, politically and there was not a single person there who didn't understand the need to unite against the Corporate takeover of this country. No one was impolite, the crowd was organized, knowing full well what the 'law enforcement' contingency was capable of.

What is your point? There were hundreds of thousands of people marching in NYC against the Iraq War, half a million at least. They too were organized, polite, united, from many different backgrounds, politically, economically, ethnically.

I don't know you but from what I am reading here I don't agree with a singe thing you have to say. So the feeling is more than mutual.

The Corporate Wing of the Democratic party has contributed to the disastrous, historical inequality in this country today. There is no denying it anymore.

I don't give a tinker's curse what your opinion of me is. I'm not sure why you bothered telling me. I care about this country about the infiltration of the Democratic Party by Corporate funded individuals who have moved this country to the RIGHT leaving millions of Americans without jobs, without a future, voting against the Democratic Party Platform, and no matter what you say, it won't change the fact that Republicans have their own party. Since they began putting that 'D' behind their names, running on Corporate money and then voting for Corporate interests, the inequality has reached mammoth proportions.

As for your attempted slam regarding my 'political acuity' or whatever it was you said, I am NOT a professional political operative and never claimed to be nor do I want to be.

I am an ordinary person who shares the views of the MAJORITY of ordinary people and that's just fine with me. Political professionals have LOST TOUCH with the people of this country.

I don't know how professional you are politically, but you sure are not getting what the people of this country are getting.

So glad not to be impeded by 'professional' politics where 'brands' and 'tactics' are more important that facts facing actual people.

Thanks for the compliment, you could not have complimented me more.

OWS was merely a demonstration of the growing awareness of the people to the Corporate takeover of this country, that lasted way longer than was intended and spread far wider than planned, demonstrating the need to express the opposition of a majority of Americans to direction these Corporate Politicians on both have sides have taken it. Sorry seeing the people standing up for themselves at last, bothered you.

[Art_from_Ark]

159. Hear, hear!

[Desert805]

154. Awesome reply

Thank you for your (continued) passion!

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. what? That's what you think?

Holy cow no wonder....NO Certain people MIGHT say that yeah....but I laugh at them. If you are calling me RightWING then YOU are the purity troll my dear!

[MADem]

76. True liberals are tolerant of divergent views.

They don't go for encroachment upon the rights of others, but they can take a difference of opinion, so long as said difference doesn't abrogate a freedom for another.

Not a fan of "My way or the highway" either.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. "true Liberals"

I am not the purity troll.....I support Democrats...I support the Democratic President...can you say the same?

[MADem]

79. If you read my posts you'd know that I am interested solely in

electing more Dems and fewer R's to public office.

I am a fan of the POTUS .... AND Hillary Clinton.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. thank goodness...then welcome to the majority!

Her lead is the largest recorded in an early primary matchup in at least 30 years of Post-ABC polling.

73% of Democratic voters...

[Scootaloo]

106. Isn't it weird how often right-wingers play the "Liberals are supposed to be TOLERANT!" card?

I'm happy with divergent views. I have little tolerance for coming to a liberal message board and reading the same right-wing bullshit I inflict upon myself by trolling their boards. Further, tolerance does not equal acceptance - if you're wrong, you're wrong (and truthfully, if you're Right, you're wrong.)

[MADem]

147. I am not arguing with you on that score one bit.

About the only thing that one could take issue about is what constitutes "right wing" or even "jerkwad libertarian" views. I am not a fan of the "I got mine, so fuck y'all" attitude that the Paulbots shop.

And a "liberal" in Wyoming is a different thing than a liberal in, say, Massachusetts.

Where you stand depends on where you live...

[Mnemosyne]

2. Where is the 'used to be' option nt

[el_bryanto]

3. Good Catch. nt

[Mnemosyne]

7. ty nt

[The Straight Story]

5. Well, people do talk about a somewhat liberal party's ideals, but not so much on principle

Being a big tent we tend to throw out principles we believe in when it comes to people doing things we don't personally like - which isn't really liberal but politics in general.

[BainsBane]

6. Seems like there is a strong libertarian streak

for many posters. I also observe a restorationist attitude with a desire to turn the clock back to the 1960s.

[sabrina 1]

16. I haven't noticed what you are talking about. And considering that the '60s

was a historic period where the people fought AGAINST an unjust war, fought FOR CIVIL RIGHTS and Women's Rights, not sure what your objection to that period of history might be. We don't see much fighting for those principles today by contrast. So maybe it is good to look back at history to see what works and what doesn't.

What I've noticed here is more of a right leaning turnaround by a small, but vocal group of people.

[BainsBane]

17. i have no objection to any period of history

I do have an objection to turning the clock back to when key groups in society had fewer rights. To look backward is the opposite of liberalism. Liberalism has always meant moving forward and conservativism halting progress or moving backward.

[sabrina 1]

95. The clock has gone back. We have gone back to the fifties with the government spying

on the public, eg. Conservative policies brought back after years of fighting against them. SS under attack, with Dems on board unbelievably. All Social Programs so hard fought for, now all under attack, the Public School System among them.

This period has MOVED BACKWARD regarding Social Justice and The New Deal. Makes me wish we WERE Repeating the sixties when we had people actually FIGHTING these conservative policies rather than watching BOTH PARTIES on board with turning this country back to the point where old people were dying of poverty and young people were unable to afford to get an education.

I don't what you mean by 'moving forward' from what was a very progressive period when in fact we've moved BACK to before that progressive period.

[BainsBane]

110. I must have missed the documentation of data mining from the 1950s

or the ability to collect every phone call. We haven't gone backward. Time doesn't turn backward, and history does not repeat itself, trite sayings to the contrary. No one had conversations with each other over the internet in the 1950s. Technology makes an enormous difference in society.

I think part of why people want to turn back to the 1960s because they want to recapture their youth. It's a phenomenon as old as time itself. While understandable in some ways, it is an exclusionary mindset. As much as baby boomers may think themselves center of the universe, it is less and less so every day.

I won't go back to a period when gay Americans had no rights or when women or people of color didn't have equal rights to work under the law. I don't accept a version of diversity that accepts subaltern groups only if they act and think like the dominant culture.
I know some here are nostalgic for that period. The hostility that toward perspectives of people of color and feminists reveals as much. In the end, it all amounts to nothing. They an rail on the intertubes all they want, but they can't succeed in turning the clock back, no matter how hard they try.

It's useful to have my theory confirmed though. I've been mulling it around for a while and it seems that it may have some truth to it.

[sabrina 1]

113. Wow, where have I seen this kind of disdain for the period of history when

the very rights you claim to care so much about WERE FOUGHT FOR AND WON. Without the sixties and the people who risked their lives and their reputations and went out into the streets, some actually KILLED, thanks Nixon, there WOULD BE NO PROGRESS. Women and minorities would still be where they were in the fifties.

I have seen this before, this singling out of the sixties for attack, it's always been laughable to see those who hated that era BECAUSE of what was accomplished for women and for minorities and for the elderly and the sick.

Odd that you singled out the sixties, I'm familiar with the disdain for that era, but generally not on the Left.

Odd that you didn't say 'I don't want to go back to the FIFTIES, when we had McCarthy and spying on the 'Commies' and women were in the kitchen and 'belonged there' and didn't dare speak out for themselves.

No, you pick the period when all these oppressions were CHALLENGED. I would LOVE To have participated in that era. As a woman and a Democrat.

They had Television and Radio and Phones at that time, some people thought it was all that new technology that caused the problems with women and minorities thinking they had a right to raise their voices.

Technology has and always will be advancing since they first discovered fire.

We have done very little with all this new technology compared to what they accomplished in the 'sixties with the technology they put to so much good use. We need more people like those who were around back then. Before those who are here now take us all the way back to the fifties.

[BainsBane]

122. I singled out the 60s because many people on this site came of age during that time period

and I have observed the sense that many would like to go back there, as you yourself just confirmed. I have no disdain for any period of history. I already told you that. Not wanting to turn the clock back is not disdain for history. That suggestion itself is strange one to me, since I am a trained historian. All historical time periods are important in different ways because in every time period people lived, loved, and struggled. Nostalgia is not history or historical understanding. Many rights were not won in the sixties but in the 70s all the way through the past few years for gay rights. What you express is precisely why I don't see this site as liberal or progressive. To look backward is to look to restore a period when the few had benefits over the majority. It is by definition reactionary.

[Number23]

120. THANK YOU.

I won't go back to a period when gay Americans had no rights or when women or people of color didn't have equal rights to work under the law. I don't accept a version of diversity that accepts subaltern groups only if they act and think like the dominant culture.

That some here do so loudly, so moronically and so mortifyingly is exactly why I checked option "no."

[BainsBane]

123. Yep, that's exactly why I checked no too.

[Art_from_Ark]

99. Always looking forward and never where you've been

works for racehorses, but it's not liberalism.

[BainsBane]

100. cute slogan

That entirely distorts my point. I am a historian for God's sake. I look back more than most. What I don't seek to do is restore the past.

[Art_from_Ark]

103. So if Social Security were abolished, you wouldn't want to restore that?

If the entire social safety net were destroyed, you wouldn't want to try to revive the Great Society?

[BainsBane]

118. There is a difference between restoring a program

and turning the clock back. What I would do is do my hardest to make sure Social Security wasn't abolished. If it were, I would examine why and think about whether a better program could replace it.

The problem with turning back the clock to the 60s is that was a period when most of the population didn't have equal rights to education, jobs, marriage, property, etc. . . Turning backward is reactionary and exclusionary. It privileges a small segment of the population over the majority.

[Scootaloo]

111. I have to disagree with you...

Very fucking few people fought against an unjust war. Very many people sat on their paisley-clad asses and opined that "war like sucks, man" and years later insisted that they were part of some great resistance.

There were real war resistors. Soldiers who refused to be deployed. Activists who broke into records. leaders who used their pulpit to lead against the trajectory - many of whom lost their lives over it. But the majority who claim this title of "fighting the war against the war" did nothing of the sort. They bought a bracelet, listened to some music, and hten voted for Ronald fucking Reagan "because, like, you can't trust the government, man!"

My problem isn't with the period of history but the entitled and self-righteous attitudes of the geezery old fucks, the lazy white bread middle-class suburban kids who demand handjobs for having metabolized glucose at some point between 1959 and 1970. These washed-out sellouts who think that because they had all the cream albums, they were part of some sort of "movement" and can lay claim to black empowerment, Stonewall, native rights, as if they were their own to take - and then sneer down their noses at the struggles of today as below their interest because "like, it was a purer time, man" - without ever acknowledging that it's their own dropping out, their own greed and entitlement, and their own fellows and political decisions that have made it so that battles from the nineteen-fucking-tens have to be re-fought.

I like the 60's, but most of the people who look back on the time and sigh as if they were a golden age can go get fucked with Barry Goldwater's withered zombie dick.

Tip on what doesn't work? Singing protest songs from the nineteen sixties. I like Joan Baez but jesus christ, singing at a problem doesn't cure it. Nor for that matter does drumming at it, waving a puppet at it, or any of the other self-masturbatory "protest" street theater tactics we inherited from this period. It's like Abbie Hoffman and Andy Kaufman got together one day to decide how to punk the shit out of everyone.

*INHALE*

...i guess my point is, people who go starry-eyed about the sixties make me chew my fucking teeth. Sorry for the rant but YEARGH

[sabrina 1]

114. I'm not sure why you addressed that to me. I am not 'starry eyed' about the sixties

at all, or about ANY era. I am well aware that it is never a majority that makes the changes. If you go all the way back to the American Revolution, many of them had to be drafted to fight the Revolutionary War, many more were against it, even others remained loyal to the 'old country'. But a committed few managed to gain freedom from the Empire for everyone.

Same thing in the sixties. The major issues that were fought for and advanced were fought for by people who committed themselves knowing their causes were not popular. But you cannot deny, that they did change the course of history regarding Civil Rights and finally putting an end to a war, yes it was the veterans, same thing today, but others backed them up.

I don't know what your idea of history is, but it has NEVER Been the majority that changes things. I can't think of ANY historical changes in the course of history that happened because a majority supported them.

Most of the people I have met on the Far Right HATE the sixties. Because they would have been happier in the fifties. So defending the sixties accomplishments has become a habit with me after spending years arguing with right wingers who hate ANYTHING that advanced minority rights or protested a WAR which to them should be a permanent thing, killing people all over the world.

Sorry, but I react to someone who says 'I don't want to go back to the sixties' here on THIS forum, rather than 'I don't want to go back to the FIFTIES'. It's a reaction to eight years of Bushbots touting their 'heroes' who they THOUGHT must be all War Heroes, only to find out all of them were chickenhawks who SUPPORTED the wars, but refused to fight in them. Who oppposed

You are upset with that era because enough WASN'T DONE. THEY are upset because they wanted to stay in the Fifties. Rant away, it doesn't bother me at all and I agree, enough wasn't done, but some things were and Right Wingers will never forgive those 'hippies' for that.

[Scootaloo]

119. Like I said, sorry for the rant

I grew up surrounded by lost hippies and I swear to god if every memory they had of hte era wasn't cut directly out pf "easy rider" and "Alice's restaraunt" - also amusing to hear a bunch of furry white people declare themselves instrumental to the civil rights movement... then gripe about how "them n****rs is takin' everything over... there's gonna be a revolution!" - Ahhhh. southern-fried Hippybillies, gotta love 'em

...it's a nerve of mine, is all, and it's been worn raw on DU. so... hair trigger, I guess?

I would again draw exception to your characterization of the revolution - I would hardly call the result of feudal landowners and turf pirates slaughtering their countrymen in order to evade taxes and expand their personal holdings to be "freedom from empire" - particularly not for anyone even a shade down from rose pink.

Another point of argument? This idea that Americans had a say in ending the war. No. whether it's hippies slapping themselves on the back for it, or Birchers punching hippies in the head over it, it's a false narrative. protest and resistance against Vietnam was futile. By no means wasted - ethical gestures are always good - but they didn't change policy. The war ground on for nine years, protest be damned. It lasted until one side won - and one side did win, and it wasn't the United States. From what i can figure, both right and left have this stupid little patriotic suicide pact thing going where they claim it was the left in the US that ended the war - rather than nearly half the population of south Vietnam, bolstered by the North Vietnamese, who drove us the fuck out with an insurrection that should make even the Iraqis sit back and go "damn, y'all."

Like I said, I like the sixties. I admire the strides and achievements. I just don't like the people who are still living there, or who think simply existing made them part of "the movement" and worthy of fawning adoration.

Maybe it's just the nihilism of being on that narrow bridge between X and Y. Too young for the full grab bag of burn-it-down bullshit, but too old to pretend that the shitty state of things now is "normal."

[sabrina 1]

127. No problem. I haven't had your experiences obviously so I just look at it from

what was or was not achieved. I know the protestors didn't end the war, we haven't been able to end all the ones we are now involved in either, and it's taken LONGER. But people tried at least, some refused to go, those are the heroes imo.

I haven't met the people you met, 'slapping themselves on the back' or whatever. The vets I've met are quiet, they rarely talk about their experiences so I have no idea what they did or didn't do.

As for the British Empire, you should read a bit about that empire, better yet, read about the places the invaded and the people they slaughtered around the world, the resources they stole. But that's the way it was then. I'm not sorry they were chased out of here. No one else was able to remove them from their land until they had stolen all they needed. Ironically we are pretty much doing what they did now.

Anyhow, rant all you want, everyone's experiences are different, but I wouldn't judge everyone from any era by the behavior of some. My beef with the sixties is the Bush Jr. Cheney Limbaugh types who glorify wars they avoided like the plague.

[Scootaloo]

128. I know plenty about the British...

See me talk about their postcolonial policies sometime!

Point is that the American revolution was a pretty severe step down for everyone who wasn't in that elite cabal of self-appointed Chosen Ones. when old rich white dudes pen laws that give only old rich white dudes the power to make law - and actually appoint power based on who owns the most brown people (remember, 3/5 of a person when determining congressional seats for each state, but none of the rights of a person, granting states with more slaves disproportionate power in the legislature!) - I just can't call that a liberation.

Aaaaanyway... i'mma go have a beer in another thread.

[sabrina 1]

130. Actually they were all pretty young guys. A few were a bit older, Franklin and John Adams

was nearly forty.

Sounds like you'd like to be singing 'god save the queen'. I can't say I would. It's always better not to be anyone's 'subject' especially a second class 'subject'.

I kind of like the rights they gave to ordinary people, considering the times they were pretty radical.

Enjoy the beer.

[Scootaloo]

132. Canada seems to have managed alright

You don't think you're someone's subject right now? Well. I guess that's what we're both angry about, innit?

[sabrina 1]

155. Canada is an exception and has its own government. Maybe the Empire learned

a little after what happened here.

Ask South Africans eg, how they fared under Imperial rule, or India, before they took their country back, Ireland, or any number of nations where the Empire ruled.

As for being someone's subject, no, not so long as we have a Constitution and we know how they hate it, Bush was honest enough to verbalize it. Oddly enough that 'quaint' piece of paper is like a boulder in their way. Which is why they continue to chip away at it. And why the people are fighting back.

And if they don't fight back right now while they still can, then yes, we will be 'subjects'. But not yet thanks to those young guys from over two hundred years ago.

[BainsBane]

150. "but it has NEVER Been the majority that changes things"

Uh, incorrect: The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, The Haitian Revolution, The Mexican Revolution, The Chinese Revolution, Tupac Amaru II/Tupac Katari, and the Arab Spring. all come to mind.

Again, your continued distortion of my points is irritating. I do not and did not attack the accomplishments of the sixties, any more than any other period. I said I do not want to return to a period where people are denied basic rights, which was the case during the 60s. You can pretend turning the clock back is liberal all you want. It is simply false. It is to return to white male supremacist rule.
You want to go back to when married women could not own property, when it was legal to discriminate in hiring against people of color, women, and gay people. That may be many things, but liberal is not among them.

This idea of deciding some periods of history are good and some bad reveals a superficial view of history. Much of what you likely think are sixties movements began in the forties and fifties (Civil Rights) and continued well into the seventies (the Women's Movement). Gay rights movements scored their major victories far, far later. Your nostalgic view of the past also shows an outdated understanding of what history is, ignoring the fields of social and cultural history that date (among historians of the US) from the seventies and eighties.

[Scootaloo]

124. Well, we haven't elected Ronald Reagan...

And when we kick off, we won't be tainting groundwater for decades with our 800-pound, pharmaceutically-mummified corpses.

So that's two things.

And face mullet? Now I KNOW you're just jealous.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. Boomer vs. Millennial SMACKDOWN! We're turning the Rosemont Horizon into a giant MUDDDD PIT!

"Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!"

[Scootaloo]

129. WITH TRUCKDOR THE ANNIHILATOR!

SKREEEEEAWWWWWNK!

[Warren DeMontague]

131. I would so pay 30 bucks to see that thing eat a Taurus station wagon.

Call me lowbrow, i don't fucking care.

[Scootaloo]

133. Kids get in free

[Warren DeMontague]

135. That settles it

Im bringing the whole phish-addled, mullet-minded brood.

[Scootaloo]

136. I'm more of a Crash Worship kind of guy but hey, you know, whatever

Bring your latte

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Ah, you kids

trust me, your industro-techno noise art 80s nostalgia doesn't come close to capturing the essential je ne sais quoi of the era. You haaaaaad to be there, brah.

[BainsBane]

152. Interesting bit for me

Is that my theory of a DU worldview has been confirmed several times in this thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. DU definitely skews more towards boomers than other corners of the intertubes, that's fo' sho'.

but like many other things, that aint my fault.

[Number23]

121. Praise the Lord!! Amen!!

I like the 60's, but most of the people who look back on the time and sigh as if they were a golden age can go get fucked with Barry Goldwater's withered zombie dick.

Say it again!! And again!!!


I like the 60's, but most of the people who look back on the time and sigh as if they were a golden age can go get fucked with Barry Goldwater's withered zombie dick.

[Aerows]

170. "go get fucked with Barry Goldwater's withered zombie dick"

Not that I agreed with your rant, but that was hilarious

[Warren DeMontague]

69. ...like wanting to return to the days before Debbie did Dallas, that kind of restoration?

Hmmm. personally I have no desire to go back to the 60s.... but, i do like to chillax in May of '77 from time to time.

[morningfog]

8. Depends on who and how many you have on ignore.

There is certainly a liberal contingent, but there are more who are not liberal, more vocal and much ruder.

[1000words]

14. Thread win!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

21. Heh. They're not greater in numbers...

it only seems that way since they *are* so vocal and rude. And some seem to be here only to put the place down, pissing and moaning within protected groups about the awful libruls who drove away so many brilliant posters...

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. but who is it defined by?

the Anarchists?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

63. Anarchists aren't hiding under your bed.

Promise.

[hootinholler]

66. Margarine is hiding under Van's bed?

[Puglover]

161. Back in the good ole meta days

one poster actually opined that the reason 30+ posters had them on ignore was because they(the poster) was more loyal to President Obama then anyone else. Of course that's it dear.

I had a good laugh over that.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Lotta libertarian moles

Thankfully they're easy to spot.

[sabrina 1]

19. A lot of supporters for Bush policies I have noticed. Well, not a lot, a small

group who are vocal and who appear to despise Liberal values, which is what this website advertises itself as. But happily those defenders and apologists for old Bush policies ARE a minority.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. Really? Perhaps you should point them out!

[sabrina 1]

97. I have, many times. Naturally they make excuses when confronted with being asked

why they support Bush's Massive Spying On the American People program eg. Or make excuses for his Drone Program. Or defend the Chained CPI, cuts to SS.

I point it out all the time directly to those who are supporting Bush policies.

[SidDithers]

85. +1...nt

Sid

[LittleBlue]

10. It's Democratic

Democrats are a heterogeneous party, therefore we have a wide range of opinions. Liberal is one part of the political spectrum represented within the Democratic party.

[sabrina 1]

23. I never knew that the Big Tent was meant to include people who are better described as

moderate Republicans, until fairly recently. The Big Tent was intended to accept people into the fold who were generally not a part of the political arena, women, minorities etc. When did come to mean 'AND Republicans who get tired of the extremism of their own party'??

[1000words]

24. The Reagan Democrats have come "home" ...

and they brought the GOP stink with them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. How "progressive" of you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. and WHO are these moderate republicans? And who makes you the arbiter of what IS Liberal?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

61. The moderate Democrats who welcomed Chris Christie to the Democratic Party...

simply because he was *nice* to Obama. Meanwhile, the big, bad libruls sat back thinking "chumps." Well, at least this librul.

And that's just for starters...

[LittleBlue]

53. Truth is

the margins are so thin in some of these states that we take who we can get.

That's life in politics, I'm afraid. *sigh*

[cynatnite]

11. For the most part, yes...

Of course, it's got room for a lot of varied opinions. Not everyone is going to view one idea as purely liberal as another. I don't think it's something you can nail down. I also think that most of us here at DU are accepting of other ideas and I also believe that many of us can appreciate a good spirited debate about ideas.

In the end, our common goals is what binds us together. We all want a better world that has no room for ignorance, racism or intolerance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. No...I think some want to "purify"

that worked so well for Republicans!

[closeupready]

12. Honestly, it used to be so liberal, it was kind of frightening.

And I'm about as liberal as it gets these days here abouts. Back in earlier times, I was sort of right-leaning Democrat.

It's still liberal, but not like it used to be, no.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. according to some...you don't belong here....

I am not one of those however...

[Whisp]

18. I voted It Used to Be, but I see some names there

that I disagree with about 90% of the time so obviously I am seeing the question very differently.

There was a time that DU was a place of learning, now it's a ragefest and the rages are usually against the President rather than the fucking baggers or libertarians. It's come so far down hill it's in the swamp now.

[GoCubsGo]

20. It all depends on from where you look at it.

Where I live, most people would consider pretty much everyone here a "liberal". Hell, a bunch of them are trying to run Lindsay Graham out of office because HE is "too liberal". It's all a matter of perspective.

And, I dare say that it depends on the subject. Some here hold very liberal views on some matters, but are less so with others. Kind of a mixed bag...

[Laelth]

22. Yup.

As I've said before, DU is the premier internet forum for liberal American political discussion.

Those who want to claim the site for the Democratic Party (which is occasionally liberal) are now and probably will remain outnumbered by liberals (most of whom happen to vote for Democrats).

-Laelth

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Then why wasn't it named "Liberal Underground" instead?

[Laelth]

43. You'll have to ask the Admins about that.

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

Hmm ... no affiliation. Seems pretty clear to me.



-Laelth

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. How can you be "no affiliation" and be called "Democratic Underground"?

that doesn't make the least bit of sense....I'd say calling yourself Democratic...means you are affiliated with Democrats...don't you?

[Laelth]

59. As I said, you'll have to direct your question to the admins.

I don't think I can help you here.



-Laelth

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. why would you need too?

I don't I am satisfied with it just the way it is!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

65. democratic

adj.
1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

2. pertaining to or characterized by political or social equality.

3. advocating or upholding democracy.

And of course...

4. (cap.) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.

Think, it does a body good.

[Cha]

54. I'll take a stab.. it was named DemocraticUnderground..

Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2014, 06:08 AM - Edit history (2)

because the Admins(Skinner, EarlG, and Elad) started it as an answer to the bush-cheney coup of 2000.

Actually it was official 1-20-2001

"Democratic Underground, also known as DU, is an online community for U.S. Democrats. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for political office.[2] DU was established on January 20, 2001, the day Republican George W. Bush was inaugurated president."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

And, I've read a post by Skinner that said he's a "strong Obama supporter".

So, no matter what it said.. we're right at home, VanillaRhapsody~

[font color=red]Edit:[/font] Corrected the date..

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Thank You Cha....I just got called a "rightwinger" by one of those that want to run

anyone supporting the Democratic President that and off this board apparently...there seems to be chronic complaints...

[Laelth]

60. I agree with Cha that you're at home here, just so you know. n/t

-Laelth

[Cha]

73. And, you too, Laelth~

[Cha]

62. Yeah, and we're the ones who are

"rude" according to those who want purification. Projection much?



Speaking of the Democratic President..

Opportunity for All: Connect-ED




President Obama visits Buck Lodge Middle School


James Richardson, principal of Buck Lodge Middle School, celebrates with his students and teachers after President Barack Obama spoke at their school

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/02/04/opportunity-for-all-connect-ed/

[Number23]

71. Nice post, Cha!

Though I had to chuckle at folks trying to pretend that DU is a liberal board and not created BY Democrats to support the Dem party. This bit in the About section says it all:

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office.

[Cha]

72. I actually think

I'm pretty damn Liberal.. You too, 23!

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.(Lots of Pizza!

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

Semantics.. we are who we are and it's good to be here among the reality based community, Number23

23~

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Yep.

I've been a Democrat since 1982, and a liberal even longer than that.

I don't know about you, but I'm beyond tired of the never ending insinuations being tossed about, that some of us are "conservatives," "right-wingers, "Reagan Democrats," or worse.....because we don't march in lockstep with the chronically perturbed among us.

I don't have a conservative bone in my body, never have, and I'll be damned if
I'm going to let some raging nihilist refer to me, or other good DU'ers, as conservative ANYTHING. It's offensive, and a damn lie.

Keep doing what you do, Cha.

[Cha]

75. Mahalo Bobbie Jo!

And, it's "rude".

[Scuba]

25. Not exclusively, no. Still predominantly liberal, but the margin has eroded.

I've been a member for four years.

[OmahaBlueDog]

30. With respect, I think you're wrong

I represent the more moderate-conservative side of the Democratic party. I voted Hillary in the '08 primaries, and I'll support her in 2016 -- and I'm in an increasing minority on this site.

DU is the home of the Elizabeth Warren/Howard Dean/Alan Grayson wing of the party -- and is getting more so.

[Scuba]

107. With all due respect, I hope you're right.

[OmahaBlueDog]

162. Whether I'm right or wrong, we should remember that we're all Democrats

Hillary supporters and Warren supporters should enter any dialogue with the following in mind:

"Either of these women would be a far better President than Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee/Chris Christie/Paul Ryan"

and also keep in mind (as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have both shown)

"There will be times that the person we elected will let us down and piss us off, and there's no way that they keep all of their promises"

If DUers could do two things, I wish that they would be:

1) Focus a lot less on fighting with one-another, and focus on the forces outside of DU that seek to make us subservient to the 1%

and

2) Focus more on what Barack Obama has done right than what he's failed to do.

[Scuba]

164. How about this???

Hillary would be better than Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee/Chris Christie/Paul Ryan.

Elizabeth would be better than Hillary. Why settle?

Celebrate the good things Barack has done, criticize the bad things.

[OmahaBlueDog]

166. Hmmm...closer, but

Hillary is far more experienced and effective than Elizabeth. However, I certainly agree with you on the Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee/Chris Christie/Paul Ryan part.

[Scuba]

167. I disagree that Hillary is more effective than Elizabeth in doing good things for our citizens.

I also don't think Hillary can win.

[OmahaBlueDog]

168. I don't dislike Elizabeth Warren, but I can make more arguments as to why she won't win

First and foremost, the banking/finance sector will offer record financing to oppose her. The "Indian Princess" thing will get brought up again, and she'll simply be painted as inexperienced (although she'll have the same experience Obama had) and lacking in foreign policy credibility.

Hillary: yes, Benghazi will be brought up, as well as the Rose Law Firm documents and perhaps Vince Foster. But Hillary has been first lady, Senator from one of America's largest states, and Sec State. She has unparalleled credentials. And Bill will campaign for her, and 70% of the public thinks highly of Bill, and he'll likely become Sec State or UN Ambassador (Chelsea will be hostess in chief).

Christie was the GOPs best hope. Unless they can convince Condi Rice to run (and she has her own baggage), I think the GOP is stuck for a viable candidate this time out.

[OmahaBlueDog]

28. I invite you to define liberal!

I even created a helpful thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024444708

[justiceischeap]

29. Wish there was an "At times" option in the poll.

There are people that call themselves democrats because they don't fit with the republican party any longer and the left has shifted so far to the right that liberals seem to be a dying breed.

[el_bryanto]

44. Done. nt

[CreekDog]

42. mostly

with several annoying "exceptions"

[BainsBane]

48. Whatever could you be thinking of?

[CreekDog]

49. I like Cjeekdgg

[Nye Bevan]

81. Then there are the death penalty threads.

Where there are always a lot of "he deserves to die horribly" posts.

[Notafraidtoo]

46. I say yes and no.

I think Democrats on this board are older but also not old enough to be liberal in the true sense, a lot of Gen X and Boomers who are more conservative then millennials on social and economic issues, but they are also more conservative then the greatest generation on economic issues.

There is far too much sexism, gun worship, Milton Friedman agreement, homophobia, support of privatization of schools, anti science talk, anti intellectualism etc. for this to be a true Liberal site but with that said its liberal enough not to turn my stomach and there is a lot of smart Liberals here.

I am sure you will call me a purist but i am just calling it like i see it, i love it here but it would be nice if we lost a few center righties and conservatives who stalk the feminist, Gays and pro gun regulation supporters on this board.

[SummerSnow]

50. Lets just call it....NonConservathuglican.com lol

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. Post the lyrics to "Imagine" and see.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. If you consider Politics-as-usual and Not-as- bad "liberal"....sure.

It sure as hell isn't anti-establishment or radical.

[Electric Monk]

67. Methinks there are some in this very thread who dost protest too much

(if you know what I mean....)

[Warren DeMontague]

70. The place hasn't been the same since they got rid of "Meta"

[Laxman]

80. This Is A Liberal Message Board?

Then I'm afraid I can't come here anymore!

[Jamaal510]

86. DU is so liberal

that there have been hundreds of posters here complaining about Obama and the Democratic Party itself not being liberal enough and somehow being "center-right". In addition, I've seen tons of ideas on here that are not even part of mainstream politics whether it's raising the minimum wage to $30 per hour, making college tuition free, or election reform. There's no question that this place is a liberal bastion.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. Hell, some of us think that Obama and the Democratic Party itself

are FAR right.

Fighting to cut Social Security... bankers uber alles... "free" trade deals... trying to reduce the corporate tax rate...

[joshcryer]

146. The Democratic Party Platform is 90% liberal.

You might want to read it some time.

The Party Candidates, however, are a mixed bag, they are 40% liberal, 45% centrist, and 15% conservatives in there.

You can look at their leaning here: http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/legislative-scorecards/

[pampango]

157. That is a great site. I had not seen it before. Thanks for posting it, joshcryer. n/t

[Coyotl]

88. DU is NOT a Message Board! It is a political discussion group.

[MannyGoldstein]

90. Gotta go with "yes"

I think most of us are now Liberals.

[Ohio Joe]

93. By my personal definition... No

There are a number of member who openly and proudly profess points of view and opinions I do not consider liberal in any way. That they are allowed to stay, indicates to me that it is not a liberal site.

[el_bryanto]

96. So to you a liberal board would be 100% liberal? nt

[Ohio Joe]

98. No

I would certainly allow some leeway but there would be limits.

[Phentex]

158. I agree!

Some of the comments here are so anti liberal (I mean BASIC stuff and not necessarily bleeding heart liberal) that ya gotta wonder why they are even here.

[hrmjustin]

94. Yes it is a liberal message board.

[Agnosticsherbet]

101. It is politically liberal, yes, and

it is liberal in that it allows progressives, centrists, and even a few conservatives to post here as long as they follow the guidelines.

[Rex]

102. Have you ever read the mission statement of this site?

About Democratic Underground
Mission Statement

"Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!"

What do you think?

[Fumesucker]

108. Yoostabee

[Skip Intro]

109. I've always seen it as a place for Dems of all stripes.

I hope it is that. If it isn't, many of us should probably leave.

[liberal_at_heart]

115. I guess we shall see when many of us liberals get censored around election time.

[fadedrose]

125. Define "Liberal"

There's progressive liberal, moderate liberal, traditional liberal, 3rd way liberal, freedom of choice of candidate liberal, and you will bump into problems when you post from one view or another...

[AgingAmerican]

137. No

It's a Democratic board, and Democrats tend to be liberal.

[joshcryer]

139. Why would you come here if you don't think DU is liberal?

That's my question.

[Fumesucker]

140. The OP has been coming here for years

Perhaps they are perceiving a change in the atmosphere.

Perhaps some other people also perceive a change in the atmosphere.

[joshcryer]

141. The OP didn't vote in the poll.

I was just asking people here generally.

An extreme example would be, say, a feminist posting on a MRA forum or a civil rights activist posting on SF.

[Fumesucker]

142. The OP already knows what they think about the poll

I've posted on conservative boards before, a lot of DUers have.

Clearly the idea that DU was once liberal and now is not liberal has substantial support.

[joshcryer]

143. "Substantial support" when it's nearly a tie?

And you are seeing people of all stripes on both sides of the issue, so it's not like the issue is slanted. I see pragmatists and purists on both sides of the vote.

It's possible the poll starts slanting against the liberals here, who actually come here because we like how liberal DU is, but who knows.

[Fumesucker]

144. Add in "no" and "supposedly" and the "tie" isn't so close

I don't even care about the politics so much any more, I'm here more out of habit than anything else.

DU as a refuge from the relentless pushing of right wing memes was dead quite a while ago, there really isn't anywhere to get away from it any more.

[joshcryer]

145. DU has more infighting when we have a Democratic President.

And I think that's why a lot of people voted "used to be." There is a lot of crap our President does that we don't like, and we fight about it. The thing that bugs me the most is that the Obama defenders actually do agree that certain policies are crappy, but they still support Obama even when they disagree. So others claim that those policy positions are positions Obama defenders agree with. A lack of criticism for something does not mean an endorsement for it!

It just means people prefer to keep a shut lip than denigrate the President.

In fact, some of the biggest flamewars here are when Obama defenders cite certain things about the President's policies positively, when those policies are on the precipice of being a disaster. Syria comes to mind. When it was pointed out that Kerry was fighting hard for diplomacy and some Obama defenders correctly predicted that was the more logical route, they were put in the same camp as the extremely small minority that wanted to bomb Syria (we're talking 2 users I can name and maybe a dozen total, on a site with hundreds of thousands of posters).

[Fumesucker]

148. If you shut your lip rather than oppose a policy of bombing it's easy to mistake that for support

It may be unfair but it's human nature. Watching the sex wars recently has been illuminating, the only way to win is to refuse to play, anyone who wades into that is going to get splattered with far worse than mud.

The level of cynicism here is encouraging, people are really starting to pay attention more to deeds and less to words. It's also starting to dawn on people that ground is being given on the social issues in order to keep the economic ones out of the spotlight as much as possible.

[joshcryer]

149. Wait and see is politics, though.

I've also found that the shut lipped people are also more politically involved and like political analysis more than those who are often so critical.

Watching the sex wars recently has been illuminating, the only way to win is to refuse to play, anyone who wades into that is going to get splattered with far worse than mud.

This is very much what I'm trying to say. I don't jump in those threads though I did comment about three or four times to clear up a misconception on the Woody Alan threads. I hold very strong opinions on that issue but it's just not worth it. That doesn't mean I endorse Woody Alan or Dylan Farrow, it means I just don't want to state my opinion. I see a lot of people I respect here on both sides of the issue. So I stay out of it.

[Fumesucker]

151. Of course you think your team is superior to the other team

Else what's the point of having teams?

But bear in mind that the desire for being on a team is like any other human desire, it runs on a bell curve. There are those who live, eat and breathe being part of a team, Schutzstaffel, say and on the other tail of the curve you have Ted Kaczynski.

I'm something of a minor guru on how to write OPs in GD that vanish without so much as a ripple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353051

[el_bryanto]

160. I do think it's liberal

But i've seen an uptick in people mentioning the formerly liberal board or the supposedly liberal board.

I think many people here have a narrow view of what it means to be liberal and exclude those who don't fit neatly in their category.

Bryant

[wocaonimabi]

156. Not particularly but the leadership in the party is not all that liberal or progressive either.

If the Democratic Party wants to evolve into a more conservative party that is fine, the Democratic party was the Party of Racists and Bigots at one time many remember those days too but the GOP seems to have a lock on that now so I am not too concerned about that happening again but the Democratic Party Leadership is choosing corporations over people and that is a big problem long term and short term for the party. The ONLY reason the Democratic Party, as a whole, is preferred by most is because the GOTEA Baggers are batshit crazy and the Democrat wins just by being the lesser of 2 evils.

At some point being the lessor of 2 evils will no longer work. The Democratic Party needs to pick what it wants to be the Party of the people or the party of the Corporations and 1%.

They can’t have it both ways.

[PowerToThePeople]

163. More liberal than a tea party rally

It is still the most active board that has liberals as a part of it. It is NOT a liberal board.

edit - I wish it were a liberal board. I wish our party was liberal.

I am a "Purity Troll" and damn proud of it. Get your pile of shit right wing politics back over to the Republican party where they (and you) belong!!!!! <<<< Generic statement directed at right wingers/infiltrators/trolls, not any any specific poster.

[Romulox]

165. No. I see a sight dominated by what would have been "liberal Republicans" back in the old days. nt

[OmahaBlueDog]

169. After due consideration, I vote "Yes"

A liberal believes that government should have a role in protecting the weak against the strong. I believe the vast majority at DU believe that.

Things liberals tend to support

The rights of the poor to be protected from the rights of the wealthy
The rights of racial minorities to be protected from the tyranny of racial majorities
The rights of religious minorities to be protected from the tyranny of religious majorities
The equality of the genders
Equality of sexual orientation

Things conservatives tend to support

Conservatives tend to admire and support strength and conformity. In this context, strength is used broadly. The strength of large landowners, or large corporations, and of wealthy individuals. Conservatives tend to value these people. They admire guns in the context that they represent strength. They value defense spending because it is important that America "maintain a leadership position in the world." Conservatives tend to value conformity and appearances, and tend too dislike and distrust people who think, look, or worship in ways different than their own.

Why we don't get along

Conservatives see the protection of the weak to be at the expense of the strong, and question why it is fair to protect the weak. A good demonstration of this line of thought can be seen in a discussion of bullying: a liberal will tend to immediately sympathize with the bullied, and criticize the lack of protections against bullying in workplaces or schools. A conservative will see the creation of a "victim mentality" and offer the criticism that the response to bullying is not to seek protection from authorities, but to simply fight back.

Odd exceptions

From the conservative viewpoint, abortion rights represent hypocrisy on the part of liberals. Given the view that life begins at conception, rather than birth, conservatives assert that abortion represents the ultimate tyranny of the strong over the defenseless. The liberal counter criticism is two-fold; a) the right of the woman to carry or not carry a baby is absolute and b) that conservatives seem obsessed with the rights of the pre-born, but seem (relatively) unconcerned with the rights of the born -- especially if the "born" happen to be the offspring of persons not conforming to their ideals.

The right to bear arms is, at its core, a liberal concept. It is, in fact, the rights of states and individuals to protect themselves not only against predators, but against tyrannical governments. However, today's liberals tend to see firearms as a tool of the bully, while conservatives admire firearms as a symbol of power.

Where DU unity tends to break down

"For just one reason": In the 70s, there was a joke that a conservative "...was a liberal who'd been mugged." Starting in the 90s, a similar axiom developed; a liberal was a conservative who had a loved one get sick. Many people are Democrats or Republicans not because they buy into a whole slate of party viewpoints, but they agree with one issue that is critical or crucial to them. Hence those who support gun rights or wish to end legal abortion vote Republican, even if they disagree with Republican views on issues such as marriage equality or tax policy. Those who support unions, want a national health plan, or who favor marriage equality tend to support the Democrats -- even if they disagree with the Democrats on fiscal policies.

..except for many DUers tend to agree with the things most other DUers ostensibly believe "except for". "I agree with the Democrats on everything except for the death penalty except for abortion rights; except for gun ownership; except for ...you get the idea.

Conformity and intolerance In what can only be described as irony, two of the values most often associated with liberals have begun to permeate DU. Conformity and intolerance. In this context, I'm speaking of "tolerance" in the sense that the founding fathers spoke of "religious tolerance." There was a notion that even if an Anglican didn't agree with a Catholic, there should be a tolerance of their differing belief. Increasingly, a vocal segment of DU is becoming intolerant of any faith based belief system. Those who express a religions belief are often shamed and ridiculed here.

Conformity is another growing trend here on DU. I'll point to post 24 & 29 in this thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024444708#post24

Increasingly, posters who don't buy into every single position of another poster are accused of being Freepers, DLCers, or Dick Cheney. There is a decrease in tolerance for the variances of opinion among what is, at it's heart, a community of Liberals.

The primaries Do I have to explain this? "Hillary" "Elizabeth" "Hillary!" "ELIZABETH"