Not the Patriot Act Democratic wing of the Republicratic party (remember: the differences between the D's and the R's are largely in management and in detail rather than in principle) -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Wed 2003-10-22 02:53:47
Author: Redeye
Subject: Not the Patriot Act Democratic wing of the Republicratic party (remember: the differences between the D's and the R's are largely in management and in detail rather than in principle)
In reply to: sweetheart 's message, "Re: Are you talking about the rules in the sticky post in GD?" on Tue 2003-10-21 12:08:38

...but maybe the Democratic wing that would've been much more friendly to the Fascist Act had it been written under a Democratic administration.

When I first encountered DU, along with its proclamations that it was a Democratic site and that "we are not Free Republic," I couldn't help thinking "They are a Democratic Free Republic." Then, when I started posting, I saw that I got it wrong. Now, however, they seem more and more like that - I presume that many, like the majority of Freepers, only have a problem with anti-privacy laws when the GOP is behind them (I don't remember Clinton ending Echelon...). In their defense, though, I'll say that they're more tolerant of kind-of-dissenting views, such as IndianaGreen's or Muddleoftheroad's.

It's something I call the 2003 Sellout - progressive Democrats whose fanaticism matches this of the Religious Right. They are the partisans who have given up on real change and have turned to patriotic rhetoric ("We are the True Patriots, the other guys are the traitors!"); they are the people who believe that overthrowing Bush justifies all means, just like neo-cons believe that destroying Al Qaida justifies all means; they are most of the Anyone-But-Bush crowd (to me, an atheist who votes for Lieberman is in the same category as a black who votes for Trent Lott).

Anyway, some people in the USA still remember privacy and free speech - the problem is that none of them is in power. Kucinich proved to me that he didn't really care when he voted for the Flag Burning Amendment; Dean seems too afraid to bash the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department; and I have yet to hear one member of the Republicratic party, even one as liberal as Barbara Lee, speak in favor of ending Echeclon.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

privacy in the empire -- sweetheart, Wed 2003-10-22 06:33:35
- Re: privacy in the empire -- Redeye, Wed 2003-10-22 10:29:16
  - Re: privacy in the empire -- sweetheart, Wed 2003-10-22 11:07:23
    - Re: privacy in the empire -- Redeye, Fri 2003-10-24 08:00:58
      - unfettered capitalism -- sweetheart, Sat 2003-10-25 11:49:11
        Re: unfettered capitalism -- Redeye, Sun 2003-10-26 04:53:54