> Because Democrats, particularly our own DFLers, are > such wimps the have take extra care in what they say > and do. Republicans, on the other hand, can > practically get away with anything because they > know how to fight.
... > And why would Schiff be so proud to tag along with > the Howard Dean contingency in the parade when > presidential candidate Dean is a supporter > of the death penalty, our country's most racist > institution? I guess it's only okay for Democrats > to be racist. This is the reason why progressives (and pseudo-progressives) keep getting their butts kicked by the right. It isn't just the candidates, it is the nature of the people who tend to be "liberal". If you're not ideologically perfect, you're awful, and if you disagree on anything, you must be disagreeing for the worst possible ethical reason. This horse was beat to death during the Moore/Samuels campaign, and it has come to the point where a whiff of this strategy tends to draw bile to my throat. Yeah, I'm sure Howard Dean is a supporter of the Death penalty because he's a racist. Deep down inside, he just wants to see more African-Americans fry. Just like Samuels wants to see all the unions busted and keep working people from organizing or having any rights. (Note: I'm against the Death Penalty for various reasons, and I currently prefer Kucinich to Dean, but neither of those are topics for this forum.) So, let me get this straight, as it relates to Schiff: * Dean supports the Death penalty, so he's a racist * Those who support Dean support the death penalty (no one backs a candidate who disagrees with anything they believe in), so they are racists too. * Since Schiff was happy to be near the Dean contingency, he's obviously comfortable being around racists - at least if they're democrats. Did I get that right? And, lets see, as long as we're at it, do I have the rest of these rules right? * Anyone who supports the death penalty is racist. * Anyone who thinks people should be allowed to carry guns if they want to is itching to shoot people. * Anyone who thinks prostitution should be legal hates women. * Anyone who isn't sure abortion is ethically OK also hates women. * Anyone who supports Palestinians or has concerns with what Israel does (especially with US funding) is an anti-semite. * Anyone who is against the drug war is morally decadent * Anyone who is against any form of highway expansion hates cars and suburbanites * Anyone who supports any sort of safety net is just lazy and wants to steal your money rather than earning their own (ok, that one's more exclusive to the right, but still, it's the same thing) And so on. (note, one is often given the out of being naive or deluded rather than evil) Has a meaningful democracy ever existed, or has it always been knee jerk litmus politics distracting the "common person" while the same-old, same-old go about the business of ruling? Perhaps that's a bit over-bitter, but as I said, that's the reaction I have when I see that tactic come into conversation. The closer I am to agreeing with the people that use it, the more it upsets me. One example is CUAPB - they almost always ascribe extreme motivations to any decision made, to any action taken? If anything happens, they come out with press releases ascribing the worst possible interpretation far before they could possibly have dug into the details. If you're not with them, you're a racist and a fascist who wants to see the police keep the downtrodden beat down. Or, at best, you're a naive fool. I'd like to be involved with their work, but I just can't add my name to an organization that uses these tactics. But then, their opponents often tend to use similar tactics. The person conflicting with the police is always wrong, always lying (otherwise, why would the police have beat them?) If you ever even question what happened or want to get more details or more information, you are just a malcontent who hates the police, and likely criminal in nature. Or maybe you just hate unions if you posit that some of the problems are related to the nature of the Police Federation. And of course, if you question the extreme statements coming from both sides, you get slammed by both sides. I've been declared anti-police and racist in the same day for digging for facts on a story about a party being raided last summer. ... Why are your politicians wimps? Because perhaps they don't want to be thought of as racists or sexists or anti-semites or anti-community or anti-suburb or whatever, but whichever way they step, even their "supporters" are waiting to slam them with the worst possible motivation for anything they do. There are politicians that aren't wimps, who are willing to make stands, explain them, and dismiss those who don't listen to or agree with that explanation. Unfortunately, the left calls them unelectable extremists while the right calls them candidates. Frankly, I'd rather a candidate be willing to risk pissing me off than one who will simply disappoint me. Sometime, take a look at the city council and ask yourself who gets their way more often - the ones who are just fine with the fact that some people are going to hate them, or the ones who are trying to please everyone? - Jason Goray Sheridan NE __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
