Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 4

message: Lieberman is considered conservative on foreign policy--hence his challenger in the primary this year. He's liberal on social and economic issues, as rated by most of the different rating panels -- for example 75-100% ratings by AFSCME (union), ADA, ACLU, LCV (conservation) etc, and 14% by NTU (taxpayers), 0% by Am Conserv Union, 0% by christian coalition. (see Almanac of American Politics for all the ratings.) Rjensen 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Lieberman could be considered conservative, depending on one's own POV. If there's a significant bloc of fellow Democrats who consider Lieberman a conservative, and have articulated that point, it should be sourced and included, perhaps with a caveat that "some" view Lieberman as conservative, although he is clearly liberal on a number of issues.  On a personal behavioral level, I object to this practice of changing the article and demanding that others "prove" that the change is wrong, it's becoming widespread on a number of high-traffic pages. Bjsiders 20:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree that's he's not a "conservative". It appears he has received a lifetime rating of 17 (out of 100) from ACU, a good a source as any that I can tell of conservatism. Further thoughts? --LV (Dark Mark) 20:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No no, not that one you hear about on Daily Kos--the one we're talking about was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000 and is the current leader (by far) among Connecticut Democrats. Rjensen 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh. Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the videogame-related bill. Is she also therefore a conservative, by your terms? Howard Dean has been on Fox News. Same for him? - Jersyko·talk 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to be rude, but take a look at the "sources" you provided. All are left or far-left sites. Of course, they would say almost everybody is too conservative. Being hardline on one or two issues does not a conservative or a liberal make. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was referring to the websites you provided, not the Democratic Party in general. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, when you argue that Lieberman is a conservative, you're arguing not only with the other editors that have chimed in on this discussion (some of whom I'm sure are somewhat progressive themselves, myself included), but also with this: "75-100% ratings by AFSCME (union), ADA, ACLU, LCV (conservation) etc, and 14% by NTU (taxpayers), 0% by Am Conserv Union, 0% by christian coalition." - Jersyko·talk 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So your argument is that a bunch of leftist publications think he's conservative, therefor he is.  But calling them leftist is POV, so we can't use that tactic.  Well, then calling Lieberman "conversative" is clearly POV also, so we can't use THAT either.  Further, you just called the ACLU a "far rightwing think tank" three breaths after you said labeling something as "far left" was POV and thus semantically dismissable.  Sorry, you've lost all credibility as an honest participant in this discussion. Bjsiders 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: all the liberal groups say he's a liberal; all the conservative groups say he's a liberal. They have been listed. Now let's see if there is one recognized group anywhere that officially declares him a conservative. apparently not. The google links turn up only bloggers who speak for themselves. Rjensen 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't quote any of those organizations.  If you are trapped, it's by your own doing.  You are setting up rules for this debate that apply only to those who disagree with you.  Just because any given person is "to the right" of the Democratic base does not make them a conservative.  By that measure, all but maybe 3 Democrats in the Senate are "conservative" especially if you are to be considered a yardstick by which we measure the political disposition of the "base."  If we start this little song and dance we'll be calling all the Democrats "conservatives" and all the Republicans "liberals" because of their position relative to their bases.  Republicans are "conservative" because they're to the right of the typical voter.  Democrats are liberal because they're to the left of that same hypothetical voter.  Show me some evidence that Lieberman is, on balance, to the right of the typical voter, and I'll agree to your edit. Bjsiders 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so fast, Bjsiders.  "Show me some evidence that Lieberman is, on balance, to the right of the typical voter, and I'll agree to your edit."  Well, we already have evidence that Lieberman is not a conservative.  If 8bitJake now proffers evidence that he is conservative, we will then have conflicting sources.  Thus, it would be POV to label him a conservative if 8bitJake does proffer such evidence, as doing so would require that we choose one source over others.  Given these facts, any further argument on this point is moot for the purposes of this article and the edit in question. - Jersyko·talk 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you persist, but haven't made any more comments on this talk page to explain yourself.  I would appreciate it if someone else will help me out if this continues, as I'm quickly using up my revert quotient for the day.  Wouldn't it be better to discuss changes here first so we don't have to revert war??? - Jersyko·talk 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I, too, follow politics very closely, and I think the idea of considering Lieberman as a conservative is absurd.  But our condradictory conclusions don't solve anything, do they?  But you're also a Democratic activist, I see.  Consider for one second that your perspective might be somewhat influenced by your activism.  Perhaps my perspective is also skewed.  So, what we're left with, instead of our perspectives on the issue, are (1) consensus on this talk page, which right now appears to be pretty solidly against including Lieberman as a conservative, and (2) the scores Rjensen posted in the first comment above.  I don't see how your rewording of the section merely to avoid use of the word "conservative" but to paint a picture of Lieberman as nothing but a conservative is copasetic with the developing consensus here.  Oh, and as far as not allowing you to make a case why people should be included in the section, that's what this page is for!!! - Jersyko·talk 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your argument.  However, the article does not say "conservative for a Democrat", but rather "conservatives."  You seem to be saying that, in the factions section, we are not describing views of Democrats in relation to the broader political spectrum, but rather in relation to other Democrats.  That's not what we're doing at all, as that would require the article to take a viewpoint that is left of center and describe people that are generally considered to be moderate as conservative, thus ignoring the plain meanings of the terms. - Jersyko·talk 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lieberman was the LEAST conservative senator on Social issues in 2004 (he was tied with others); he scored zero as a conservative on social issues; no Democrat was more liberal, according to Almanac of Am Politics 2006 p 352. Rjensen 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not making a "sky is blue" argument.  You're arguing that the sky is green.  We're saying it's not.  You're saying, "well, relative to lava, it's green." Bjsiders 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So now you're making edits to the article to help prove your points, I see.  Bad form.  Regardless, it doesn't affect the plain meanings of the terms. - Jersyko·talk 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, your argument that Lieberman is conservative because he's to the right of Kucinich is spurious.  Just because you can identify somebody who is "more extreme" to the left doesn't mean Lieberman is to the right of center.  Again, I'm open to the possibility that Lieberman could be classified as a conservative, but none of your argumentation has been remoately convincing.  You're talking down to us, and your proof of your argument is basically your argument.  "Lieberman is conservative because he is.  I've observed his record and I think he's conservative, therefor he is."  I'm sorry, but that isn't sufficient. Bjsiders 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this argument still taking place?  Lieberman obviously sides with conservatives sometimes.  I don't think anyone is denying that.  However, there is plenty of evidence that he has also voted the liberal position (actually far more often than the conservative) on numerous issues.  Thus, we have evidence for both positions.  Chosing to describe him as conservative (whether the word is used or not), without qualification and without pointing out that he, more often than not, also supports the liberal position, would be POV as it would be favoring one set of evidence and sources over another.  As I said a few comments up, this issue is now moot. - Jersyko·talk 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's taking place because, despite consensus to the contrary, 8BiteJake won't abandon it.  Lieberman can be a "sad excuse for a Democrat" and still NOT be conservative.  And he can vote 100% in-line with the Republican party and STILL not be a conservative, particularily THIS class of Congress.  You've given me no evidence that Lieberman is a conservative or generally considered to be a conservative by the Democratic party.  Zell Miller is a conservative Democrat.  Lieberman is not.  Your assertions that he is prove nothing.  Your argument has also morphed from "he's conservative" to "he's conservative compared to other Democrats," you keep changing the target so that the article can be made to say what you want it to say about Lieberman.  Sorry, you are completely obsessed with your POV on this, and your "evidence" consists of blanket statements, ad hominem attacks, more POV, lists of left-leaning web sites that agree with your POV, and a list of votes that don't amount to any evidence of anything.  Also, it's difficult to be receptive to your argumentation on this when your mannerisms and communication skills are abrasive and, to be charitable, unrefined.  Peppering pejoratives about Lieberman all over your assertions doesn't help demonstrate that you're not being POV. Bjsiders 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again.  The sky is blue.  You're claiming it's green.  It's greener than lava, anyway, so it's fair to say it's green. Bjsiders 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman 

message: If thewolfstar doesn't stop making vulgar threats to editors he will get banned from Wiki.  Rjensen 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What threats? And isn't your comment above a threat? Merecat 05:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nasty threats from thewolfstar 

message: If Rjensen, Griot and Jersyko don't stop harassing me there will be trouble. I am not threatening you. I am assuring you. I am preseving Wiki's integrity. You three are working on wrecking Wikipedia in the ways I have already mentioned. End of this pointless discussion. Thewolfstar 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no, actually general nastiness and abuse from all of you 

message: thanks for your input Merecat, it is refreshing to hear another point of view besides that of the status quo.
Rjensen quoted this
"The convergence of our country's two major parties is a widely noted phenomenon";
How about that. Well how about that. And concerning major and or larger as an additional point. How about the fact that Nader was not let into the debates, excluded by, well slap mah knee...the Democrats AND the Republicans. Well. How about that.
http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larger is Accurate Major Suggests Importance AND ... 

message: I added the progressivism template, as it explains the modern Democratic Party that has existed from the New Deal forward and as it is becoming more so today, in many ways the Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt GOP and old Whig Party progressive causes.  --Northmeister 05:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Progressivism template

message: :I entered this edit in to the dem party article about 45 minutes ago. Of course one of our 'neutral' democrat buddies removed it immediately because it's against Democrat Law to edit this page. They did leave a couple of other edits in, though. Wow. Anyhow here is the edit that mysteriously disappeard at the speed of light.
: ~ The Democratic Party claims to base its values and ideologies on modern liberalism. The party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equality ,and a free enterprise system with government intervention. The Party does not claim to defend a person's right to bear arms and form a militia, defined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Party says it believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means higher taxes and a larger role for government. Ironically, a larger role in government means more government control, which precludes individual rights or civil liberties. More government control and claiming responsibility for the people is a characteristic of Socialism or a Socialist state. ~
:Can someone tell me what, exactly is wrong with this edit? Thewolfstar 08:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also take a look at Wikipedia is not a publisher of opinions on current affairs. - Jersyko·talk 14:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  an edit I made tonight 

message: Regarding the POV comment, you are right, a section of it was POV and also it wandered off into something else. However, POV is exactly why I made this edit:
~ The Democratic Party claims to base its values and ideologies on modern liberalism. The party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equality ,and a free enterprise system with government intervention. The Party does not claim to defend a person's right to bear arms and form a militia, defined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Party says it believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means higher taxes and a larger role for government.
This is non-biased and just plain factual. The former was not a statement of fact but an ad for the dems. Thewolfstar 17:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look what is there now is NPOV and expresses what the Democratic party believes, then it goes into it's history, and current 2006 presidential run.  --Northmeister 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with what you want to do. It doesn't have a point to it, as all this is already expressed and what you want to add has a fringe of POV to it. --Northmeister 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be inclined to disagree. In my view, the DEMS sometimes say one thing but do another. However, if we said "The Democrat national platform typically includes support for...", then I'd be ok with that. Merecat 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we both agree that it is a matter for reasonable people to disagree on whether or not the Democrats in practice support these policies.  But the paragraph is trying to lay out the ideological principles that the party holds, as distinct from particular policy positions. john k 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on thewolfstar edits from last night 

message: The article reads:
Pollsters and pundits all put Senator Hillary Clinton in the lead for the 2008 nomination, but other possible candidates have been active. They include former national nominees John Edwards, Al Gore, and John Kerry, as well as former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, retired General Wesley Clark, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who could become the first Hispanic on a major party ticket), Illinois Senator Barack Obama (who could be the first African-American on a major party ticket), and from the progressive wing of the party, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold (who could be the first Jewish-American to win the Democratic presidential nomination.) In addition, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska declared his candidacy in April of 2006.
Why is a candidates's sex, race or ethnic background so important to the Domocratic Party? Isn't whether one can do a job, the important thing? 
Also, this can be seen on the upper column of the article page:
Political ideology - Liberalism, Progressivism
This is clearly debatable and POV and if this is so why is Hillary Clinton being touted as the top candidate. Hillary Clinton is a not a supporter of labor rights, for example and is not considered a progressive. Is this a possible indicator that she is being backed beacause she is a she? And not that she might help save us from the impending Facscist State we are now in? And then to make matters worse we are told that we should not carry guns, or owning guns will be harder and harder to obtain becuse of gun control legislation installed by guess who? yes. the Democrats.
International affiliation - Alliance of American and European Democrats
Just as a point of interest, Thomas Jefferson said we should not have alliances with other nations. This is a little strange considering the Democrats claim they can trace their roots to Jefferson.
I personally believe the Dem Party's affilation - Alliance of American and European Democrats  to be traitorous and treasonous.
Another point, ignored by the gang of Democrats that control this page. is that Thomas Jefferson was a strong defender of all 10 of the Bill of Rights. Especially, in fact, the right to form a militia and the right to bear arms.
Our United States 2nd amendment is NOT qualified, although it has been reapeatedly qualified in the last 100 years or so, with gun contorl laws.
Examples of gun control lovers were Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
_____________________
I need to start getting some serious responses to my disputes. More edit changes are coming and legitamately so. And don't take npov code off the top of your page, or any other code for any lying, phony reason again.
Thewolfstar 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More disputes and to illustrate more than one point

message: Finally, you can argue that the party shouldn't claim to descend from Jefferson (frankly, I'm not sold on the idea that is, if you care to know, I think that they just would rather not be associated with beginning with Jackson if possible, and I don't blame them if that's the case), but that's not changing the fact that the party claims to descend from Jefferson, which is all the intro is saying. - Jersyko·talk 17:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please gentlemen. Enough of this. It's plain to me that Wolfstar has an axe to grind against the Democratic Party. That doesn't give him the right to continuously vandalize this page. Griot 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This was said (a ways back)<br>

message: The Party supports some civil liberties, is divided on certain social freedoms, rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups in an attempt to offset former imbalances, an imbalanced system of opportunity, and asserts that it supports a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.  Thewolfstar 05:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. - Jersyko·talk 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's just plain POV.  And it reads "The Party supports . . . an imbalanced system of opportunity."  It also reads "The Party supports . . . asserts that it supports a free enterprise system".  So not only is it POV, it's poorly written. - Jersyko·talk 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the origins of the Republican Party and what that Party does in regard to tracing its roots is of no consequence to what the Democratic Party as an organization does in regard to tracing its own roots. - Jersyko·talk 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How's this for an edit?