You are either a Freeper or a Purity-Test Democrat

[MannyGoldstein]

Unless you believe in the same things that I do.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[Ed Suspicious]

1. I pass the purity test. That must have me bordering on Teaper.

The continuum circles back I guess.

[hrmjustin]

2. So if I support Hillary what does that make me Manny?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Perfect.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. You can't answer that?

.....

[hrmjustin]

7. No please tell me?

[truedelphi]

83. Manny did answer. He stated you are perfect.

And according to all the Blue Dawgie Party leaders I have met in the last three years, many others would feel that way about you too.

[sabrina 1]

25. Did you support the Iraq War? n/t

[hrmjustin]

89. No.

[sabrina 1]

90. Hillary did. That is my reason for never supporting her. My conscience wouldn't allow it. There are

too many victims, men, women and beautiful innocent children, both Iraqis and US soldiers.

Aside from the horror anyone who supported that travesty facilitated, they KNEW people would die, there are other reasons why someone who supported it should never be in a position of power. If she was fooled by Bush, her judgement was so bad it should disqualify her for such a responsible jobs, becase millions of ordinary people around the globe who KNEW he was lying. If she knew he was lying, it's hard to say which is worse.

I want leaders who get it RIGHT the FIRST TIME. That decision was an easy one and yet she got it so wrong for whatever reason. I remember the day well, the shock of seeing Democrats, who I naively thought would NOT go along with the scam, actually voting for it. I promised myself then, on behalf of all the future victims, that I would never support them for president.

It's just not that easy for me to forget the photos from Iraq taken by Dahr Jamail, or to ignore the ongoing horror that IS Iraq today, and here, the soldiers who are committing suicide at the rate of about 22 per day, or were up to a short time ago when they finally began to provide some help for them. They could not live with the horrors they witnessed. Our troops should never be sent into harm's way based on lies. WE knew they were lying. Any person seeking an office that would give them the power to do that again, should have voted NO!

But lots of people will forget and will vote for her. Too bad everyone doesn't just tell the party to find a more qualified candidate, one who got it right on Iraq, eg.

[hrmjustin]

91. I understand how you feel.

I was shocked when she and Schumer voted tbat way. They were wrong but so were a lot of people.

I still like her and wish her the best.

[BainsBane]

3. Hasn't that been your position toward the President?

You told me you started to oppose him even prior to his inauguration. He seemingly failed your purity test early on.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Supporting Social Security is a "purity test".

Of course.

Holy @$!#.

[joshcryer]

11. Oh yes, because Social Security has been gutted.

And the entire Democratic Party platform refuses to cut it.

This is getting so stupid.

[Whisp]

68. The Cat Food Commission has been put to sleep...

that must be so bothersome and disappointing for those that deep in their hearts truly believed the President was on a strict mission to endanger and starve the elderly, and rubbing his hands with glee at the thought. To make more lives miserable and wanting is what Obama is all about and now they have less proof for their case as the CCC has disappeared, but probably is alive and well in the fertile imaginations, waiting for the proper day and temperature and misinformation and twisting of words and logic to revisit and revive.

[woo me with science]

70. The disinformation campaign grows old, Whisp.

You don't have a working memory hole. And the White House keeps contradicting you.

March, 2014: White House suggests Social Security cuts remain 'on the table'
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024603578

[truedelphi]

84. For some people, disinfo never ever grows old. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

76. Does your country have a safety net program? nt

[woo me with science]

69. This garbage again, implying that putting SS cuts on the table has done no harm?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=4535742&pid=4535966

The threat of cuts has been used both to impose real, vicious austerity in other areas *and* to entrench the lying Republican narrative tying Social Security to the deficit and implying that deficit cutting is the most important goal for the country. And the cuts are *still* on the table for when they are finished using them this way.

Every Democrat, every American, should be sick of the constant Third Way implication that these Social Security threats have been just words and didn't harm anyone. They have harmed EVERYONE.

1. Without the threatened axe of Social Security cuts (which kept returning as the austerity kept escalating), the Third Way would never have been able to sell the vicious budget and social program cuts they HAVE inflicted on Americans...by justifying them as the lesser of two evils.

If you had told us a few years ago that the Barack Obama administration would be presiding over government spending that assaults the poor even more viciously than the RYAN plan, we would never have believed it. Yet that is exactly where we found ourselves, surrounded by corporate mouthpieces exhorting us to be grateful, "because he didn't cut Social Security."

2. For years, Republicans have drummed lies into the heads of the American people about the source of our economic problems and how to fix them. They have pushed vicious austerity and malignant, economy-starving deficit-cutting instead of the real help to the 99 percent that is needed, and they have preached lies about the need to cut SS and LIES about its contribution to the deficit.

President Obama had from Day One of this Presidency to change the narrative about deficits and Social Security. Instead, he has yet again cemented the Republican narrative and made it a "bipartisan" narrative in a way that will not be undone anytime soon.
And this TEMPORARY suspension of the threats, of course during an election year, and of course simultaneously repeating Republican lies about how the deficit will cause them to return in the future....is the obscene, disgraceful Third Way cherry on top.

[joshcryer]

79. Nope. Campaign promise kept.

[sabrina 1]

82. Or temporarily removing them during election season because they are so UNPOPULAR with voters

actually means anything OTHER than, 'watch out for the Lame Duck Congress where those who were not reelected have nothing to lose.

Social Security HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT and NEVER, EVER, should have been mentioned in the same sentence.

The PEOPLE know this, which is why it has been removed so as not to become a road block for Democrats during the election year.

I am willing to bet it will be right back on the table right after the election.

[tridim]

13. Alternate Universe Manny.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

10. I don't know why Manny said that, but I said the same...

Obama jumped the shark for me when he brought in the Rubinites before his inauguration. I don't even know if the "Obamabots" (their word not mine) were even paying attention.

Back to Clintonian Third Way.

So much for Hope and Change.

[sabrina 1]

26. This site was started to fight Republicans. Why did Obama appoint so many Republicans to his cabinet

Were there no Democrats who could handle National Security? SOD, eg. Clapper a Repub, why not a Democrat?

I support Dems, but the President believes Republicans are better in some positions than Democrats. Do you?

[DebJ]

35. Did you ever read Team of Rivals? n/t

[sabrina 1]

50. I have not read it. But I know what it is about. Lincoln appointed some of his rivals to his

cabinet. That was a different time.

Obama has appointed quite few Republicans to his cabinet, some of whom have slammed him, see Gates eg, after leaving the positions he appointed them to.

We needed a strong WALL against the current Right Wing lunatics who control the Republican party, NOT Bush loyalists, like Clapper who SUPPORTED all of Bush's illegal policies.

We fought against one of the most criminal administrations in living memory and finally WON. Why on earth would we return any of them to positions of power where they had so much influence over the very policies we worked so hard to END?

The proof is in the pudding, we know now that many of Bush/Cheney's policies are not only still in effect, they have been enhanced. Which is what you would expect from people like Gates and Clapper among others.

Gates betrayed this President, and Democrats, after he left office. Is anyone surprised? A Democrat in that position would NOT have done that.

[newfie11]

59. +infinity nt

[Scuba]

63. + another

[Enthusiast]

71. +1 a whole bunch!

[L0oniX]

75. "Obama has appointed quite few Republicans to his cabinet" ...

Silly ...he's just doing what he's told to do.

[woo me with science]

78. Thank you.

The proof is in the pudding, indeed. I am constantly amazed by the perpetual psychosis we are expected to maintain, in which every betrayal is forgotten as soon as it happens and faith in the deep liberal convictions of politicians who serially enable Republicans is never shaken.

[polichick]

87. Well said.

[Historic NY]

6. What would FDR do...

add Supreme's.

[grasswire]

47. why not?

It's within the power of POTUS to add more justices to the Supreme Court. Roosevelt wanted to add three because three existing ones were obstructing every bit of progress they could, by simply doing no work. He figured he could add three who would do the work of the obstructionists. Obama could add three, and then toward the end of his term, when all the corrections were made (voting rights act, etc.) three could resign.

This would set things to right again in this country.

Of course there would be a great yowling about it. So what?

[kelly1mm]

49. No, it is not within the power of the President to add more justices to the SC. Congress,

by legislation, decides how many justices there are, not the President.

[joshcryer]

9. Or you're "Third Way" if you're not Purity-Test.

[woo me with science]

55. Another attempt to make "Third Way" an epithet, I see.

I've written about this tactic before. There have been repeated attempts here to recast both the words "authoritarian" and "Third Way" as epithets, rather than the clearly defined and useful adjectives they are. Of course the goal is to discredit their accurate use to describe both policies and political views on this board. As a matter of course, those who reliably espouse both authoritarian and Third Way policies don't like that fact pointed out.

The attempt to discredit useful terms: "authoritarian" and "Third Way"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3171893

...Authoritarians don't like being called what they are, and since they can't yet prohibit words and restrict others to an approved Newspeak Dictionary, they settle for flailing at and attempting to discredit the individual words they dislike.

This tactic...is most amusing in one-to-one settings. When someone uses an accurate word to describe what you are doing or advocating, just put the word in quotation marks, add some exclamation points, and try to neutralize it by pretending it's an epithet instead of an accurate descriptor. We have all seen it here 1,000 times. A person's politics are described as Third Way, and he or she rears up in indignation, expressing shock at the "namecalling."

Well, no. "Third Way" means something. It is not an epithet, but rather descriptive shorthand for a clear and specific set of political values and policies. You can see what "Third Way" means by going to the Third Way website, where the goals and policies - liberal on the social issues unimportant to the One Percent but corporate and authoritarian on virtually everything else - are clearly delineated.

Those who embrace and defend Third Way policies don't want to admit it, so they try to make the term an epithet...something to be dismissed as namecalling or even banned by a jury so that it can't be accurately applied to them on the forums. And now we are hearing the same sort of defensive attempts to discredit the word when authoritarianism is called "authoritarianism."

Of course "authoritarian" means something. Brazen defense of a government's spying on its own citizens is indisputably authoritarian.

I always picture an indignant poodle rearing up in outrage and exclaiming, "What?! You called me a DOG?!"

Orwell was right. Defending against authoritarianism *requires* defending language, because authoritarians will try to twist, discredit, or take away the words that are necessary for us to describe what is being done to us.

[joshcryer]

56. The post was written by "Third Way Manny."

Who continually tries to broad brush people as "third way" though they don't accept those policies. The OP is clearly trying to distinguish themselves.

I'll note that authoritarian HiPointDem (a banned poster) was completely behind your post. Because it attempts to obfuscate in the same way Fox News does it.

[woo me with science]

57. Another excellent example of, 'You called me a DOG!'

It would be comical, if the policies weren't so vicious and malignant.....it would be comical how even the most relentless and reliable defenders of Third Way policies (and attackers of those who call out Third Way predation) never want to own the "Third Way" label.

Your attempt at guilt by association here is also very sad.

[joshcryer]

58. Guilt by association?

You and HiPointDem posted the same crap on a continual basis. There's no "association" about it.

Who defends Third Way policies? Post one fucking link. I'll note that Manny himself has posted a Udall supportive post. Udall is openly Third Way. What exact policies are we talking about? I don't know of many DUers who would support American hegemony except those who pretend to bash the Third Way.

[woo me with science]

65. It's the *definition* of guilt by association. What's your smear here, Josh?

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:49 AM - Edit history (4)

I stand by every post I've written, and I'm sure I did agree with many of the points HiPointDem made about economic or war or education or environmental policies. But you just tried to associate me with a DUer you made a point of mentioning has been banned, as though that discredits me somehow.

You and HiPointDem posted the same crap on a continual basis. There's no "association" about it.

What "same crap" did we post, Josh? Be specific. *You* brought up the PPR as though it were relevant to my posting. What are you trying to imply about me?

Let's cut to the chase: HiPointDem was PPRed for homophobic posts. Not for anything else.

You bring up his name here, out of all the hundreds and maybe even thousands of posters I have agreed with here on economic or war policy, in order to point out that he was PPRed and that I often posted in agreement with him. That is a guilt-by-association smear of the ugliest, most vicious type. I defy you to find *any* expression of homophobia from me, *ever.* Yet you used *his* ban, for behavior that had NOTHING to do with the issues on which we agreed, to try to disgrace me.
It is a guilt-by-association tactic for the sole purpose of discrediting me, and it's despicable.

Now, I don't know what Manny agreed with Udall on, but I think it's very telling that, rather than identify the specific issue, you impugn his motives by saying he made a "Udall supportive post." That is how the brigade operates....always smear by association, while avoiding talking about the actual policies. It's the same twisted, personality-rather-than-policy-based manipulation/argumentation by which we get those ludicrous Third Way proclamations by some here insinuating that because Ron Paul opposes something (e.g., spying, the drug wars, drone murder...), we should support it.

Frankly, I'm sick of it, and I'm disgusted to see it coming from you.

[Enthusiast]

73. +1 an entire shit load!

[sabrina 1]

80. You cannot be discredited here by ANYONE calling themselves a Democrat so I wouldn't worry about it,

which I'm sure you won't. Tactics, you would think they might have improved on tactics that have failed so spectacularly over the years and drawn MORE attention to the desperate need to deflect.

That is a particularly VILE tactic. And thank you for so clearly defining it for anyone who was not aware of it.

You're not the only one who is sick of it, not by a very long shot.

But see how it diverts people from the ISSUE under discussion?

A personal attack, causing people to have to defend themselves = 'no more discussion of the isssue'.

As if the issues will go away.

Thanks for your steadfast defense of Democratic Principles.

You are one of the reasons people still come to this site.

[sabrina 1]

60. Excellent post, again, thank you!

[woo me with science]

66. Thank you.

Really disgusted by the tactics being used here, but I hope people are paying attention to them.

[Enthusiast]

72. PLUS ONE! nt

[onehandle]

12. I approve of all actions of the Koch Brothers and Ralph Nader.

Also, why are we down on serial killers?

[Whisp]

14. or a Slithereen.

[flying rabbit]

15. Oh I am

and I do.

[DeSwiss]

16. K&R!

[fleabiscuit]

17. I had to Google 'Freeper' to see what it meant.

Does that make me pure now? Because I feel dirty.

[TexasTowelie]

23. Rinse and repeat.

[div style="width:40%;"]

And welcome to DU!

[fleabiscuit]

27. LOL, and thank you very much.

I'm seeing a bit of friction between a conceived notion of two spectrums here. I'm going to try to navigate not 'the third way' but a middle way.

I've done some googling of the usernames and owner names to try to get some back stories about what is being posted here. All I got to say is 'holy shit there is some freaky fucking things being said about DU and peeps here' at other sites.

So fellow freaks, I'll try to get along, play nice with others, and not step in the leadership. Believe me, things could be a lot worse.

[notadmblnd]

42. Nothing wrong with being a little freaky..

DU is pretty wild now
The site's a super freak
The kind of site you read about
In new-wave magazines
DU is pretty kinky
DU's a super freak
We love to read it
Every time we meet
DU's all right, Du's all right
DU's all right with me, yeah
DU's a super freak, super freak
DU's super-freaky, yow

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Not knowing what a Freeper is....is pretty suspect...

[TexasTowelie]

31. Not really.

I never heard of "Free Republic" or "freeper" until after I joined DU. I had to search for the term the first time I ever saw it and I considered myself to be relatively well engaged in politics prior to joining DU. Just because someone has a low post count doesn't mean that they are an automatic suspect. Remember that at one time you also had a post count of 1 as has everyone else on DU.

[fleabiscuit]

43. Yes, how true.

Oh I've been at the Free Republic, just didn't connect to "freeper." Shoot, low post count here (or anywhere) doesn't mean much now. I was plugged into the signal before the WWW. There's lots of old sites where I've left my droppings, even wrangled a couple with a fraction of the number of peeps here.

The jury system seems interesting. Lots of DU haters (haters got to hate, every freaking thing) seemed to happen before that change. TOS rules can be, well...

BUT, I got a jury invite I think before I had even posted 10 times. I was like WTF? Decline. Must have been a metric measure of some kind. Got another one just the other day too. Decline. Think I'll try to reach 1k posts first.

Edit: spelling.

[notadmblnd]

44. Really? I ran across FR before I found DU

and I found DU via whatreallyhapppened.com and I found wrh.com via a Pakistan newspaper, I think it was paknews,com. Once I found DU, I abandoned all others.

[fleabiscuit]

53. I might have too, I just didn't make the connection.

I can't remember how I came across DU. Thought I might have been tom dispatch but don't see DU listed there. Interesting. I have pondered the value of "favorites" bookmarks exchange as a way to peer into someones shared values but have never followed through with the idea. Could be lots of misinterpretation. And hours of scrubbing the porn sites

[fleabiscuit]

32. SEE WHAT I MEAN!

LOL. One curiosity is the REC. Well silly noob, part time lurker, I figured REC was for noting a thread I found interesting, whether I agreed with the initial post or not, it could still be interesting. But nooooo, apparently it can also symbol a disrespect for whatever. I didn't know an anus could get that tight, or have forgotten what is was like when I was 18.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. complete huh?

[fleabiscuit]

38. You'll have to flesh that out a little more for me.

If it's my anus, it's just a little leaky now at my age if I'm not careful with my farts. Or you talking about the taint?

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. called it...

[TexasTowelie]

39. You may want to bookmark the thread if you want to refer to it later.

It's located in the gray area underneath the REC button. To view your bookmarks, go to "My Bookmarks" in the upper right corner above the Google search box. If you are no longer interested in the thread, then you can remove the bookmark.

I hope that you don't get too scarred during the initiation process, but it can be rough for newbies here (and for veterans on occasion when they don't fall in line with the consensus).

[fleabiscuit]

46. Thanks.

I have the navigation down. I have looked at the groups, but not to deep. I believe most of my posts have been under GD. I've used DU mostly for a quick news aggregate in the past. Humans do it best, especially when you want to weed out "freeper" talk.

[TexasTowelie]

48. You're welcome.

Most of us have found DU to get quick news information so it is invaluable in that respect.

I admit to posting some "freeper" type of threads on occasion if for no other purpose than to mock and ridicule them. I've kind of taken on the role as a reporter in the Texas Group since I've been unemployed and was providing home health care for my father before he passed away. Reporting that news is a task made a lot easier because of all of the right-wing nuts in Texas.

[zeemike]

18. I believe, I believe...

Please don't put that purity-test thing on me...I know it will hurt.

[Skittles]

19. JAYSUS Manny, learn to ignore the Tiger Beat crowd aleady

yes INDEED

[PowerToThePeople]

20. Considering 3rd way IS freeper, I must be a purity-test dem.... eom

[zappaman]

21. You better believe it!

[Vashta Nerada]

22. Excellent post.

That's the dichotomy of this website, isn't it?

[Demo_Chris]

24. Goes without saying nt

[rrneck]

28. This post is useless without a push poll. nt

[adirondacker]

30. Do Purity-Test Democrats have to attend some kind of a Ball? If so, do they have a choice who

escorts them? Or are they stuck with whoever the 3rd way or Freepers appoint them with?

Ah, fuck it, I'm just backing the win (sorry I need the money).

Cuomo/Lieberman 2016!

[Thor_MN]

33. Logical paradox. Freepers are generally binary thinkers.

Black-White, Good-Evil. Unable to see shades of gray. So presenting only two possible states usually defines the questioner. Fortunately, there are those of us that can see more than Black and White.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. ...I thought I saw a purity test

I did! I did saw a purity test!

[TexasTowelie]

40. LOL!

That is precious.

[quinnox]

37. To some fan club supporters, if you don't worship the ground

the president walks on, and nod your head in sheep-like obedience every time the president speaks, you are the enemy.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. To Some Ardent Detractors Ditto

If you have any respect for the man or the office you're a lamb being led to slaughter or a cultish idiot.
You can't have it both ways.

[Purveyor]

45. Or a gov't plant attempting to steer discussions to their master favor... eom

[phleshdef]

51. Strawman.

[Rex]

52. Third Way Manny needs a timeout!

[AverageJoe90]

54. Well, for one.....

I support:

-Reinforcing Social Security.
-Better financial regulations.
-Ending the War on Drugs.
-Putting an end to economic and social disparity, where and when possible.
-Bringing the troops home, permanently.
-Holding BushCo accountable for their many failures.
-Combatting climate change with whatever tools are at our disposal.

And there's other things I can probably list. But, to be honest, I consider myself more of a center-left than solid left type.

[Enthusiast]

74. Here. I fixed it fer ya.

"Holding BushCo accountable for their many crimes."

[xchrom]

61. du rec.

[CJCRANE]

62. It's not *what* you are, it's *how* you engage with others

that counts IMO.

That applies to both sides.

If you engage in a way that seeks to set others apart, you will also, by definition, set yourself apart.

I would like to see more posts that discuss an issue in the outside world, not revolving around little groups on DU, or pitting one Democrat against another.

If you like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Sanders, that's cool.

You can talk about them without always making it an attack on others.

For example, back in 2004 a lot of DUers were supporters of Wesley K. Clark.

IIRC they talked about his achievements and his ideas, they didn't need to do others down to get support for him.

So if you have a preferred politican, go all out and sing their praises, get us all behind them, working together.

[JaneyVee]

67. Who is trying to make our big tent smaller?

[Ikonoklast]

81. The ones that like to give the other side every win in an election.

The ones that despise a Blue Dog in a tough district who votes straight Dem 85% of the time...it wasn't enough.

Now they got 100% of nothing from the Republicans holding those seats.


But they sleep better at night, knowing that their hearts are pure.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

77. I came here expecting a test..

and all I got was a lecture!

[seveneyes]

85. Unsafe at either speed n/t

[pragmatic_dem]

86. the third way wants unicorns and ponies, all manufactured in low wage Asian sweatshops

[MineralMan]

88. Which are you, Manny?

You seem to have multiple personas here. It's hard to sort them out, so I quit trying.

[Capt. Obvious]

92. The Pures(TM) are going to cost us the election

[CJCRANE]

94. Are the "pures" really a force outside of DU?

DU is its own little ecosystem.

If DU had it's way Wesley K Clark might be President now!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2631729

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2267503

[Capt. Obvious]

95. Oh no, The Pures are a legit threat to Dem chances in November

unless the Dems pull it off - then it was in spite of The Pures because the sensible adults know what they're doing.

[CJCRANE]

96. "The Pures"...that sounds like a band.

Or how about...

Captain Obvious & The Pure Patrol

It could be a 70's experimental rock band.

[Capt. Obvious]

97. Except 70s rock sucks

[CJCRANE]

100. I never said it was good!

It's a good name for a band in any case.

[Zorra]

93. A classic, oft repeated meme of Third Way trolls, fo sho. nt

[LanternWaste]

98. I support the Democratic platform.

I support the Democratic platform.



(It happens that people often get the G and T keys confused-- the one being so close to the other and all...)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Is a Purity-Test Democrat one who advocates one party loyalty?

[Skidmore]

101. Skimmed and trashcanned for inane flamebait obnoxiousness.

[ZombieHorde]

102. What about Paulbots? nt