Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:07 PM

You are either a Freeper or a Purity-Test Democrat

Unless you believe in the same things that I do.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

102 replies, 5576 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

102 replies	Author	Time	Post
You are either a Freeper or a Purity-Test Democrat (Original post)	MannyGoldstein	Mar 2014	OP
I pass the purity test. That must have me bordering on Teaper.	Ed Suspicious	Mar 2014	#1
So if I support Hillary what does that make me Manny?	hrmjustin	Mar 2014	#2
Perfect.	MannyGoldstein	Mar 2014	#4
You can't answer that?	WhaTHellsgoingonhere	Mar 2014	#5
No please tell me?	hrmjustin	Mar 2014	#7
Manny did answer. He stated you are perfect.	truedelphi	Mar 2014	#83
Did you support the Iraq War? n/t	sabrina 1	Mar 2014	#25
No.	hrmjustin	Mar 2014	#89
Hillary did. That is my reason for never supporting her. My conscience wouldn't allow it. There are	sabrina 1	Mar 2014	#90
I understand how you feel.	hrmjustin	Mar 2014	#91
Hasn't that been your position toward the President?	BainsBane	Mar 2014	#3
Supporting Social Security is a "purity test".	MannyGoldstein	Mar 2014	#8
Oh yes, because Social Security has been gutted.	joshcryer	Mar 2014	#11
The Cat Food Commission has been put to sleep...	Whisp	Mar 2014	#68
The disinformation campaign grows old, Whisp.	woo me with science	Mar 2014	#70
For some people, disinfo never ever grows old. n/t	truedelphi	Mar 2014	#84
Does your country have a safety net program? nt	Mojorabbit	Mar 2014	#76
This garbage again, implying that putting SS cuts on the table has done no harm?	woo me with science	Mar 2014	#69
Nope. Campaign promise kept.	joshcryer	Mar 2014	#79
Or temporarily removing them during election season because they are so UNPOPULAR with voters	sabrina 1	Mar 2014	#82
Alternate Universe Manny.	tridim	Mar 2014	#13
I don't know why Manny said that, but I said the same...	WhaTHellsgoingonhere	Mar 2014	#10
This site was started to fight Republicans. Why did Obama appoint so many Republicans to his cabinet	sabrina 1	Mar 2014	#26
Did you ever read Team of Rivals? n/t	DebJ	Mar 2014	#35
I have not read it. But I know what it is about. Lincoln appointed some of his rivals to his	sabrina 1	Mar 2014	#50
+infinity nt	newfie11	Mar 2014	#59
+ another	Scuba	Mar 2014	#63
+1 a whole bunch!	Enthusiast	Mar 2014	#71
"Obama has appointed quite few Republicans to his cabinet" ...	L0oniX	Mar 2014	#75
Thank you.	woo me with science	Mar 2014	#78
Well said.	polichick	Mar 2014	#87
What would FDR do...	Historic NY	Mar 2014	#6
why not?	grasswire	Mar 2014	#47
No, it is not within the power of the President to add more justices to the SC. Congress,	kelly1mm	Mar 2014	#49
Or you're "Third Way" if you're not Purity-Test.	joshcryer	Mar 2014	#9
Another attempt to make "Third Way" an epithet, I see.	woo me with science	Mar 2014	#55
The post was written by "Third Way Manny."	joshcryer	Mar 2014	#56
Another excellent example of, 'You called me a DOG!'	woo me with science	Mar 2014	#57
Guilt by association?	joshcryer	Mar 2014	#58
It's the definition of guilt by association. What's your smear here, Josh?	woo me with science	Mar 2014	#65
+1 an entire shit load!	Enthusiast	Mar 2014	#73
You cannot be discredited here by ANYONE calling themselves a Democrat so I wouldn't worry about it,	sabrina 1	Mar 2014	#80
Excellent post, again, thank you!	sabrina 1	Mar 2014	#60
Thank you.	woo me with science	Mar 2014	#66
PLUS ONE! nt	Enthusiast	Mar 2014	#72
I approve of all actions of the Koch Brothers and Ralph Nader.	onehandle	Mar 2014	#12
or a Slithereen.	Whisp	Mar 2014	#14
Oh I am	flying rabbit	Mar 2014	#15
K&R!	DeSwiss	Mar 2014	#16
I had to Google 'Freeper' to see what it meant.	fleabiscuit	Mar 2014	#17
Rinse and repeat.	TexasTowelie	Mar 2014	#23
LOL, and thank you very much.	fleabiscuit	Mar 2014	#27
Nothing wrong with being a little freaky..	notadmblnd	Mar 2014	#42
Not knowing what a Freeper is....is pretty suspect...	VanillaRhapsody	Mar 2014	#29
Not really.	TexasTowelie	Mar 2014	#31
Yes, how true.	fleabiscuit	Mar 2014	#43
Really? I ran across FR before I found DU	notadmblnd	Mar 2014	#44
I might have too, I just didn't make the connection.	fleabiscuit	Mar 2014	#53
SEE WHAT I MEAN!	fleabiscuit	Mar 2014	#32
complete huh?	VanillaRhapsody	Mar 2014	#34
You'll have to flesh that out a little more for me.	fleabiscuit	Mar 2014	#38
called it...	VanillaRhapsody	Mar 2014	#41
You may want to bookmark the thread if you want to refer to it later.	TexasTowelie	Mar 2014	#39
Thanks.	fleabiscuit	Mar 2014	#46
You're welcome.	TexasTowelie	Mar 2014	#48
I believe, I believe...	zeemike	Mar 2014	#18
JAYSUS Manny, learn to ignore the Tiger Beat crowd aleady	Skittles	Mar 2014	#19
Considering 3rd way IS freeper, I must be a purity-test dem.... eom	PowerToThePeople	Mar 2014	#20
You better believe it!	zappaman	Mar 2014	#21
Excellent post.	Vashta Nerada	Mar 2014	#22
Goes without saying nt	Demo_Chris	Mar 2014	#24
This post is useless without a push poll. nt	rrneck	Mar 2014	#28
Do Purity-Test Democrats have to attend some kind of a Ball? If so, do they have a choice who	adirondacker	Mar 2014	#30
Logical paradox. Freepers are generally binary thinkers.	Thor_MN	Mar 2014	#33
...I thought I saw a purity test	Warren DeMontague	Mar 2014	#36
LOL!	TexasTowelie	Mar 2014	#40
To some fan club supporters, if you don't worship the ground	quinnox	Mar 2014	#37
To Some Ardent Detractors Ditto	ProfessorGAC	Mar 2014	#64
Or a gov't plant attempting to steer discussions to their master favor... eom	Purveyor	Mar 2014	#45
Strawman.	phleshdef	Mar 2014	#51
Third Way Manny needs a timeout!	Rex	Mar 2014	#52
Well, for one.....	AverageJoe90	Mar 2014	#54
Here. I fixed it fer ya.	Enthusiast	Mar 2014	#74
du rec.	xchrom	Mar 2014	#61
It's not what you are, it's how you engage with others	CJCRANE	Mar 2014	#62
Who is trying to make our big tent smaller?	JaneyVee	Mar 2014	#67
The ones that like to give the other side every win in an election.	Ikonoklast	Mar 2014	#81
I came here expecting a test..	Boudica the Lyoness	Mar 2014	#77
Unsafe at either speed n/t	seveneyes	Mar 2014	#85
the third way wants unicorns and ponies, all manufactured in low wage Asian sweatshops	pragmatic_dem	Mar 2014	#86
Which are you, Manny?	MineralMan	Mar 2014	#88
The Pures(TM) are going to cost us the election	Capt. Obvious	Mar 2014	#92
Are the "pures" really a force outside of DU?	CJCRANE	Mar 2014	#94
Oh no, The Pures are a legit threat to Dem chances in November	Capt. Obvious	Mar 2014	#95
"The Pures"...that sounds like a band.	CJCRANE	Mar 2014	#96
Except 70s rock sucks	Capt. Obvious	Mar 2014	#97
I never said it was good!	CJCRANE	Mar 2014	#100
A classic, oft repeated meme of Third Way trolls, fo sho. nt	Zorra	Mar 2014	#93
I support the Democratic platform.	LanternWaste	Mar 2014	#98
Is a Purity-Test Democrat one who advocates one party loyalty?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Mar 2014	#99
Skimmed and trashcanned for inane flamebait obnoxiousness.	Skidmore	Mar 2014	#101
What about Paulbots? nt	ZombieHorde	Mar 2014	#102

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:08 PM

Ed Suspicious (8,879 posts)

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

The continuum circles back I guess.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:08 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:10 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

4. Perfect.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:10 PM

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)

5. You can't answer that?

.....

Reply to this post

Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:11 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

7. No please tell me?

Reply to this post

Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 05:54 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:40 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 07:25 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

89. No.

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #89)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:07 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #90)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:11 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:10 PM

BainsBane (52,336 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:12 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

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

Of course.

Holy @$!#.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:14 PM

joshcryer (62,164 posts)

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

And the entire Democratic Party platform refuses to cut it.

This is getting so stupid.

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:41 AM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to Whisp (Reply #68)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:02 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 05:55 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to Whisp (Reply #68)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:46 AM

Mojorabbit (16,020 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:58 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #69)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:28 PM

joshcryer (62,164 posts)

79. Nope. Campaign promise kept.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #69)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:56 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:45 PM

tridim (45,358 posts)

13. Alternate Universe Manny.

Reply to this post

Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:14 PM

WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:44 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

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?

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:15 AM

DebJ (7,699 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to DebJ (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:10 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 03:20 AM

newfie11 (8,159 posts)

59. +infinity nt

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 05:19 AM

Scuba (53,475 posts)

63. + another

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:26 AM

Enthusiast (50,983 posts)

71. +1 a whole bunch!

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:39 AM

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

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

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

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:23 PM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 06:48 PM

polichick (37,151 posts)

87. Well said.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:10 PM

Historic NY (36,486 posts)

6. What would FDR do...

add Supreme's.

Reply to this post

Response to Historic NY (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:56 AM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

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?

Reply to this post

Response to grasswire (Reply #47)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:09 AM

kelly1mm (4,329 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:13 PM

joshcryer (62,164 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:42 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:55 AM

joshcryer (62,164 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #56)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 03:06 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #57)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 03:13 AM

joshcryer (62,164 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #58)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:32 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

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

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:49 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.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #65)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:29 AM

Enthusiast (50,983 posts)

73. +1 an entire shit load!

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #65)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:35 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 03:24 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

60. Excellent post, again, thank you!

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #60)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:08 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

66. Thank you.

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

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:28 AM

Enthusiast (50,983 posts)

72. PLUS ONE! nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:23 PM

onehandle (51,122 posts)

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

Also, why are we down on serial killers?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:48 PM

Whisp (24,096 posts)

14. or a Slithereen.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:04 PM

flying rabbit (4,353 posts)

15. Oh I am

and I do.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:22 PM

DeSwiss (27,137 posts)

16. K&R!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:40 PM

fleabiscuit (4,529 posts)

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

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

Reply to this post

Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:15 AM

TexasTowelie (98,074 posts)

23. Rinse and repeat.

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

And welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:55 AM

fleabiscuit (4,529 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:32 AM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:57 AM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:07 AM

TexasTowelie (98,074 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #31)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:36 AM

fleabiscuit (4,529 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #31)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:36 AM

notadmblnd (23,720 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to notadmblnd (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:18 AM

fleabiscuit (4,529 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:12 AM

fleabiscuit (4,529 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:14 AM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

34. complete huh?

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:21 AM

fleabiscuit (4,529 posts)

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?

Reply to this post

Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:27 AM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

41. called it...

Reply to this post

Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:22 AM

TexasTowelie (98,074 posts)

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).

Reply to this post

Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:47 AM

fleabiscuit (4,529 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:58 AM

TexasTowelie (98,074 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:46 PM

zeemike (18,998 posts)

18. I believe, I believe...

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

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:51 PM

Skittles (147,757 posts)

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

yes INDEED

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:52 PM

PowerToThePeople (9,610 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:04 AM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

21. You better believe it!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:06 AM

Vashta Nerada (3,922 posts)

22. Excellent post.

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

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:21 AM

Demo_Chris (6,234 posts)

24. Goes without saying nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:57 AM

rrneck (17,671 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:06 AM

adirondacker (2,921 posts)

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!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:13 AM

Thor_MN (11,843 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:15 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

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

I did! I did saw a purity test!

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:24 AM

TexasTowelie (98,074 posts)

40. LOL!

That is precious.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:17 AM

quinnox (20,600 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to quinnox (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 05:27 AM

ProfessorGAC (56,785 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:46 AM

Purveyor (29,876 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:12 AM

phleshdef (11,936 posts)

51. Strawman.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:14 AM

Rex (65,616 posts)

52. Third Way Manny needs a timeout!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:38 AM

AverageJoe90 (10,745 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #54)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:35 AM

Enthusiast (50,983 posts)

74. Here. I fixed it fer ya.

"Holding BushCo accountable for their many crimes."

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 04:38 AM

xchrom (108,903 posts)

61. du rec.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 04:53 AM

CJCRANE (18,184 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:26 AM

JaneyVee (19,877 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to JaneyVee (Reply #67)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:03 PM

Ikonoklast (23,973 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:49 AM

Boudica the Lyoness (2,899 posts)