Let's talk about writing styles between smart people and freeper people

[Rabrrrrrr]

(and mods, please note this isn't me talking about a tombstoned person, it's about the difference in writing styles between intellectually honest people and freeper/conservative types; though I'm using a tombstoned person's writing as an example, this is not about her at all)

I've noticed this for the longest time, especially in those assinine emails that get forwarded a lot.

We just had a person tombstoned, and I knew, when I read the first post I read by her, that she was a freep, or a conservative Christian idiot at the least, simply by the writing style.

Here's the first post in the thread she started:

I went out to eat last night with a couple of friends. It was an nice place, with pretty good food for the value, so I can't complain about that. The problem was my waiter. To be perfectly honest with you, he wasn't rude or anything. He did his job the way it was supposed to be done, but it was what he was wearing. I didn't notice it at first, but my friend Marleen pointed out that he was wearing a Ronald Reagan watch, and apon closer inspection, there it was. Now, this woman was very upset. She lost her brother to AIDS in the 80's, because of Reagan's policies, and this waiter has the balls to wear that in a restaurant where people with different views come in to eat every day? Seriously, we would have left had we noticed it before our food came. I was going to bring it up to him, but decided not to. First of all, I can't understand how this guy (who was about 30), who was clearly not rich, could idolize Reagan. But that's besides the point. Why was he wearing this in a public restaurant, and why was his manager letting him? I really want to report this, because I go to eat there often (every two weeks or so). Can anything be done? Is it even legal for him to be expressing his views while dealing with the public? Any advice?

Now, does this strike any of you as typical conservative/freep type writing? It does to me - there's something sensationalistic, and even emotionally manipulative and formulaic about it.

Some phrases that jumped out at me:
To be perfectly honest with you

but it was what he was wearing. I didn't notice it at first, but my friend Marleen pointed out that he was wearing a Ronald Reagan watch, and apon closer inspection, there it was. A typical sort of set up: allude to something, then the obligatory "I didn't notice it", and then AHA! of the noticing with the help of someone else.

where people with different views come in to eat every day - this "people with different views" seems to be very much a conservative-lexicon-only phrase, meaning, of course, "Jesus-believing DECENT people with high moral standards". I don't seem to see this kind of phrasing much here on DU, maybe "all sorts of people" or "different types of people", but never "people with different views".

And some other stuff. This is just so in the style of Reader's Digest or those forwarded emails about how Jesus pulled the little boy out of the wreck, etc.

There's something different in the word usage and phraseology, and I wonder why it is so? It is a style that seems manipulative and uncreative to me; it tries to be pithy and terse, but fails the Hemingway test; it tries to be creative and interesting, but fails that as well.

Is it that they try to write more how they speak? I don't know.

I'd like the language experts to chime in on this one, or anyone else who has noticed the marked difference between styles. A style that, even though this person was attempting to rail on Reagan, the writer's conservative cultural background still came through just in the use of style and phrasing. Kind of like one can often tell English that is written by a native German speaker.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. It was, by far, one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen.

Who fucking cares what kind of watch the guy wore? Even though I am not a mod right now, my freepdar went off big time.

Glad she got the granite headstone.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. This isn't a discussion about the CONTENT of that post.

I don't want to get this locked.

I'm interested in talking about writing STYLES, and used that one only as an example of STYLE.

[Midlodemocrat]

5. Oh, I know.

I can spot a freeper a mile away by the manipulative, hyperbolic rhetoric in their language. They try too hard to appear to be a lib., and it is transparently obvious.

[KitchenWitch]

2. The anecdote was hyperbolic to say the least

funny how when the first amendment was brought up, she backed down from the hyperbole a little.

The first post "is it even legal...?" was a clue.

Yes I played with the troll, and fed it a little.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. hyperbole - that's a good one! Yes, they do seem to engage in hyperbole

don't they? And generally bad hyperbole. Not "if gay people get married it will affect our taxes" but "if gay people marry, dogs will be raped!"

[KitchenWitch]

6. Have you also noticed that often they do not break up their thoughts

via paragraphing and other means. It is like they puke it all out on the page, as if they are in a hurry to get it out.

On screen, I find it difficult to read a big clump of text like that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. That they do.

Though I've seen that here on DU on occasion as well...

But I think the conservative/freep types do it far more. They're in such a hurry to get their "news" out, it all spews. Just like they were talking, a point I mentioned above, now that I think about it.

[WCGreen]

8. What did I miss,,, What did I miss....

I left and that post was wierd, but okay... I even threw my two or three cents in.... Did she freep out after a while or what...

[Hugin]

9. I didn't notice it at first...

But, apon closer inspection. AHA! You were correct!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. It's the intrinsic striving for "believability" in the post that made me

question it. You can read the post and imagine that somewhere on another site someone is starting a thread saying "ha ha ha...those nutty liberals really don't suppport the First Amendment."

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. Oh, that's another good phrase! "Striving for believability"

Yes - much of their stuff, like the Reader's Digest crap and the email forwards, have an overbundance of striving for believability. And excellent phrase! Thanks, NSMA!

[Redstone]

21. Yes, yes, YES! You've nailed it with the phrase "intrinsic striving

for believability."

Thank you to no end. I've been trying to put to words exactly what characteristic of this kind of post it is that sets off my radar (and apparently that of many other DUers).

The best I had come up with was "glib," which I think still applies, but your phrase works even better.

Redstone

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. She really nailed it, didn't she?

That's a perfect phrase.

I'm really upset with myself that I didn't think of it.

[Redstone]

27. Hey, there have been a ton of great suggestions and theories

in this thread, and I want to thank you for starting it. I never saw any post by this troll (I miss all the fun), and this is damned educational.

I like the "it's like a cyborg trying to sound human" and the many references to a "reader's digest writing style" as well.

I think this may just be one of those "I can't define it, but I know it whan I see it" situations.

This is a terrific and enlightening thread.

Redstone

[Rabrrrrrr]

29. Yes, I'm enjoying it, too!

I think it's time to start codifying and trying to categorize these things, and form a sort of Funk and Wagnall's or Chicago Manual of Style for the Freeper/Uneducated Writer.

[Redstone]

32. As I said in a post downthread, there IS a manual or formula somewhere.

There has to be. There's too much of this exact style out there for it to be a coincidence or one person's work.

Redstone

[Rabrrrrrr]

54. I think it's less an actual manual or from-on-high mandate style,

I think it's simply a matter of that's their culture - it's the unwritten style book of style.

Certainly DU and liberals have an unwritten style book as well. Ours is more intelligent and thoughful and honest, and less autodidactic and emotionally manipulative, but it does exist.

[El Fuego]

11. It's like cyborgs trying to imitate humans

[alarcojon]

12. A mindset of intolerance is hard to hide

I can imagine a freeper writing the above, in all sincerity, if the waiter were wearing a Bill Clinton watch. A Duer might say something like "I was served by an asshole waiter with a Reagan watch," but wouldn't be concerned with the waiter's right to wear the watch at work.

[El Fuego]

13. Especially this part:

"Is it even legal for him to be expressing his views . . .?"

Of course they think it should be verboten for people* to "express their views."

*Liberals

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Yes, another phrase that a liberal would not use.

Liberals KNOW that's legal; we would ask, "Is it moral?" or "Is it right?" or "is it fair?". Never "Is it legal?" in terms of self-expression.

Dumbasses.

Even when they try to write something to make them appear to be a liberal, their underlying sentence construction and use of phrases gives them away.

[chknltl]

14. I am wayyyy to new to commenting here because

...I can not tell who is a freeper and who isn't, at least not in this forum. (Should I 'blame' the mods for this?) I would love any "freeper 101" education. This much I do know: They do not think like us; they generally seem to have less of an education then we do; they believe and believe in bushco and they like koolaid.... (Ok so the koolaid thing is snarky). Outside of this I know little else... I am aware that this is quite off topic but it is relevant to me as I was about to offer up my own views on your topic, views which likely stem from my own ignorance. Maybe there was a thread on this which I may have missed. (I would have bookmarked it for sure if I had seen it).
ps: to Mods: thanks for the "insulation", I have seen what trolls can do to a forum, what they did to the Jon Conyers blog was outrageous.

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. Or if not less education, certainly INFERIOR education

probably rather a few of them do have advanced degrees, but I think they tend to view education as a tool, something with which to get and do a job, and not something to be valued in and of itself. Probably why there are so few freeper artists. At least, of any value.

And certainly we have many very well educated conservative people: doctors, lawyers, etc.; but I would bet money that the number of these people who are freepers is very low. Conservative, yes. But Reader's Digest ignorant-style freepers, no; and I'm sure very few of them would write in the style of writing we're talking about here.

Beyond that, I'm not really sure how to answer your questions.

Perhaps over time, after you see more and more posts by trolls, you begin to see the pattern of how they communicate. Most times, they out themselves quickly because all they want to do is make a freeper point and get tombstoned, so they don't try to hide who they are.

But sometimes we get the ones who try to be subtle and act like a liberal, such as the person whose text I posted in my original post, but don't really have the language down, and so are rather obvious, kinda like the guy who wears a clip-on tie and a short sleeve shirt to a formal dinner thinking no one will notice, but everyone does.

Like anything, it just takes practice, and after a while, you'll get a hang of identifying them fairly quickly and well.

[antigone382]

18. They try to make liberals appear weak and easily offended.

This is the reaction she was going for:

"Yes, that was a HORRIBLE thing for that waiter to do! He shouldn't be allowed to have a watch like that on where people can see it! It could hurt somebody's FEELINGS!"

They're masters at projection, you see, and because THEY can't tolerate the public expression of any views that differ from their own (e.g. protesting the war, which they claim is aiding and abetting the enemy, and thus deserving of prosecution), they assume that we can't either. They base this notion on the liberal support of separation of church and state, among other things...see, they can't grasp the difference between *individual* expression (a preacher reading the ten commandments on a street corner) and public, *official* expression (a courtroom displaying the ten commandments). If we support limitations on the latter, we must support limitations on the former...and they'll try to get us to admit to that, as this person did. However, since we have logic on our side, it isn't very difficult to beat them at this game.

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. LOL! Another good point - lack of logic and projection!

And an obvious and utter lack of understanding of what we're actually doing.

[abbeyco]

20. Lack of sentence and paragraph structure

I'll be honest that after having read some Freeptard posts, I have an urge to get out a red pen and mark my monitor!

They run-on their sentences and paragraphs, not understanding where a logical break should occur. I believe that they get all caught up in their thoughts and just do an immediate dump of that thought, regardless of how it should be presented in a clear, logical manner.

Punctuation and spelling - please don't get me started. Spell check was invented for a reason, and it's a hugh mistake to not use it when making a public post.

Please, pick out the freeper usual mistake....dare ya!!!

[Redstone]

25. Which "usual freeper mistake" do you mean? A specific word that's

misspelled, or a particular prase, or what?

I'm real interested in hearing what you mean, because I can pick out seven or eight troll-alert triggers in the message, but if you have one that I don't, I'd like to add it to my arsenal.

Redstone

[abbeyco]

28. A specific word.....

the 'hugh mistake'...instead of huge mistake. It's been a long-running joke here.

Read some of the subjects that something is hugh! it's series!!!11
instead of being huge and serious.

[Redstone]

31. Oh, I didn't know you meant to find the mistake in YOUR post;

I though you were referring to a word in the post under discussion.

I'm pretty oblivious in general, but I did pick up on the "hugh" and "moran" references pretty quickly after joining DU.

Redstone

[abbeyco]

33. No worries....

I just thought it would be fun to put a freeper word in my post.

Sorry for any confusion....and glad you're getting in the 'know' about all of the freep-isms!

[Redstone]

35. Especially this big freep-ism of the message style in the OP. I'd bet that

if I had a day to spend with Google, I could find the "formula" used to produce that kind of message. We've seen SO many of them and they sound SO alike, that there MUST be a source.

And I have $100 that says the source in somewhere in the RNC; someone there came up with a "tutorial" or "template" for writing this dreck, with variations for use as an LTTE, discussion-board post, and so on.

Someday, one of us will find it.

Redstone

[Lautremont]

45. I do recall reading (probably on DU) about some kind of

LTTE template devised by some rw mucky-mucks. The resulting letters, particularly if mixed with a personality not predisposed to fancy book learnin', would look quite a bit like the sort of thing being discussed in this thread.

[Redstone]

22. I think it being too glib and pat sets off our radar, plus what NSMA said

upthread. Her descriptive phrase is terrific.

Redstone

[Dastard Stepchild]

24. I just look for the words "fag" or "commie"...

It's the simplest way.

But yes, that little story did read like the beginnings of a freep tale. It tends to be the way in which the words pour out with this subliminal "explanation" tone to them. The sentences all feel as though they are being offered up to answer to a question that no one has really asked.

Example:
"It was an nice place, with pretty good food for the value, so I can't complain about that. The problem was my waiter. To be perfectly honest with you, he wasn't rude or anything. He did his job the way it was supposed to be done, but it was what he was wearing."

[Redstone]

30. It does seem to have an almost poetic meter, doesn't it; if you broke out

the phrases that are positive, negative, exculpatory, and so on, I bet you could find a pattern.. almmost like the pattern for a Shakespearean sonnet.

There's a formula behind this kind of writing. I am positive of that. We've seen too many examples of this exact "look and feel" for it to be a coincidence.

Redstone

[Sanity Claws]

26. The style is very ego-centric

The written passage seems to be shouting look at ME, ME, ME. It's about her lunch, her this, her that. She makes no effort to edit her message to make it more universal or interesting. RW politics is the same; it's all about me, as opposed to what is good for the whole or for others.

[SIU_Blue]

34. Here's another example...

"First of all, I can't understand how this guy (who was about 30), who was clearly not rich, could idolize Reagan. But that's besides the point."

Whoever said they answer questions that haven't been asked was right on point.

How old was the guy?
Did he appear rich or poor?
How could he idolize Reagan?

No one asked because it's not relevant to the story, as noted by the author in the very next, if gramatically incorrect, sentence.

I think she puts it best.

"But that's besides the point."

[Redstone]

36. "Damning with faint praise" pops up with unnatural frequency:

It was an nice place, with pretty good food for the value, so I can't complain about that

he wasn't rude or anything. He did his job the way it was supposed to be done,

Is it just me, or is this an essential element is the "nice-folks" freeper writing formula?

Maybe it woudn't be a bad idea to have a DU Group about this, where people could bring in examples for deconstruction? That there would be a hell of an educatonal tool, in the "know thy enemy" sense.

Redstone

[TroubleMan]

37. They're fishing.

They're putting that little hook out there, to see if anyone will bite. Also, you can notice the "frame of reference." They act like how they think liberals should be....whiny....not how we really are. Who the hell would care if somebody was wearing a reagan watch?

Also, there's a punitive tone in that post. Generally conservatives are more punitive in nature that liberals. They're "eye for an eye" and we're more "turn the other cheek." Not always, but we wouldn't think of reporting somebody just over a reagan watch. We would probably just have a little chuckle or sigh over it. This is interesting because many conservatives say "liberals want to take this....liberals want to take that," ect. Once again putting us in their distorted frame of reference.

However, we shouldn't get cocky. There are some pathetic individuals who are dedicated to trolling and disrupting. Apparently some of them are very good, and devote hours of their time just to disrupting here. Pretty fucking pathetic, but oh well.

Also, to be fair, there's no way I could go over to freeper land and try to act like a repug. First not only would I stand out like this person (or even worse), but why fucking bother? Let them have their own little echo chamber if they want. It's not worth my time...but anyway I wouldn't be able to go over there either.

[Redstone]

39. You raise an important point: Why is it so important to them to try to

"infiltrate" sites like DU,especially given the the amount of work they'll put out to do so? They crow about this incessantly in their sites.

Yet, if you tried to rally DUers to sneak into the RW sites, with "stealth" posts, you'd be laughed off the board?

That's the dichotomy that strikes me. Dozens of RW boards have sections devoted to "DU obsession." However, there is not ONE section of DU devoted to the same stalking of any RW site.

I guess we're just better people than they are, after all.

Redstone

[TroubleMan]

40. It's like the kid who takes his ball and goes home

when he loses. They don't want us to have our fun, too. Also, it's intolerance of other people in general. They don't want gays to get married, even though it would have no adverse effect on their lives at all. In the same way, whatever goes on here really never effects them, but they just can't stand diversity and other ways of thought. Of course they'll say that we don't let right wing points of view on DU, but they've got their little group and we've got ours. We don't bother your fun (if you can call it that)...leave us the fuck alone.

[DS1]

38. It's always a

" I can't believe I had to sit down and write down why everyone else isn't doing something about this" approach.

And they have a canned set of indirectly expressing disgust like "Imagine my surprise when I found out"...

[Democrats_win]

41. Is the content "liberal baiting?"

This fiction contained Freeper stereotypes such as liberals:

1. have relatives who died of AIDS. In fact liberals and conservatives have had relatives who have died of AIDS.

2. are victims. The AIDS mother blames RR for her son's death. For an individual to make this connection is illogical; however, it is a fact that RR failed to lead in a crisis just as bush would fail NO twenty years later. Freepers won't admit that conservative leadership is an oxymoron.

3. want to control people. This is true; however, we just want to control irresponsible people. What the Freeper failed to mention was that the waiter had dirt on his hands and didn't wash his hands before serving the meal and like all conservatives, the author only presented half the story. The waiter not washing is what the "lady who lunched" was discussing.

[Dangerously Amused]

42. Excellent points being made here.

And this is a subject that has been sitting on the back burner for too long.

I don't know how to describe it better than others here have, but for me I would characterize the RW stealth "situational" posts as just too... contrived. And a little too... chummy. You know? Like bad acting in a small community play, where people are so self-conscious that everything they say or do comes off flat and cartoonish. Like someone else said, they are trying to imagine what it would be like to be and write as a "liberal." But the type of mind which is fascinated with the idea of infiltrating a liberal website is also the type of mind that is susceptible to unmitigated bias, misconceptions and propaganda. So when they try to "act" like us, it comes off as... well, contrived. And sort of larger than life.

I think that happens also because they have to construct the post backwards. That is, they start out with a goal of wanting to "persuade" the reader into agreeing with a certain point, and in order to get the reader there they "balance" all the "facts" just so.

Another couple of things tipped me off (even though, yes, I toyed with her a little, too).

First of all, she was supposedly a newbie, as I recall with a pretty low post count. Newbies generally don't walk right in and start up assertive threads (where they are pissed about something and want you to agree).

Also, for someone who so "into" politics and savvy enough to join a website like DU, and assertive enough to walk right in and start up a discussion... she sure didn't know jack about the First Amendment. And that rang pretty hollow for me.

[XemaSab]

43. I was having a chat with my mom tonight

about the difference between the freep site and DU, and I think the biggest difference is that freep doesn't really allow people to make OP's with their own opinions, or if you do it's generally labelled "vanity post" (whatever that means!), while at DU we're all allowed to post whatever we want. Some OP's are lame, and some are brilliant, but we're encouraged to give our ideas wing, and let them sink or swim on their own merits.

The way posts are sorted at DU is conducive to fruitful discussion and debate, and not the endless fawning "pings" and "hoo yeahs" that the other site considers constructive and meaningful posts.

I think it's a symptom of the conservative wish to stifle individual expression, and I think the OP here is a good example of this.

Reagan's an asshat, but if I saw a waiter wearing a Reagan watch, I'd either assume it was irony or roll my eyes once and think nothing more about it. But either way, the dude can wear whatever he wants, and it's not really my business in that situation to question that.

The siimilarity between the troll barf and the freep mentality is in questioning someone else's RIGHT to self-expression.

And that's the giveaway.

[Ellen Forradalom]

44. It shares a lot of traits with gossip

which is why it's emotionally manipulative.

It's told as if confiding a secret. The story is built up emotionally, not factually. It passes a strong judgement.

It's all about so-and-so was harmed by such-and-such and what do you all think I should do?

[Lautremont]

46. There's often an autodidactic quality to their writing,

like when cops get all "I observed the individual operating the motor vehicle in an unsafe manner..."

But freepers are autodidacts who nevertheless couldn't manage better than an F.

[Der Blaue Engel]

47. I'll tell you where else I've seen this style before

Urban legends. I can see an urban legend coming from a mile away, because they use this same (poor) story-telling kind of language in an attempt to force some kind of immediacy and intimacy onto a story someone else has fed them...it's always someone's friend to whom the "outrageous" event happened, perhaps because they feel absolved from lying by making the lie secondhand.

I've also seen it from trolls of other types; on a chat list for bisexual women we used to get regular trolls who were obviously male. They would immediately begin by trying to be overly familiar and give "too much information" and then they would concoct stories of their supposed unusual sexual adventures to try to get similar responses.

The big mistake all of these "writers" make is in assuming their audience is stupid. They attempt to write in a fashion they presume their audience would write, giving away that they have no respect for their audience at all.

And because of my experiences on the women-only list, I suspect that this tell-tale style is most often a man trying to write like a woman, thinking that his "gullible" audience will find a woman more believable, and attributing even greater stupidity to his invented female persona.

[lakemonster11]

48. I remember reading that post.

I'll admit it didn't occur to me that she was a freeper, but I did think it was bizarre and badly written. I couldn't understand why anyone would care that someone was wearing a Reagan watch (and honestly, I would probably assume that a *waiter* wearing one was wearing it for camp value). I also couldn't figure out what that had to do with her friend who had a brother who died of AIDS. (Well, I guess I understood it, but it seemed like a weird thing to get all worked up about). I stumbled through the first few posts ("Is it legal?" seemed particularly weird and out-of-place, not to mention crazy) to try to get the gist of the thread, and finally ditched it out of frustration over the incoherence of the story.

So she got tombstoned, huh? Interesting.

P.S. Has anyone noticed that "freeper" is in the DU dictionary (in other words, isn't counted as misspelled by the spell-checker), but "tombstoned" isn't? :)

[slay]

49. "Emotionally manipulative"

Good call. I've noticed most of the conservative windbags do this to try to get people rilled up since people tend to think less clearly when they are emotionally involved in a topic. Many conservatives also tend to rant in a pissed off fashion, covering lots of emotion, but very little actual information. Just my two cents. :)

*edited for spelling

[IntravenousDemilo]

50. So what was the big giveaway?

I remember the thread from the other day and I didn't really think anything of it. I didn't suspect that she (or he, who knows?) was on a fishing expedition, but it's to the credit of the people who responded that they didn't take the bait. Just now I tried a search with Reagan+watch and nothing came up; I wanted to see what the final clue was that got her/him tombstoned.

One thing I've noticed is that we're a little freer with profanity. That's strictly a no-no over there. Your garden-variety Freeper wouldn't say "fuck" if his mouth was full of it. It's not exactly a dead giveaway, because some DUers don't use profanity either, but still.

Just to change the subject a little bit, when I'm flipping through the channels and I have the volume down on my TV, I can always tell if the talking heads are fundie talking heads. There's this intense, John Roberts expression in their eyes, and they're always showing teeth, but the smile seems rehearsed and insincere. And their plastic hair, even on the guys...

I also notice that it's sometimes hard to tell if a man is gay or just very religious when I'm talking to him, since both seem to speak more precisely than straight, non-religious men. There was this guy at the hospital who I could have sworn was gay, but when I went down to the mailroom where he worked (he worked solo), he had this religious AM station blaring away and I found out he was not only a Jew-turned-Christian, but also quite anti-gay. Heated discussions ensued, because we both liked arguing.

Sometimes it's hard for me to peg someone. Or maybe my gaydar AND my freepdar are both faulty.

[lakemonster11]

51. re: profanity

I think you're right (at least in general). One thing I did notice about the post even when I first read it was that her use of "balls" seemed awkward and out-of-place. Maybe not technically profanity, but it's along the same lines.

Of course, sometimes awkward use of profanity just means someone is very young or isn't a native English speaker.

[ghostsofgiants]

52. How's this for a comparison?

Taken from a "discussion" I had on another message board...

Freeper-type:

Well I'll take it a step further ApeFace....Fullbright...Wallace...Gore Sr. LBJ...what do they have in common? All Dims...and all racist.


There is no "thinking" the MSM is "Liberal"...everyone with a two functioning brain cells already KNOWS it's Liberal. What's funny is that you're too stupid to realize it.

From forged and fake doccuments ginned up at Kinko's by See BS to the overblown and false reporting during Katrina...it's all got a lefty slant to it. If you ever left that echo chamber known as the DUmp you might realize this.

BTW...all this BS you're saying...I guess you can link to credible sources to back it up right?

*hint* RawStory and AlerterNet.org are NOT legit sources to the real world.

You're still stuck on the DSM? How does it feel to be Stuck on Stupid?

Face it...all of the Pavlovian salivating you jerkwads do at the DUmp over the next *-gate has gotten you squat.

You all are collectively Charlie Brown trying to kick that football that Lucy keeps pulling away from you at the last minute.

I'll have fun with my mole account over there on election night watching all of you go into a collective meltdown when you lose yet again.

It will be better than election night 2004.

My response:

Name calling, real mature.

Okay, for starters, my first paragraph, if you had actually READ it, was to point out that bringing up Byrd's KKK history in an attempt to paint liberals as racist (really, that's the only reason to bring him up in this context) is a smear tactic and an ironic one, at that. Rather than bringing facts to the argument, you bring smear tactics and name calling.

As for the rest of my post:
My war on drugs coimment is based on the fact that it started in 1971 under Nixon and guess what? There are still lots and lots of drug-related activity happening in the United States.

The comment on banning gay marriage is based on my opinion. (A leftist opinion, which you'd think you'd hear constantly since the media and its cohorts are so damn liberal).

As for the Downing Street Memo, that is a legitimate document.
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html)

Add to that quotes like "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1053801479971.html?oneclick=true)

And...

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan,' and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with '"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1175070,00.html)

And...

"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
(http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm)

Then you take into account that the two main reasons for going to war: Weapons of mass destruction and Iraq ties to 9/11 and involvement in Al-Qaeda were false, it's pretty easy to conclude that intelligence and facts actually WERE being fixed around the policy and they knew that what they were saying was a distortion or an outright fabrication.
(WMD: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169941.stm; Al-Qaeda ties: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)

What's ironic is how you mention "forged and fake documents". The irony being that some of the evidence given that Saddam had WMD was, in fact, a forged document. "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3051709.stm)

Th major difference of course, being that any false documents used by Dan Rather were in relation to Bush's past in the National Guard (which was irrelevant and shouldn't have been an issue during the election anyway, in my opinion) whereas THESE false documents helped start a WAR.

And an increase in terrorism? I think going from 175 to 650 significant attacks from 2003 to 2004 would constitute an increase. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7643286/)

Guantanamo Bay:
"Said Abaseen is a taxi driver from the Afghan capital, Kabul.

He set out on an ordinary day's work last July - and ended up in Cuba, 15,000 kilometres (9,300 miles) from home.

He was held at Guantanamo Bay for nine months, before being classified as of low intelligence value and sent back to Kabul in March - part of the first substantial group to be set free.

He was never charged and still does not know why he was arrested.

Nobody knows exactly who is being held, but the US Government says there are roughly 660 people currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, from over 40 countries."
{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3034697.stm)

And one last thing: Notice how I didn't call you a name once during this post? It's called maturity, give it a shot some time.

A different style than your example I think, but an interesting contrast nonetheless.

[Iris]

53. "Is it even legal for him to be expressing his views while dealing

with the public?"

this says it all.

And, no, not according to Banality or O'Really.

And I realize this is thread is about writing style - but I believe this post is about writing style. One should FIND OUT if this "is even legal" before posting such tripe. Writing is about more than just punctuation and word choice. It's also about thinking, organization, research, hell, even some logic, which freepers seem to think they're so good at.