Be WARY of DU'ers telling you to Be WARY of our Democrats.

[bling bling]

Unless you enjoy being dumbed down. In that case, go nuts. But seriously, if you care about not looking foolish, be WARY.

It doesn't take a whole lot on your part. Just use google. Take 1 minute to try and validate the information. Or at least have a look down the thread to see if someone else already did it before you jump on the OP's bandwagon.

This is always the best course of action. But this is ESPECIALLY necessary when people here start alarming threads meant to make OUR elected Democrats look bad. 99 times out of 100 the OP is debunked. Don't just take my word for it. Put these posts to the test see for yourself how often the critical OP is wrong.

There's no downside to taking the extra step to validate what mr. or ms. anonymous tell you on this board. Just because they know how to type well enough to register to this website doesn't make them automatically credible.

Don't be a sucker.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. And Examine Voting Records!

Read the voting record of your favorite candidate. Pay attention to what they've actually done - it's a much better predictor than what they SAY they'll do,

[bvar22]

35. Voting records alone are not a good indicator.

Voting records alone can be misleading. Most congressional votes are meaningless. Once an issue is decided (more than 50%), the votes are throw aways and legislators are free to vote red meat for the fools back home while still scooping up the $money$ from Big Business (see CAFTA).

They can also vote to end cloture on a sure thing and then against the bill on the floor making it appear they are against a certain issue while actually ensuring its passage.

Vote Swapping is a fact of life in DC and State Houses. It is a way of keeping the Corporate sponsors (large single source contributions) happy while occasionally casting the unexplainable vote which tumbles an issue. ("You vote for it this time. I'll vote for it the next time").

Voting records should be used in combination with other values.
*Weight must be assigned to how important a particular vote was.

*Is that vote absolutely consistent with their campaign promises and public stands on particular issues? A single aberration should raise serious warning flags. (Ex: Campaigning on Ending the War and voting to fund it, or campaigning on CHOICE and then approving an anti-choice Justice).

*How strongly was the issue argued from the floor?

*Was this person a member of a coalition supporting the cause?

*Did this person use Media and other Public resources to support (or oppose) the issue?

*Did they reverse their committee vote?

*Did they vote for it before they voted against it?

Be Wary (snark) of Democrats touting their voting records.

[cosmicdot]

57. and contributions and other info at opensecrets.org

is helpful ... see

who's giving to 'the party of the people'? http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/
what industries?
which corporations?

look up by industry

lobbyists
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

i.e,
insurance
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

commercial banks
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

pharmaceuticals/health products
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

oil & gas
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01

securities & investments
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07


Chris Dodd

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000581&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00000581&cycle=2008


Hillary Clinton

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Joe Biden

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00001669&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00001669&cycle=2008

Mike Gravel

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00007982&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00007982&cycle=2008

Barack Obama

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Dennis Kucinich

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2008

Bill Richardson

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00024821&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00024821&cycle=2008

John Edwards

Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
Top Industries
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. Are you saying there are people out there that would

intentionally deceive us? Say it isn't so...

[Jim Sagle]

4. It isn't so.

;)

[ClassWarrior]

3. Amen to sensibility.

And to the power of good knowledge.

K&R

NGU.

[MissMarple]

5. I ignore those posts.

God/dess alone knows who they are.

[LibertyorDeath]

6. Thanx bling bling

Been on DU for 5 years & one thing I know is their are some very sophisticated trolls/freepers here

I know that's an oxyMorAn but true non the less.

Thanks for the reminder.

To all the trolls and freepTards reeding this

FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY you are PARASITES ON HUMANITY!!!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rosesaylavee]

51. Welcome to DU!

I think our friend upthread was joking with you...

Nonetheless, I hope you enjoy participating and not just lurking now. :hi:

[Blashyrkh]

53. Not how I took it.

But thanks nonetheless.

[snot]

7. It's a good reminder to be wary of ALL posts that don't cite . . .

their source authority. Even well-intentioned DU'ers sometimes post "news" that's really a mis-interpretation; I just got burned forwarding something to others that was posted by a great DU'er who had misinterpreted info he'd received by from another well-intentioned source.

Posts that include authority at least make it easier for others to evaluate and cross-check it.

[joshcryer]

9. And when they do cite it, try your best to find it.

If you can't find the citation or you cannot access it, then don't use it. Only use source material that others can readily acquire and can be easily shared, otherwise you're in trouble. "Radical" sites like to spread disinformation, as much as it is painful to admit.

[snot]

56. Actually, that raises an interesting related issue --

something I've seen many times. A presumably reliable source, such as the gummint, or the New York Times, "scrubs" a piece -- not, it seems, because it was inaccurate, but because it was incriminating. (Meaning, either the piece is deleted completely, or the piece is left on-line but the incriminating portions are excised. I actually have good records re- a NYT article that, the morning after the 2004 elections, contained a few lines about the mysterious VNS "crash" that occurred in the middle of the nite around the time of the weird, 6-point swing from Kerry to Bush -- but a few days later, the article was still there at the same URL but those lines were gone. I also saw lots of scrubbing of gov't info during the Katrina aftermath.)

The lesson of which I've taken to be, if you're the poster, even though we're not supposed to POST an entire article, I would certainly SAVE a record of the entire article with source, date, URL, etc., in case it's later deleted or altered for one reason or another.

And if you're not the original poster and discover that a cited source is missing or doesn't say what the OP'r thought it said, it would be good to contact the OP'r to try to confirm what happened. If they misinterpreted, they should know; if the page was scrubbed, we should know.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gipper66]

12. no cite, no credibility

[BlooInBloo]

13. That's how I roll - it's funny tho how commonly I'll be like the 20th poster, but...

... the first to ask for a link.

[uppityperson]

11. kick to mark to read later.

for the fun of seeing who replied with what.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I've always done the "Back my shit up" informational posts.......

In fact, I feel guilty when I don't cite sources....multiple ones at that!

Sample:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3181888&mesg_id=3184763

In particular when folks are challenging a position or a candidate I support, I'll gladly take on the task.....cause at the end of the day, facts are everything.....while popular mythology loses!

[WilliamPitt]

15. I'm concerned about your concern about wariness.

...pzzzzzzzzzzzzzcheeeezzzzz...

;)

:toast: :toast:

[FrenchieCat]

16. I don't see a link to go with your......

...pzzzzzzzzzzzzzcheeeezzzzz...

http://www.google.com/search?q=pzzzzzzzzzzzzzcheeeezzzzz&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

[progressoid]

18. Be wary wary...

[Lasher]

23. There's something scwewy awound here.

Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting old wawyers.

[progressoid]

34. Yikes, your Elmer isn't so adorable.

He looks like he'd shoot you in the face.

[Breeze54]

19. Isn't it a rule/standard to cite your source

when posting on any messageboard?

I've always thought so and done so. ;)

And who are 'our' Dems?? :shrug:

[bling bling]

20. What do you mean who?

Do you want me to list them all out or??? The Democrats in Congress and in the Senate. The people we elect to represent us. The people on our team. Our team being the Democratic team.

I'm not saying don't criticize. But if you see a thread where the OP has the intention of swaying others opinions AGAINST a/our/the Democrat, be wary. That's all I'm saying. Check the source. Try to validate the criticism because it's often criticism based on erroneous data, intentionally misleading snippets or out-of-context quotes, or criticism based on facts the author simply pulls out of his/her ass.

And it's not a rule to cite your sources but I think the more reliable and credible posters around here generally either post links to back up their statements or take the time to find links instead of making everyone else do their work for them. It's irritating how commonplace it's become around here for OP's to state erroneous, unfair accusations about our/the/a Democrat and leave it up to one or two DU'ers to do the work of researching and providing links to rebut the accusation. By that time 3 dozen people have read the OP and happily just believe whatever the OP says and don't even notice if someone has debunked it.

[Breeze54]

39. There are quite a few rules on DU about citing sources ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum.
When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs)
with a link back to the original.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Restrictions on Linking to Other Websites

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites.
While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance.
Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore
not welcome here.

Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites

Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided
that they are doing so in the proper context.

Copyright

Copyright issues and Bandwidth Theft

Do not post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief
excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three
or four paragraphs.

Wherever possible, please make an effort to link directly to the original source of an article,
instead of linking to sites that have re-published someone else's content.

--------------------

To answer your other comment to my comment:

No, you don't have to list all the elected Democratic reps. but sarcasm duly noted.
I just don't think of all the elected Dems as 'our' Dems. Not all of them represent
me or my pov and I probably wouldn't have voted for them. It sounded like you meant
that we should always support them and not critisize them just because they are Dems
and I don't agree with that. Thanks for clarifying. ;)

[Lars39]

54. People used to be more insistent on having links to back up statements.

It's part of what has made DU a powerful source for news, and enabled many awesome threads that connected the dots.

[hfojvt]

21. I would stay away from the paranoia though

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt

Two questions
a) Is that post a slam at Democrats?

Some people seemed to take it that way. Who knows, there may have been a swipe or two as I meandered towards my point. Progressives are not always happy with 'our' Democrats. Sometimes, like Gravel with his tax plan, they propose some things or vote in ways (IWR anybody?) that are not all that progressive.

b) Is it accurate?

"I just love how being a Senator is called 'public service'. It is fairly well rewarded public service IMO. Biden has been in the Senate since 1973 and his salary for those 34 years totals $3.4 million. Senators only made $42,500 in 1973. Still that was more than 60% of households at the time."

That, and other numbers and conclusions are reached, without citing sources. Does that automatically mean they are suspect? Much less wrong? Sometimes I am not gonna have a link. I will pull data from the SAUS (Statistical Abstract of the US) sitting beside me before I will google. I have some economic facts stored on my computer from past research, like, for example, the quintile threshholds for various years showing that about 60% of households made less than $42,500 in 1973. There simply are not always gonna be links. If I suspect something is wrong I can do my own research to debunk it before I ask for a link. But we all have a tendency to not suspect things which fit the way we think.

[avrdream]

22. Hey, thanks.

I'm new to posting at DU and have really struggled with some of the "Wary" type threads. Even if it is a candidate who I won't be voting for, I would still like to see FACTS instead of individual opinions. One of the reasons I began posting here is that I believe that this is a very intelligent community and I've been impressed with how so many back up their views with facts. That is what has made some of these threads frustrating - the sometimes not very subtle jabs at candidates for no more than just a dislike of a personal attribute. We Democrats need to be much better than that.

Thanks for letting me express myself.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Welcome to DU, avrdream!

It's nice to have you here!:hi:

[Matsubara]

25. Do the ones who are bought and paid for by corporations count as "OUR" Democrats?

Not that I'm naming names. I know the thread you're alluding to was about Obama, and I have no specific beef with him.

But let's be honest. We belong to a party that is seriously compromised by corporate influence, and that's before you factor in the DLC Republicanoid-crats.

When exactly IS IT okay to criticize a democrat, when so many of them are actively working with corporate America to dismantle the last vestiges of the New Deal & Great Society?

Or is it still okay to believe in those musty "old democrat" ideals?

[deutsey]

27. Thoughtcriminal!

:evilgrin:

[bling bling]

29. By all means, enlighten us with knowledge. Just make it factual.

I don't know how to say it more diplomatically than this, but there are truly a lot of people here walking around parroting stuff they read on DU as though it were fact and they look ridiculous. People who encourage others not to vote for the DLC'ers like Obama, for example. Obama isn't in the DLC, never was. It's just stupid. And people look stupid when they milk it up and repeat it.

If you want to criticize Democrats, be my guest. I welcome the opportunity to learn something from you. Please just keep it real. Because I will be verifying the information and my OP is encouraging others to do the same before we jump on board with you.

I would simply like to raise the standards around here because the bar has dropped down into the gutter and it's almost a joke. We need to clean the house and pressure people to arm themselves with information before spreading lies about our own team.

I don't think it's too much to ask.

[Matsubara]

30. I didn't call Obama anything.

And as I said, it's more than just a DLC problem.

Example: Joe Biden, who has taken hundreds of thousands from MBNA & other predatory lenders, whose son got a plum retainer for MBNA right out of school - voted for the credit industry's pet bankruptcy bill. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about.

But again, I have no specific beef with Obama and made that clear at the get-go.

[bling bling]

43. Ok.

I don't know why you're taking the general statements I'm making so personally. I wasn't accusing you of anything, just using an example that I see here all the time to try and clarify my OP for you.

[iamthebandfanman]

45. indeed

and its been corrupted for a long time.
its really unfortunate that both parties are almost equally as corrupt when it comes to dealing with corporations and bending over for them. its sad.

im starting to think workers will never get their rights back. if they really ever had any to begin with.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Great post, bling bling! I agree wholeheartedly!

:hi:

[DinahMoeHum]

28. Remember, when all is said and done, the worst Democrat. . .

among the current crop of POTUS candidates is a THOUSAND TIMES BETTER than the best Republican.

:kick:

[Laurab]

31. Kicked and Recommended. At the very least READ responses

to a post. I can't tell you how many times I've seen something debunked in a response, and people just continue posting away, never reading the responses already posted.

[porphyrian]

32. And be wary of DUers telling you to be wary of Duers.

And be wary of those people, too.

[Individualist]

33. I'm wary

of anyone who encourages lockstep mentality and/or blind loyalty to the party. :thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

36. I'm wa'ry of DU'ers who use un'necessar'ry a'pos'trophe's.

:dunce:

[bvar22]

37. Agree!

All those hysterics, rabble rouses, and undercover freepers were just hurting the Democratic Party when they were constantly warning us to "Be Wary" of good Democrats like Joe Lieberman.
Guess they have egg on their faces now!

If its a Democrat, thats good enough for me!

/sarcasm

[bling bling]

44. Oh the drama. Give me a break.

That's not what my OP said. I'm calling for people to check the facts. I'm asking people not to just hop on the misinformation train without verifying what other posters say.

I'm asking people to be responsible for making sure the information they arm themselves with is factual and accurate. Just because a DU'er posts something is fact, doesn't mean it is. This is especially true on threads where the OP is criticizing an elected Democrat. Perhaps the information IS factual. If so, swell! I'm not saying don't criticize.

[Kurovski]

38. K&R. (nt)

[hockeygirl]

40. Trolls

It should be noted that the only way that conservatives can post on this site is by being sneaky. Openly stating conservative viewpoints will get you kicked off. This forum is for lefties only (check the rules). I am a liberal, but I post on Ann Coulter (trying to counter the insanity) and they don't kick me off (they flame me and call me a libtard). I am disappointed that a right wing website is more open to opposing viewpoints than we are. However, I don't know DUs reasoning for this position. Does anyone here know why DU does this? It is putting me in the mortifying position of having to agree with *Anne Coulterites* (shiver) that they are more tolerant than we are on this issue.

[uppityperson]

46. There are lots of websites that are open to everyone. Every website can make its own rules

Participation at DU is voluntary, and it has rules to help keep it what it is. There are lots of other websites where anyone and everyone can post whatever they want. Again, participation here is voluntary and most of us appreciate a place to be able to discuss things under these rules.

Here you go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html
Furthermore:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LSK]

41. K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x789111

[IronLionZion]

42. Be very wary of anyone who calls himself bling bling!!!

Very wary I say! Be wary!

Excellent point my friend. There are those among us who covertly want Republicans to win so they sow discord in our ranks and try to turn us against each other in rovian way. Don't be suckered into it.

I'm especially wary of those who say Dem policies are going to result in lots and lots of dead bodies without providing any evidence whatsoever. (Mike Gravel's tax plan)

[robinlynne]

48. excellent title. got it.

[AZBlue]

49. Ah, the importance of facts!!

Well-deserved reminder - thank you!!

[Cameron27]

52. Excellent post !

Facts, facts, facts...links, links, links....sources, sources, sources!

[Canuckistanian]

55. 'Our' democrats, is it now?

And what of 'other people's' democrats, hmmm?

Are they fair game?

Your favorite candidate SUCKS, man!

And I saw him/her driving a Hummer!