DKos Sockpuppet BUSTED!!!

[JuniperLea]

Snip...

Well, it turns out that at least one member of Rand Paul's paid campaign staff has been posing as a progressive member of the Daily Kos community in an effort to dampen enthusiasm for Conway's campaign and moneybomb. The staffer, Thomas Kubica, is a paid intern in Paul's Bowling Green office. Paul campaign's front desk confirmed Kubica's status as a paid intern on Tuesday morning.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/7/899749/-KY-Sen:-Rand-Paul-staffer-caught-posing-as-progressive-at-Daily-Kos

[NJmaverick]

1. I seriously doubt that isn't the only paid right wing sock puppet posing

as a liberal. I would also suggest there are a few supposed liberal bloggers on the GOP's payroll. I strongly suspect that FDL is being financed by the GOP. Nothing more destructive than a wolf in sheep's clothing redirecting anger at the Dems instead of the GOP, tea baggers and right wingers in general.

[JuniperLea]

7. FDL is crap

Perfect example.

[Whisp]

138. when the Hamster smiles her shit eating grin when saying the Democrats are losing popularity

you got to at least wonder what's up with That?

[Cha]

17. No way that's the only gop operative on a liberal

site..that's just the one who got Busted!

[aquart]

31. Could that statement be more ridiculous?

Heaven forfend Democrats don't march in lockstep LIKE Republicans which seems to be the standard you find acceptable.

[NJmaverick]

35. Well considering that FDL came up with the "cat food commission" which

is eerily similar to the "death panels", in their dishonest description of government actions, it's not hard to see the GOP subverting the Dems from within (and even using the same copy writers). You comments sound like the sort of defense that paid operative would have offered up.

[robdogbucky]

65. Please elaborate

What is it that you mean each time you trash FDL? This is another example. I don't think KOS is FDL, but you are linking the two. Now you are linking Cat Food Commission with FDL. What do you mean?

Why do you and your crew hate FDL so much?

Curious minds want to know.



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!





Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[NJmaverick]

71. FDL acts EXACTLY the same way and is just as destructive as the GOP operative at Daily Kos

The destruction that FDL inflicts on the Dems couldn't possibly be any worse and makes one wonder if they are on the GOP payroll. Oh and FDL coined the inaccurate "cat food commission" description.

[robdogbucky]

92. Well, wait

Is not the deficit commission known far and wide as the cat food commission? What is wrong with a little irony with it, after all it is readily transparent that the Simpson led committee sees to cut only entitlements to allegedly reduce deficit. I think it is a great way to use truth and sarcasm to point out the hypocrisy of such a transparent ploy to yet again seek entitlement cutbacks.

But back to your rants on Hamsher and FDL. Apparently you and your crew always point to her alleged alliance with Grover Norquist. You do know that their only concern in doing so appears to be the flushing out of Rahm Emanuel's activities when he headed Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae under Clinton, right?

Now, if you can stay on topic long enough without resorting to some posing or insults or allegedly witty one liners, what is wrong with exposing corruption, even when it is someone from the current administration? What do you think of the administration's refusal to disclose minutes of FM meetings when Emanuel was in charge? You do know that somewhat unclean hands were revealed regarding his activies and at least the use of agency funds for campaigning activities when Emanuel sought public office after his stint at FM, right?

So, again, why trash FDL, Jane Hamsher, just because she once agreed with the well-known right wing no-tax (at least no tax that effects him or his causes) nut, just to flush out corruption? Is it okay if it is a Democratic operative from this administration's inner circle that is corrupt? Why has AG Holder refused to respond to such documents requests made by the Chicago Tribune?

It seems that these would not be good Democratic or progressive values to espouse. I would like to know the answers to these questions and I'm not anyone's paid troll. I'm just a dumb Irish fisherman originally from Wisconsin that has always voted Democratic. It would seem that these concerns about Emanuel's actions are valid. Read and educate:


Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case
By Lorraine Woellert and John Gittelsohn - Jun 13, 2010 4:00 PM PT

The cost of fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that last year bought or guaranteed three-quarters of all U.S. home loans, will be at least $160 billion and could grow to as much as $1 trillion after the biggest bailout in American history.
Fannie and Freddie, now 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers, already have drawn $145 billion from an unlimited line of government credit granted to ensure that home buyers can get loans while the private housing-finance industry is moribund. That surpasses the amount spent on rescues of American International Group Inc., General Motors Co. or Citigroup Inc., which have begun repaying their debts.

“It is the mother of all bailouts,” said Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, who is now a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry.

Fannie, based in Washington, and Freddie in McLean, Virginia, own or guarantee 53 percent of the nation’s $10.7 trillion in residential mortgages, according to a June 10 Federal Reserve report. Millions of bad loans issued during the housing bubble remain on their books, and delinquencies continue to rise. How deep in the hole Fannie and Freddie go depends on unemployment, interest rates and other drivers of home prices, according to the companies and economists who study them.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-13/fannie-freddie-fix-expands-to-160-billion-with-worst-case-at-1-trillion.



Odd Couple Of Norquist, Hamsher Call For Investigation, Rahm's Resignation
Dec 23 2009, 4:12 PM ET

Grover Norquist and Jane Hamsher are not often on the same side of anything, beyond both usually being in the Western Hemisphere. Norquist is a leading voice of fiscal conservatism as head of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform; Hamsher is a leading voice of the digital left, whose blog Firedoglake has taken on influence in speaking up for progressives during the health care debate and in pressuring lawmakers through its activist arm, FDL Action.

But the two have united to level serious allegations at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and demand his resignation.

Hamsher and Norquist coauthored a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today calling for a Department of Justice investigation of Emanuel for his role on the board of Freddie Mac, alleging that the White House, since Emanuel arrived there, has blocked an investigation of the government-sponsored mortgage lender.

Emanuel served on Freddie Mac's board in 2000-2001, when he quit to run (successfully) for Congress. He has also recently sparked the ire of liberals like Hamsher after it was reported that he pushed for Senate Democratic leaders to compromise with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on health care reform and jettison an expansion of Medicare from the Senate bill.

See their letter below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/odd-couple-of-norquist-hamsher-call-for-investigation-rahms-resignation/32543/




So, again I ask, what is your crew's beef with FDL and Jane Hamsher, and what the hell do they have to do with DailyKos?




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[robdogbucky]

106. I'm still waiting.....

for you to respond;

"Now, if you can stay on topic long enough without resorting to some posing or insults or allegedly witty one liners, what is wrong with exposing corruption, even when it is someone from the current administration?"


rdb

[whatchamacallit]

72. Nonsensical

Wouldn't RW trolls be more likely to support the commission? Especially if the recommendations ultimately include cuts or privatization? Just sayin...

[JuniperLea]

74. Ever heard of a "concern troll?"

That's how it works.

[NJmaverick]

76. The GOP is known for dishonest descriptions like "death panels" so

your "nonsensical" comment could very well be a description of your claim (a handy all in one word). The idea that the same group that came up with the deceptive name "death panels" would have little problem penning the "cat food commission" name. What's even more "nonsensical" is your CLAIMS that you know what recommendations will be coming out of the commission.

[whatchamacallit]

84. The maverick doth protest too much, methinks

This topic has you in swarm mode...

[NJmaverick]

86. ????? Please explain

[whatchamacallit]

You just seem really wound up

that's all.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Which topic is that?

:shrug:

Off the subject- is that a picture of that brutish moon bombing, in your avatar, there?

[Cha]

89. It's not about the disingenuous meme of "marching in lockstep"..

it's about scare tactics for profit. Nobody wants a lockstep but honesty is a prerequisite.

[NJmaverick]

127. Very true

[Dems2002]

130. That's delusional

FDL does amazing work and is to the left of a lot of democratic sycophants because they didn't change their core ideas following the takeover of our entire government by democrats.

When are you going to learn that nothing is HANDED to the people. We have to fight, and right now we have to fight BOTH democrats and republicans if we don't want Obama continually supporting REPUBLICAN policies that all liberal economists as well as history prove are no good.

Hell, he wants to give tax credits to corporations to invest in technology that will TAKE AWAY jobs. Yeah, that's smart.

[JuniperLea]

134. Is that a Kool Aid mustache I see?

Here, let me get that for you...

[Dems2002]

153. huh?

Really? That's your argument?

[JuniperLea]

160. Seemed far more valid than yours, quite frankly... eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Trolls? On an internet message board?

Who could have ever suspected?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. LOL

[JuniperLea]

10. Shocking, I know!

But shining a light on cockroaches is ever so much fun:)

[DBoon]

20. stepping on them is even more fun

[leftstreet]

3. (lol)

:rofl:

[Quantess]

5. I wonder if Kubica has a DU account as well?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I wouldn't be surprised.

I could think of a couple dozen suspects.

[devilgrrl]

145. PM me with your list

Pretty please? :silly:

[NJmaverick]

22. That's a very good question

[johnaries]

53. I have no doubt he has at LEAST one. nt

[gratuitous]

6. Not uncommon

But these lying little sneaks aren't nearly as clever as they think they are. It's usually just a matter of time before they slip up badly, and the legitimate participants on a message board will expose them.

Note to sockpuppets here: We will find you. Why not try a little intellectual honesty for a change? After all, if you think you're so right, the awesome persuasive power of your argument should be able to stand on its own. Right?

[JuniperLea]

11. "awesome persuasive power of your argument"

That sums it up nicely.

When you must stoop to trickery, you have no convictions that hold water.

[devilgrrl]

147. +1

Good call. But here's the thing... they've been proven wrong time and time again... I can't think of one thing that they've EVER been right about.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. We've known they were crawling all over liberal sites, and they're reasonably organized. (nt)

[JuniperLea]

13. Sure we have...

InterTube Trolls are as old as the InterTubes themselves. I just like seeing them exposed:)

[MineralMan]

16. It's usually not too easy to expose them, though.

I mean we get the occasional right wing troll here who's obvious and gets a pizza delivered right away. But I have no doubt there are others who are more skilled and capable and who are careful not to be found out. It's a very difficult thing to discover in most cases.

For me, it's usually just a suspicion, and that's not enough. I don't run any discussion sites, anyhow, so I'd be in no position to out anyone in the first place.

If I had absolute proof, I'd forward it to the admins here, though.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. What's really sad is that FDL is an intersection that brings all these idiots together.

They fan out from there, and spread disease & mayhem throughout the intertubes. Hamsher has made her deal with the devil, and taken her 30 pieces of silver. What's highly comical, however, is that her most strident defenders think everyone else is 'corpora-fascist'.

[JuniperLea]

61. Tribal Bigotry 101

Hitler used it well...

[MineralMan]

12. I'm not at all surprised.

Anytime I see someone claiming to be a liberal or progressive who is trashing Democratic candidates or elected officials systematically and repeatedly online, my alarm bells go off. I have no way to determine whether such a person is legitimate or not, but it sure raises my suspicions. It's not an accusation I'd ever make against a particular individual, because it's impossible to know, but the suspicion is there sometimes.

There are a few cases on other sites than DU where I know that a person is posting on both a left-wing and right-wing site simultaneously, but that's a rare event, and I'm not a member of either site, so I have no voice there.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. I feel the same way about "prominent shit-stirrers" who spent years and 1000s of posts at right-wing...

....websites and then come here to stir the shit - even if said shit is stirred in favor of Dems. By "shit-stirrer" I mean people involved in board-wars and/or seem to post a lot on the "us versus them" threads.


edit: spellerin'

[MineralMan]

40. You misspelled websites.

You also failed to say whom you were talking about.

[NJmaverick]

51. Your compassion for the right wingnuts is duly noted

:puke:

[LostinVA]

64. +1

[MineralMan]

90. See post #48 and the subthread below it.

You can just come out and say it, you know. I tell people where I used to post until 2006 right in my profile. I joined DU in 2008. Same screen name I used on that other site. I stand on my posts here to identify my political position. I have almost 20,000 here. You're welcome to read them all if you have time.

[NorthCarolina]

161. Just because a politician puts a "D" after his name doesn't necessarily make him a Democrat

I believe that when you see Liberal/Progressive Democrats castigating Democrats, it is because they perceive the ConservaDems (ie Blue Dogs and DLC New Dems) as a detriment to the Democratic Party, and so they call them out. Just because someone is a Dem, it really doesn't mean that there must be total acceptance, and agreement with, any politician that puts a "D" after his name. The Dems have given the Liberals MUCH to be upset about. The concept is not too hard to fathom, and I think what is setting your bells off is reading posts from actual Liberals/Progressives expressing grave concern over what has happened to the Democratic Party, and calling out Conservative Democrats for their anti-Democratic principles.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Completely unrelated, but did you ever notice that in undercover cop movies....

the undercover cop is always the one to scream "Rat" loudest when the subject of undercover cops comes up?

:shrug:

[kenfrequed]

29. Sometimes...

I was thinking something similar. Still if they caught a staffer then they did. The people I suspect here tend to make it more about personality than policy, whether good or bad. A republican stealthing around is likely to make the same silly mistakes that haunt the authoritarian elements of their psyche and make it all big and nonsensical and absurdly shy on details.

For that matter some kind of stealth troll can come in all sizes. I am still absolutely convinced that some PR firms are farming out people to troll-patrol websites and curb or flex opinions of the politically active.

[Swamp Rat]

15. another G. Gordon Liddy spawn

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Wow...right wing operatives posing as "far left" with the goal of dampening enthusiasm

for Democratic candidates.

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of that going around.

Notice the language: "I'm sorry if trying to hold Democrats accountable irritates you."

Oh boy. Does that come out of the training sessions, because it sounds pretty rote, in my experience.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

21. yes it does

[MineralMan]

25. Indeed. Where have I heard that exact language before?

[Subdivisions]

27. So now all critics of Dems/Obama are sockpuppets working for the other side? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. You tell me

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. My keyboard & monitor hate you!

:spray:

[Subdivisions]

43. So, you think I'm a sock puppet? Please make your case. n/t

[MineralMan]

45. I don't believe any such suggestion was made.

[Subdivisions]

50. Yes it was:

"Yeah, there seems to be a lot of that going around.

Notice the language: "I'm sorry if trying to hold Democrats accountable irritates you."

Sounds like an implication to me. Just because someone criticizes the President or Democrats does not make them part of "there seems to be a lot of that going around".

[MineralMan]

56. How does that imply anything about you?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. I think, perhaps, you've confused me with someone else? Is this what

"grief & swarm" looks like? I didn't even address you, so nice try, but no cigar. :hi:

[Subdivisions]

42. What is that supposed to mean? Are you implying that I am a sockpuppet ?

If so, show me what I've done on this board that could serve as evidence that I am a sockpuppet.

Edited to add: Also, show me examples of me criticizing the President or Dems in general.

[MineralMan]

47. Goodness. I don't believe anyone implied any such thing.

How odd that you'd think that.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. Whether you're a counterfeit or the authentic item is of no interest to me

A fake grenade makes people run for the door as readily as a real one. The effects are the same.

You can sort out the fine distinctions on your own. Just know who you're getting into bed with, one way or the other.

[Whisp]

140. fail.

pull in your reel and give it up, son.

[MineralMan]

38. I don't think anyone said that. In fact, I'm quite sure nobody

said that. Except you, of course. Odd, that.

[Subdivisions]

44. Why is that odd? What are you implying? n/t

[MineralMan]

49. I don't imply things. I thought it was odd that you interpreted what

had been said in that way, since nobody said what you asked about. So, I said that seemed odd. I said what I thought. I thought it odd.

I do not imply things. If I want to say something, I simply say it, which I did in that reply. Please do not infer things from my direct statements. You'll be incorrect.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Not at all.

Just the vast majority of them. They've probably suckered a few people to dumb to know any better as well.

[Subdivisions]

46. Dumb? This coming from someone who spells "too" as "to"...

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. Meh, minor spelling errors are minor.

But obvious trolls will always be obvious.

LOL, u mad?

[Subdivisions]

73. No, I'm not mad. I was just ribbing you. n/t

[suzie]

79. Funny, on a different forum where both Democrats and Republicans post, I've never

seen a Dem call someone "dumb" over grammar.

Lots of Republicans doing so, however.

[Subdivisions]

83. . n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. LOL

That's because it's always a losing argument.

[LostinVA]

67. It is all through this thread and the other one

It is a blatant call out.

[Subdivisions]

70. And, suspiciously, using rethug tactics at that. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. ROFL

There there. There there.

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. "a blatant call out"

Just what part of all this discussion about GOP trolls are you taking personally?

[Bobbie Jo]

95. !

:spray:

[LoZoccolo]

98. BRO FIST

...........
...................__
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. ...

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. Dammit. There goes my second keyboard.

:spray:

[Number23]

135. Pull back! Pull back! You're KILLING them!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[JuniperLea]

136. Hahaha!

Perfect:)

[MineralMan]

91. If there's a call out, alert on it. That's simple enough.

[LostinVA]

96. Don't lecture me on the DU rules

[MineralMan]

104. Is that an order? Really?

If there's a call out, an alert is the answer. That's how DU works. As for the lecture, one sentence has never made up any lecture I've ever attended. A guy wouldn't learn much from that short of a lecture, I'd think. I made a statement, not a lecture. You will do as you see fit. I can't give any orders here, and neither can you. You post. I reply.

[Whisp]

141. I bet Sarah does some smashing one sentence lectures.

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

137. Oh the irony!

Only YOU can lecture! Harrumph!

:rofl:

Oh boy... reminds me of third grade:)

[blondeatlast]

133. Why would you make that conclusion? nt

[kenfrequed]

33. Right...

All progressives that come out for issues over personality and push specific policy must be secretly republican cyber trolls. Only the hard realistic democrats that are willing to buck the system and back people like Baachuss and Blanche Lincoln are the real, real, really real Democrats.

Yes, they caught a right wing Pat Buchanan style dirty cyber trickster. Good. But should this be applied against those of us that are active in the party in favor of the most progressive possible candidates at the caucus and primary level?

Maybe we can finally do away with all those crazy Dennis Kucinich backers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. If the "issues over personality progressives" don't see that they've helped..

create the current narrative of liberal despair, then you haven't been paying attention. I realize that not all "progressives" are Democrats, but this close to an election, they're not helpful. The constant negativity feeds on itself, and spreads to places like DU, which used to be sane. So yes, some of us view the constant posters of negativity & Dem trashing, with suspicion.

For all those who are "disillusioned" with Dems,...is this about punishing Democrats? Because the choices couldn't be more clear. With the primaries over, the choices are between Democrats & Republicans. So why would any "progressive" spend so much energy, on a left leaning message board, trying to suppress enthusiasm for the Democrats? And an even better question is, why would it be allowed? :shrug:

[GOTV]

58. Unless progressive cause some pain for not being offered a seat at the table ....

... you will have no incentive to ever offer a seat.

When progressives are not included in the process Democrats lose. That looks like the message that's coming in November.

The only question will be do the democrats get the message.

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. The problem is, there aren't enough self professed "progressives" to make the..

kind of impact they might think. Whether "progressives" like it or not, elections are won & lost with independents, and independents tend to be more conservative. The truth is, the extremes on both sides, scare the hell out of independents.

[Fumesucker]

87. Then it doesn't matter if "progressives" show up at the polls, does it?

You really can't have it both ways, either "progressives" don't count and can be safely ignored or they do count and should be catered to at least somewhat.

[Tarheel_Dem]

97. Weren't we talking about trolls? I'm sure that term doesn't apply to you. Right? (nt)

[Fumesucker]

99. I saw the term "progressives" in your post..

The same post was lacking the term "troll".

I was responding to what was actually in your post, which was basically saying that there are not enough "progressives" to count.

[Tarheel_Dem]

107. If I wasn't clear, I apologize. Let me clarify; for Dems to be victorious...

they need all hands on deck. What they don't need is the constant backbiting & circular firing squads that have become all too familiar, and get all the face time in the media.

My bigger point is that while self professed "progressives" are essential to Democratic victories, just like every other part of the base, they cannot elect their ideal candidate. Hell, they usually can't get above single digits in a primary. So while they make big noises on the internet, they can't actually convince the Democratic party that their ideas are better, so they pout and cast protest votes. It's a contest of wills between the ideologues, the pragmatists, and apparently the sock puppets from Operation Chaos.

[Fumesucker]

110. Pragmatism does not equal centrism.

And if you look at the history of the last thirty years you'll find that the progressives, aka Dirty Fucking Hippies, have been right about nearly everything and the center and most especially the right have been wrong about nearly everything.

And yet the right gets listened to and catered to endlessly while progressives are told to go away and STFU..

Is it really pragmatic to support policies that aren't going to help and may well hurt things just because they are "centrist"?

[Tarheel_Dem]

121. Elections are won in the middle. That's just a fact. Personally, you guys

should continue the fight. However, when it's become clear that we only have two choices, those being Republican or Democrat, it's time to stop the infighting, and defeat the Republican. I mean, isn't that what DU's here for?

I've seen a few threads locked recently for just that reason, and continuing to bash Democrats, on a democratic board, in an election season is just plain unhelpful, and wrong. Don't you see that? Now, if you're telling me that you honestly see no difference between the two parties, then by all means, follow your ideals. Just be prepared to live with the outcome.

Quite frankly, I'll vote for the Democrat over the Republican everytime. Call it "party loyalism", "party over principle", or whatever derogatory term you choose. But I don't sit out elections, I don't cast protest votes, and I see no need to broadcast to Republicans that I'm "disillusioned". I'm a Democrat, it's just in my DNA. :hi:

I think we've strayed pretty far from the subject of uncovering "sock puppets". I think it's called a hijack.

[Fumesucker]

122. If it was a hijack it was yours not mine..

And we _always_ have an election coming up so there's never really a good time for pushing for progressive policies.

[Tarheel_Dem]

123. .....

:rofl:

[GOTV]

143. Politics is the art of compromise. If you can't compromise with an essential sub group, you lose.

That's just poor politics.

It has been frustrating to watch the Obama admin work so hard to incorporate those who wish to see them fail while alternatively ignoring and insulting their natural allies.

If the Dems lose big this November I think we'll see a changed tone from Obama - much like when Bush fired Rumsfeld. Of course he will be significantly weakened at that point. The good thing is that the progressive should be rather easy to win back because results are not required only proper effort in the proper direction. If Obama looks like he's headed in the right direction I think progressives will be more than willing to help push. It's just unfortunate that there will much more lost ground since Obama was so slow to learn.

[kenfrequed]

162. Well...

Rahm Emmanuel seems to be on the verge of leaving to run for Mayor of Chicago, if that happens and there is a tone shift from the administration it might be enough to give some progressives hope.

If he chooses a chief of staff from somewhere outside the DLC/blue dog circles it would also lend at least the impression that he is more receptive to the left wing base of the party.

[DCBob]

146. +1

well said.

[GOTV]

88. Great! Then you have nothing to fear from them and their concerns can continue to be dismissed

... but I think there are enough to cause significant harm.

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. Oh, they can definitely cause harm, if that's their intent. And at this point,

that truly seems to be the intent. However, no one has been able to successfully argue that "progressives" would be better off under Republican rule? Why don't we ask the millions, who've had their unemployment benefits extended by this democratically controlled Congress & WH.

The people who argue on this board, day in and day out, that Democrats suck just as much Republicans, have lost all credibility with me. And yes, there's been a concerted effort to suppress participation in the midterms, by a group here. And threatening to cause "significant harm" to Democratic chances should be a banning offense, IMHO. It's talk like that which leads some of us to believe that the guy in the o.p. isn't the only sock.

Talk about cutting off one's nose. There are those among us who keep trying to convince us that there's no difference between the parties, and to them I say, you helped create an environment not long ago, that resulted in two wars, and an economy on the brink of collapse. :hi:

[GOTV]

117. If they can do some damage, and the Dems will not listen otherwise, what choice do they have?

No progressive thinks that they are better off under Republican rule but here is a line of reasoning that might allow one to hold off their vote for an election cycle or two:

1 - Dems will not allow progressives to influence legislation feeling there is no where else progressives can go.
2 - Progressives stay home or vote 3rd party causing big Republican gains
3 - Things get worse
4 - Progressive work hard to get progressive Dems elected
5 - Dems regain control of congress and now are more progressive remembering the great progressive uprising of 2010.
6 - Problems get fixed much more quickly because Dems govern more progressively

As opposed to

1 - Dems will not allow progressives to influence legislation feeling there is no where else progressives can go.
2 - Progressives mostly vote for Dems causing only minor losses
3 - Dems continue to govern non-progressively having proven progressives do not matter
4 - Things don't get really any worse but they don't really get better either because non-progressive policies are worse than progressive ones.

It's simply the policy of some pain now for bigger gains later. If my kid is misbehaving and so I take away his favorite toy am I better off? Now my kid is screaming and I have to listen to it. It certainly would be more peaceful to let my kid continue to misbehave. I put up with the pain of disciplining my kid and listening to him cry for the hope of better behavior in the future.

Democrats have been calling the progressive bluff and I think we will all suffer in the short term for it.

[tblue37]

125. That is exactly the plan Ralph Nader proposed in 2000. And as THD said, it

led to 2 wars and a collapsed economy--and a lot of other really, really bad things, I might add.

[GOTV]

139. And has voting for Dems ended 2 wars? Have too big to fail banks gotten smaller?

Have any of the people that caused these problems seen even a court house let alone a jail cell?

I don't think progressives will find your case compelling. Might it have been better to work with them given that you are unable to scare them?

Why are only progressives accused of wanting the GOP to win and not those who know it's vital for progressives to show on election day but pissed on them anyway?

[tblue37]

151. I *am* a progressive. In fact, I am a socialist. But when the rubber hits the road, I cannot bear

to think of the Republicans back in unchecked power.

I am disappointed in what the Dems did with their control of all three branches of government--though do I realize the Blue DOg Dems are really just Republicans lite, so majority control was more appearance than reality, in the Senate especially.

I am also disappointed in Obama and his wussy bipartisanship, especially in HCR and finance reform and in watering down the first stimulus package and proposing such a skimpy little second stimulaus (though he isn't calling it that). But the idea of Repubs back in control gives me nightmares, and I really, really do want a Dem president to name the next several Supreme Court justices.

There are many other things that I dislike about how this administration and the Dems in Congress are running the show--but I know for a fact I would hate it even more if the Republcians were in charge.

I honestly believe that Al Gore would have been a much more liberal pesident than either Clinton or Obama, and I also think that splitting the vote in key places made it easier for the Republicans to steal the election in both 2000 and 2004. I actually beleive we won both those races--and a higher majority in the 2008 race, as well as many seats in both the Hosue and the Senate that went to Republcians in 2006 and 2008. I just think the votes were so overwhelmingly against the Repubsin 2006 and 2008 that they were not able to steal a lot of the races they would otherwise have stolen.

I am probably at least as disappointed as you are--maybe even more so. But I still am going to vote Democratic in the next elections because we do not have a viable third party, and our system makes it very hard for one to form.

I do think we should be in the streets making a lot of noise, and that we should be running and heavily funding truly progressive challengers to corporatist Democrats and doing our damnedest to take our party back from the DINOs. But when the general election comes around, I sure as hell am going to vote Dem.

I would love to see our party filled with people like Grayson and Franken.

[kenfrequed]

163. I agree

I don't know why the Rahmsian democrats think that ignoring their base and taking the less populist road is going to net them more workers. The issues of progressives (and their solutions) are the issues of America.

Early polls favored the public option very, very heavily. I do believe... yes, that would have to have included most independents too for it to be so popular. What did the party do? Ask Max Bacchus and ask the damnable DLC who went with the monied interests.

There are numerous progressive issues like this that would have been wildly popular and would have netted a good deal of positive inertia going into November.

To be fair, President Obama actually only deserves a small amount of blame, yeah he could have been more aggressive, yes he could have bully Pulpited the conservadems into action immediately after the election, and yes he could have chosen someone better than Rahm, but ultimately there are members of congress (particularly the senate) that deserve serious scorn for putting their pocketbooks before party and people.

Evan Bayh started screwing us before President Obama even took his oath of office by forming a Senate Blue Dog caucus. To my limited knowledge senate specific caucuses are sort of rare and this one was designed to undercut the move to the left that the overall post-bush progressive mood of the country voted for.

All that being said we just cant stay home and give up. In fact we should turn out absolutely everywhere we can.

If some people are angry at the absurdly right leaning bullshit tactics then reserve it only for the most extreme cases. Nothing would make 'republican revolution II' harder to spin than if we only lost in those few races where centrist-right leaning democrats were defeated. For this to work you absolutely still have to show up and vote for every other democrat on the ticket without fail. Make it very clear to the party that it is only these choices and policies and ideas that you argue with.

If you stay home then the repukes will spin this as an insurgency against liberal ideas and the surviving conservadems will crow about how they have to move even further to the right.

[kenfrequed]

116. Way to project an argument I didn't suggest onto my post in order to put make up on a straw man!

I was obviously not defending the closet repuke.

In most states the primaries only closed down a few weeks ago, whereas anti progressive whining has been going on for months.

Some of us have pushed for issues for literally years while watching the conservadems and DLC defenders mock, distort, insult, and diminish our concerns.

So yes, I will vote Democrat.

As to editing all commentary to do away with anything that could be anti-candidate, where do we start and where do we end?

[Blue_Tires]

112. almost like a cutting and pasting from a script...

[mzmolly]

149. "Does that come out of the training sessions, because it sounds pretty rote, in my experience."

Agreed. ;)

[JNelson6563]

156. Yep, they've the workshop talking points down!

:toast:

[Gold Metal Flake]

23. Perhaps DU admin could contact DKOS to obtain Kubica's IP address.

So's that Lithos can do a search. I'll pass along the recommendation.

[NJmaverick]

24. Very good idea

[MineralMan]

26. That's a very good idea, although DKOS might not give it.

An even better idea might be to look for patterns that match that poster's patterns, then investigate more closely. Odds are that theres some site, probably private, where these people are gathering and planning their trollery. When that happens, you see the same basic concepts introduced, often with very similar language, in many places at once.

It would still be very hard to prove such a thing, and most forum administrators aren't eager to ban people unless they have really good evidence of trollery.

It's a problem that will be difficult to address, I think.

[JuniperLea]

55. Good idea...

I would think... I would hope, that Skinner, et al, are pals of sorts with Markos... one would think... but you never know in the nether regions of the InterTubes.

[kristopher]

28. Too bad this must be a part of internet discussions...

There is no way to guard against it and the opposition knows it. Remember that most of the opposition to Dem policies originates not in the political realm, but in the corporate world where paid PR is expected to exploit every possible avenue for public suasion.

[Matariki]

34. Balanced by the tea party being comprised of far left performance artists.

that's my theory anyway.

[glitch]

131. That was my theory on Ann Coulter.

Still waiting for her to take off her mask and take a bow. A dark and disturbing performance, a brilliant portrayal of group sociopathology, the death throws of a class and culture, but not comedy.

[kenfrequed]

165. Hmm...

I would almost buy that but David Brock seems pretty sure about it. If she were some kind of walking, talking, detournement she would have had to have fooled him as well.

[Joanne98]

37. It's everywhere! You can tell who the sock puppets are cause they're always saying

"Don't fight back"

[Beetwasher]

41. Absolute Genius!!!! Pure Genius!!! Amazing!!! Whoda Thunk It!!!

Or more like, duh.

[Ignis]

59. We should definitely ban ALL paid staffers from posting here.

Who's with me? :shrug:

[NJmaverick]

60. You think we have some GOP staffers here at DU?

[Ignis]

75. I can't disagree with you, or my post will be deleted--but where did I said "GOP?"

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

62. Paid staffers of what? If you're talking about the GOP or other

Right-wing organizations, I'd say that they should be banned from here, unless they disclose who they are and behave themselves.

[Ignis]

77. Why limit yourself to RWers? Any paid staffers should have to disclose.

It's called "transparency," and it's a hell of a good thing.

[NJmaverick]

82. What about volunteer Democratic staffers should they also have to report to you?

[Ignis]

100. No, they should voluntarily disclose their association.

But if they'd like to "report to me," I'd be happy to put them to work for progressive causes. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

118. I would venture to say half the people on DU have been volunteers for various campaigns

[Ignis]

124. Nifty. And the point of this tangent is ... what, exactly?

Getting back to my original point in this subthread, ALL paid staffers should disclose their association before posting, and the DU rules should be modified to make this a requirement.

You can agree or disagree. :shrug: Or you can protest too much.

[NJmaverick]

128. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable, although why stop there?

[Ignis]

159. I couldn't agree more.

[MineralMan]

93. Well, I'd agree with that, for sure.

I'm 100% for full disclosure of any external interests or prior involvements that might be important. Paid posters should always identify themselves as such. They never will, of course.

[Ignis]

103. I'm glad to hear that we agree on this issue.

[MineralMan]

105. Why would we not agree? Paid bloggers should always disclose

that fact. Paid posters on internet forums, too. That's sort of the rule on all forums, from boating and fishing forums to political forums. It's how the thing is supposed to be done. It's the same reason we have a Marketplace forum here. You want to sell something or promote something, and there's a place for that.

Discussion Forum 101.

[Ignis]

108. They should, but it's not required here at DU.

Thus, I'm glad to see you agree with the idea.

[MineralMan]

113. I consider it an ethical thing to do. If I have an economic interest

in something, I need to disclose that before posting on that subject. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have no particular economic interest in anything except writing small business websites' content. And there's not much call for those services here. Writing content for HVAC companies and Horse Veterinarians just doesn't have the same punch as political writing.

[Rex]

63. Why does this surprise people? There are liberals and repukes

aliasing as their opposite on various political sites all over the Internets! It wasn't an 'if', but 'when'. I'm sure DU has it's own group of paid professionals. To think otherwise is stupid.

[snooper2]

68. You would not believe the extra income it brings in

:rofl:

[Rex]

81. Do tell.

I hear some of the idiots do it for free!

:rofl:

[snooper2]

144. oh no, I'm a UAW NRA UNICEF member of all..

you have to know your crowds...

breaks down to 27.45 cents a post if you are good....

[Stinky The Clown]

109. Even the irony challenged should be able to understand the word after this thread.

[Junkdrawer]

114. Indeed. As I said....

Did you ever notice in undercover cop movies the undercover cop is always the one to scream "Rat" loudest when the subject of undercover cops comes up?

[Stinky The Clown]

119. :snort:

Hahahahahaha

Oh so true.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

120. +1

[unapatriciated]

166. it's called cover your ass by disruption.

Instead of being glad the one idiot out of thousands and thousands of largely d and liberal posters is caught, some would turn this into hunting season on liberals.

[laughingliberal]

168. +2 nt

[NJmaverick]

148. what exactly are you saying?

[Stinky The Clown]

150. When the green simplicity buys a new Camaro, how long will it last to derive a ......

.... measure of fortitude that conjugates the whole way to second floor? If you can determine the framis of that level of radicand, it might be more soluble in water.

[pecwae]

155. Oh, oh, I know the answer to that!

But, I won't reveal it. Let others put their thinking caps on for themselves.

[Blue_Tires]

111. Not surprising...Kos had a bunch of (open) Ron Paul fans during the primaries

And over the years we've had dozens of "fly-below-the-radar-but-still-obvious" clowns here..

[JNelson6563]

126. I wish some of DU sockies would get exposed.

Lord knows they are like dark clouds constantly hovering over the board.

Julie

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. +1000

:thumbsup:

[JI7]

152. yup

[NJmaverick]

157. + infinity

[Forkboy]

164. Yeah, me too.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Please, Please, Please, Please, Please Lord.

I can think of at least one blatantly obvious farmer-of-multiple-socks whose "alpha" (as it were) account got TS'ed, but 'she' still hangs around behind a whole list of accounts, stirring up shit.

[DirkGently]

132. +1 for not including a pointless swipe at DUer's like that other

thread on the same subject.

Not hard to believe Rand's camp would dig the skullduggery.

[G_j]

142. +1

[laughingliberal]

169. +2 nt

[Scurrilous]

158. K & R

:thumbsup: