DU 2004 vs DU 2008

By which I actually mean DU in late 2003 vs. DU in late 2007. Which is nastier in terms of the bickering among various candidates' supporters?

:dem: won't float on its own, people

:P

but nothing like what was to come in the following years.

but it does seem to get pretty nasty here sometimes.

We had some serious contenders back then. Dean and Clark slug fests were the best. There just isn't as much to get that enthused about this time around. Kucinich is still there and is the best politically. Edwards is the next best and perhaps electable.

But it's really quite normal and expected behavior, to voice opinions on a political discussion board. Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. :)

It was BAD...I mean freaking BAD...in 2003. Really, really bad. Totally fractured the board. People putting up other boards and whatnot. Nothing near that bad this time around.

Anyone but an idiot can see invincibility. All they have to do is open their eyes! You know it, I know it, and they know it, so why don't you just admit I'm right and you're completely in the wrong? If you don't it only proves what stupid asses support someone else.

:shrug:

that's because they are so completely wrong

.

no wonder we keep losing at the polls

More like the heart of the Dean machine of '04. :)

Us Clarkies just HATED those Deaniacs.

And in the end, I think we all came around to love Howie. :hi:

how gdp is now.

The Clark-Dean fights were nasty indeed, and both sides gave as well as they took here. But unless the fog of memory casts things in a nicer light, there are three things that I think make this one a bit worse.

1. There is no ABB now. We could at least agree that defeating Bush was the most important thing.
2. The hysterical Clintophobia, and the nasty backlashes, and the nasty counter-backlashes, etc.
3. Youtube.

I'm confused how you could make such an observant comparison since you only just joined.

Perhaps you are close friends with an old member, or something?

IS an old member, starting fresh with a new identity?

What's that word coined for that? A stocking, a boot, a sock.....?

a second account maintained alongside the first one, in order to fool people into believing that a consensus exists for your viewpoint. I do not, nor have I ever, had more than one active account (while my old one might still be technically active, there is no way to access it, as the pass and email are garbage), nor have I changed accounts in order to trick others. I left DU long ago, and then came back. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Unless, of course, I'm misinterpreting your post somehow. Don't see how that could be.

I didn't click on the poster's profile to check gender. He/she, in this case, means "he or she" because I don't know which to use, and we don't have a gender neutral pronoun.

It's certainly not any kind of a personal attack. It would never occur to me to think of it that way, either. I've never heard it used as an attack. Perhaps I just haven't been paying attention?

I hope this clarifies things for you.

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

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

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

also, some things I've said in the past have been posted on republican sites, without my permission, to ridicule my point of view.
I don't deny what I've posted, and what I've posted is what i felt at the time, within the individual confines of the various sites. Some sites allow discussion of other sites, some don't. All have varying rules. I'm subject to the rules put forth by the individual sites.
I may not like some of the rules, but there you have it.

You're under the impression I'm hiding what I say, but that's not true. Whatever I've posted, I felt at that moment it was what I wanted to say. I might regret some things , and i might apologize for some things.

But your implication is that I'm not allowed to post at any other site than here, which is bizarre. I post where I choose, and where I choose is more a reflection of how comfortable I feel in a particular place, rather than that I agree with all viewpoints posted on a particular site.

As an example, I find this site becoming way too DLC-oppressive. I find another site I'm on way too inclined to believe conspiracy theories with little merit.
I find another site way to flamefesty. But I get something I want out of every individual site, WITHOUT necessarily endorsing the philosphy or overall character of the various places.

What I continue to find absurd is the idea that what I post ELSEWHERE breaks any rules HERE, as long as I obey the rules here.

Certainly, if that were true, there was another site that monitored my posts here at DU and spent a lot of energy falsely calling me an antisemite because I felt Israel was not right to carpet bomb Lebanon a while back, and I still feel that way: the country of Israel was WRONG to do so. At the same time, I feel that groups that attack Isreal are WRONG.

I'm just not down with violence, period. That means if someone condones violence, or feels it justified, they consider me threatening or uncomfortable.

neither here nor there. I'm just saying why don't you just concern yourself with what I post HERE. If skinner tombstones me, that's his call, justified or not. But I would hope that decision would be based on my behaviour HERE, not on one of the other dozen or so site I post on.


thanks.

I'm not suggesting you break the rules (though I did just now, in mentioning it). I'm saying that your "oh, gee, I wonder why you act that way" game is pretty transparent, given how you crow about your interactions with me elsewhere.

You, as well as many others at that site, have somehow gotten it into your heads that I am Zandor. But outright saying that gets your posts deleted here, so you play baiting games instead. That's what I was referring to.

In terms of sheer disruption of threads. There's less actual discussion back and forth and personal attacks have become epidemic. Not that it was peace and flowers in 2003, no, no.

There was no tolerance back then. I see too many these days.

:evilgrin:

and lastly Getoffmahlawn!

:toast:

I mean, in 2004 you had to *work* to defend your candidate or criticize another, I mean citations, links and background you had to know your shit.

Now it's more like "yo momma".

The worst thing I see now is candidates being called "assholes." That's nothing compared to the pitched battles going on between different supporters back then. Also, back then the race was closer longer, with more viable candidates (Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kucinich). There aren't as many people screaming about as many things now. 2004 also had a lot of people that argued passionately about IWR votes.

It's much different and much better now. There are still some frustrating moments, but not too bad.

That was back during my First Life at DU. After Kerry lost, I got so sick of politics I "deleted" my account by scrambling its password and logging out. I had temporarily lost all hope.

But that was the thing. Back then, I think there was more hope. We all believed that Bush could be stopped and we could bring America back to normality. There's much more depression around here--there seems to be a general consensus that the Dems are worthless as well, and that there's no real hope for the future. And that's far more soul-crushing than '04 was.

knowledge of DU.

interesting.

I was almost tombstoned for implying you were a sock puppet. I see now I was just mistaken. Instead you are a previous member who changed their name.

that's very different. Sorry for the confusion on my part.

My old account might still be technically active. But I decided to force myself to walk away from DU, and locking myself out was the best way. It was a long while back; I left back before GDP was even called that.

I came back because I wanted to discuss the '08 race. If you have a problem with that, feel free to talk to me about it. I'll answer any questions you have. If you want to say things that you think might tombstone you, PM me; I won't hit alert or any shit like that. I'd far rather we hash things out than have people follow me around making bizarre accusations.

I tried to go on your site to discuss. I got banned in five minutes, and my "hey, I'll talk if you like" post was deleted. Oh well.

I don't run or moderate it.

But since mention of it is verboten, that seemed the best way to explain what I meant.

I don't limit myself on where I can post.
if a site allows me to post, I do.
why where I post becomes an issue for you and others is beyond me, actually.
its a nonissue.

I don't care that you post on other sites. It does irritate me when you say incorrect things about me on other sites, allude to those here, and the mods over there ban me if I so much as say, "Hey, guys, I'm not Zandor, care to hash things out with me?"

that's perhaps how it works.

tried to get you tombstoned. I don't know why you'd say that. I wish you wouldn't say things like "You're Zandor's sockpuppet," and I probably did hit alert the first few times people said stuff like that, but only because I think that's the kind of flaming that isn't welcome on DU, not because I have any desire to see you kicked out. I certainly have no desire to see you banned, or anything of the sort. We might emphatically disagree on the value of moderates in our party (I myself am quite liberal, but think moderates have a very useful role), but I would hope there's enough room for all of us on this board. If I've made you feel as if I was persecuting you, I profoundly apologize. Seriously.

and have made over 1500 posts. That's 74 posts a day. Are you on some sort of a marathon? Is there a contest I going on I don't know about?

Before the worst I had to deal with was someone smearing my candidate. I'm not supporting anyone this time around but it seems a lot more personal, attacks on supporters as much as the candidates and pointless, stupid attacks on them, too.

Then again, it all is much more sedate to me because I'm not involved.

and "astro-turf" and shit last time around. Not having a favorite this time around, I've been pretty much staying out of those threads, so haven't developed much of a feel for how nasty it is.

:hug:

You jack-booted thug, you. :loveya:

it's MUCH worse this time around

How is it worse? I supported someone at this time in 2004 and I don't now. That could have an affect on my view.

but, that dies or deteriorates. I've gotten to where I am here less and less as I get sick of the flame baits and no real discussion. just trash the candidates and the supporters and nothing else.

people on here feel very passionate about their candidates and about the other candidates running

that almost everyone would support whoever was the nominee in 2004. There is not that sense this time.

This cycle has been up to par though.

The debate has been FAR less substantive this time. At the same time it's also been far more divisive. I don't recall anyone (certainly not large numbers) saying that they wouldn't vote for a specific candidate if they won the nomination.

At that point I'd take days or weeks away from DU because I was so damn frustrated. I was an Edwards supporter and the Clark supporters would infiltrate every pro-Edwards thread with runaway garbage. Same posters with the same tired claims. It got to the point I was trying to find reasons to rip Clark -- who I like -- simply to get back at his annoying supporters on DU.

This time I've been away mostly due to boredom. I read the threads and nothing threatens the interest level or suspense or ferocity of '04. Admittedly, it's partially because I know the math. '04 was open but as long as Hillary has majority support among Democratic women the nomination is hers. I'll save my energy for the general.

It feels worse because it is happening now.

Name calling was worse before but the attacks against supporters are about the same. Sad, isn't it?

Only difference is that there isn't any strong opposition like Dean, who was capable of energizing people against the mainstream Establishment, this time around.

top tier.

If it wasn't for LBN I would be here a lot less.

I was big Dean last time around and so it seemed more harsh, but since I'm not 100% with any candidate yet I feel like I can step back from some of the spats. If I were with a candidate I'd probably think it was worse now.

the Edwards/Hillary/Obama crowd is working on it and may turn it around.

I don't remember so much useless noise being posted the last time around. Some people seem to think this is their own personal press release wire service for their favorite candidate.

I blame the Obama supporters. :evilgrin:

but now, i finally had to reverse my thinking and agree that it's worse this time around. in 2004 i was happy with most of the candidates save a joe or graham, but i wasn't threatened by those non-entities. now, the "front-runner" is hostile to my values, and the "runner-up" is dead to me.

as such, i'm a much crabbier than usual person, and have reacted as such.

Say it isn't so. ;)

and that shit gets personal.