Right-Wing Sock Puppets Pretending to Be Liberals Assault Progressive Websites

Ignorant, peevish, narrow-minded, misinformed, livid, intolerant, they are an army of everything that's wrong with America, denizens of a weird trickster God who speaks to them with words they don't completely understand, or tints their natural interior wrath with righteous anger conferred by snake-oil preachers or haughty cable charlatans either crass or crazed, or just slyly in it for the money, or all of the above.

This minority wouldn't matter much except they are whipped into a frenzy and 'played' by cynical manipulators like Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who, in turn, wouldn't have much impact without the billions of dollars spent to spread their fetid message from such right-wing corporatists as Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers.

But beneath the second-tier video fictions of James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart, and the hollow-headed bleating of the various ozone-inhabiting creatures who will never be president like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, and even in the shadow of the disingenuous theocratic mushpile that is David Barton’s twisted view of our history, exists a well-funded Republican netherworld of PR propagandists and marketing hucksters busy dreaming up unethical new ways to undercut Obama and the Democrats.

One of these is Doug Goetzloe, an anti-tax right-wing talk show host and former Young Republican who heads up Advantage Consultants. Here is the copy from one of his ads advising his conservative clients to ‘flood the zone’ on progressive sites:
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/5872-right-wing-sock-puppets-pretending-to-be-liberals-assault-progressive-websites

Thanks

no surprise, unfortunately

I can handle them, no problemo!

Something about causing divisiveness. I see trolls all over this forum and people forum and people following them without even paying attention to what they are saying.

If a person says this administration is useless they are not supporting the Democratic part.

If a person says the whole administration lies they are not supporting the Democratic party.

If a person says negative things about our President without being realistic and talking about the good things he has they are NOT supporting the Democratic party.

I get so sick of these people and I hope the real Democrats start alerting the mods to get rid of them. If you are upset about something you don't have to blame all democrats.

I don't see Republicans doing the same thing!

Please people let us stop this! And maybe we can run around and use some of the same tactics against them that they are using against us. We certainly have logic on our side.

Its a pretty simple procedure and if we don't then we've lost our voice that DU gives us.
know what I mean :hi:

Yes I realize that articles or stories on a given subject may gain hits over time but simple Google searches that I used to do get references (mostly for DU) are now buried. Quite often the first page especially is dominated by several RW talking point articles and even message board discussions. Are there really that many hits on all these links? I doubt it. I think they have a google bombing operation going to make their beliefs/dogma seem like the conventional wisdom - basically the Fox News model of pounding a point home 16 times (a sales technique) with voices from their chorus many who are "best selling authors" mainly because of their own bulkbuying scheme over the last 30 years.

Here, there, and at most other liberal-progressive sites. We've been awfully tolerant - maybe, too tolerant.

OK, referring people to a RW site is never popular here; or saying you'd rather vote Republican. But "both parties are just as evil" is fairly common; do we want a stricter line of "always support the Democratic party"? I predict that if the site did that, a lot of long-time DUers would leave, saying it had been taken over by centrists, the DLC and other hate figure for those further left than the mainstream of Democrats.

That's a natural expression of the misguided centrist strategy that's being pursued by most pols in DC.

Instead, my radar is alerted by the industry shills who show up here in teams whenever there's been an event - the BP shills during the Gulf oil spill, the nuclear industry apologists at the height of the Fukushima crisis. Not everyone who took a contrarian stance was a flack, and often they are technically knowledgeable and bring some sound information to the debate. But, increasingly, I am growing intolerant of those who post on open boards under false pretenses and spread disinformation and a message of false security and satisfaction with outcomes. That goes for professional political flacks and cheerleaders, as well.

I've tagged a few of them on my buddy list.

on election day, or call for a voting, or support boycott of x candidate, without ever proposing any y alternative.

I am a "dyed in the wool Progressive Democrat", yet I have said and meant that both parties are corporate controlled. It is (IMO) obvious. Too many great things have been "taken off the table" in the name of bipartisanship before the negotiations even start.

I will never blindly follow any party. That is not in our best interests.

Yes, I would love to have Sanders, Kucinich or other Progressives as a President. I am no troll. I am a Progressive.

There are too many who brook no discussion of Democratic missteps.

I've voted straight Democratic for over forty years, but I get to have my say about the drift to the right that the leadership is taking. I'll put my credentials up against any who call me a troll if the name-caller will pledge money to the local Democratic candidate of my choice.

For myself, I have little problem with even harsh criticism of either Obama, other Democratic officeholders or the Democratic Party in general. However, what I often see here isn't in the least constructive. I have seen Obama viciously attacked, often on wrong or missing information, labeled a "war criminal", etc. I especially cringe when I hear there is no difference between the parties, especially when we witness the onslaught against workers, women, minorities, the poor and children merely from the GOP gaining control of the U.S.House, state houses and even county and municipal governments. Make no mistake about the GOP; they don't intend to merely turn back the clock, their tent is to roll hack the calendar, eviscerated decades of hard work and progress fought so hard for by the Dems.

It is truly heartbreaking.

and roll back by Democratic office holders that create the criticism. We did exactly what you say we must do. We won the white house. We won the senate and the house. But all we got was appeasement for the wealthy class and no support for anything that resembled the kind of progress that Democrats have fought so hard for. Instead we found those hard fought prizes given up in tribute to the alter of bipartisanship.

We got nothing?

You think we did well?

Once the currency is suspect, all the money is bad. Likewise, once it is clear that some trolls are paid agents or volunteers for the other side, everyone is suspect, all dissent is the work of Agent Provocateurs.

It is a tried and true technique to destroy legitimate opposition. It works.

doing it back to them?

Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it.

Destabilize the enemy. They're certainly trying hard to do it to us. Let's head that off at the pass and beat them at their own game.

It's an absurdly self-defeating position to take, kind of like knowingly taking a knife to a gunfight, but too many Dems (AND DUers!!!!!) feel that to use their own tactics against them makes us no better than them.

This of course, hands them the decision of the battleground in any give conflict, but try convincing these shortsighted fools of that.

I get so tired of "be better than them".. When I hear that I sometimes just roll my eyes and walk away.

I've noticed this too....

We have to draw a distinction between candidates doing these things and some sort of stealth opposition. We need a stealth opposition.

What I have opposed is candidates using underhanded tactics to win, such as lying or cheating. That does mean they don't deserve to win, and that's exactly how the voters will see them. (I understand that deserving and winning are two different things.) Having two crooked candidates or too much mudslinging just turns people off of politics altogether, which can depress voter turnout — and low turnout typically helps Republicans. But an organized disinfo operation, completely separate from candidate and party, isn't running and therefore it doesn't matter if they deserve to win or not.

What I have advocated for candidates is what I see as the strategy of a winner: telling the truth about the opposition, clearly and succinctly. Use their plans and record against them. In this cycle, that would be to ask, "Why did you vote to end Medicare?" That puts them on the defensive and draws people to you.

Candidates would do well to tell the truth at all times. Everyone else is free to say what they want for their own reasons.

He's way out ahead of us on this, lawyering up to try to keep Crossroads GPS separate from the RNC. What I'm saying is our side needs a Rove; but our side seems to have all the good boy scouts, and nobody able or willing to give as good as they get, except sometimes Obama.

Of course they accuse Soros of being our Rove, but I don't see it. He's just a wealthy donor they disagree with. Our side has a few think tanks, that's about it. The right will point to Michael Moore or whatever the liberal target of the week is. That's what they do. I used to call it projection, but I've come to see it as deliberate and therefore something else altogether: a coordinated strategy to repeat the same phrase in as many forms of media as possible, thereby forcing the debate and intimidating the opposition. Yes we need to be out in front of that. I wouldn't want someone as evil as Rove, but someone equally skilled.

Well, YEAH. I DO want to be like them. Because they WIN. And in politics, winning is EVERYTHING. If you don't WIN, you don't count. And you don't govern. And YOU don't have the bully pulpit. And YOU'RE not in position to manipulate or lead or set the agenda. And you don't have a chance to make the necessary changes, broad or subtle. And you give up the opportunity to stop whatever they're doing because YOU have the veto power as well as that bully pulpit from which to pound on them and make them look bad.

So indeed, if what they do allows them to win more than they lose, WHICHEVER way they got there and I really don't give a damn at this point, I DO want to be like them. Because I want to WIN. I'm every bit as Machiavellian as the next guy, especially in politics. And I don't care HOW we get there as long as WE WIN. What good we can do AFTER WE WIN makes me care little what we might have to do to get there. The messy morals that might be involved really don't concern me. Because our side tends to do more for the forgotten, the ignored, the poor, the underdogs, the sick, the elderly, the children, the single moms, the working poor, the 99ers, and the other have-nots if WE WIN, than the bad guys do with their own messy morals - who then do everything to screw the needy for the sake of lavishing more to those who already have more than enough. I'm interested in the morals on the BACK END. The morals on the RESULTS end. And you don't get there IF YOU DON'T WIN.

As much as we'd all like it to be true, there just isn't that much room for idealism in politics. Politics is a dirty, shitty business. But I think the power you can gain from playing the game shrewdly is WORTH IT in terms of WHAT THAT THEN EMPOWERS YOU TO ACCOMPLISH on behalf of the powerless (who certainly wouldn't have any greater voice being "represented" by the bad guys when THEY win). And utopian idealistic thinking as it applies to politics is just simplistic and unrealistic. Unless you're living in some Utopia where the bad guys always lose and the good guys always win and cheaters really don't prosper and crime really doesn't pay. That's not the world we live in, and we have to play with the cards that are being dealt, on the gaming table that's set before us - not the one we wish to build for ourselves. Besides, even if you DO aspire to build that idealistic utopian gaming table, you can't even do THAT unless you win.

It's funny how when the dead body lands on your doorstep, you tend to think differently. These followers are having the results of their right wing voting literally come home now to roost. Teabaggers are scared of losing their medicare, some union people who voted guns/gays are looking at their bagaining rights (and their wages/pensions)being attacked, etc. Hangovers get your attention..... You can't talk somebody out of misery, poverty, and no future left.

"You can't talk somebody out of misery, poverty, and no future left."

:thumbsup:

They're pushing right wing boilerplate in polite language.

tombstoned... They know all the "right" buttons to push and an unsuspecting poster might just take the bait. sigh....

find other things to do..

I find myself posting less and less, and tiring of the contrarians who seem to always find a way to disrupt any thread they visit.

It's always the same posters, too. I wonder why THEY are still here? :shrug:

if i even get a whiff of it, i put them on ignore for good measure. most of them eventually get their pizza. the rw'ers have already said they were paying people to do this. what better place to stir up trouble than DU?

exactly

That is not what this article is about.

The paid operatives mimic LW teabaggers to the point that they are virtually indistinguishable from the RW teabaggers.

-- snip

and democratic leaders. They occasionally throw Boner to the wolves. But by and large spend NO time attacking republican policies. It sickens me to watch other so called progressives and socialists, with a communist or two seeded in, swallow the bait whole and become amen choruses for some of the most damaging assaults against democratic principles imaginable.

BTW. To those that say President Obama's campaign called and got nothing from you, I contributed earlier today and am fucking proud of doing so.

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

Right. That's what I thought.

There is one poster that is well attuned to Wall Street, but that posters has also pointed out the failings of Wall Street and how that should be changed. There appears to be a number of DU members from upper economic groups, so why shouldn't those people become a little put out when some on DU call them evil because they are well off? DU posters are a complex bunch, but even with a few moles among them, they are solid for democratic principles.

pro-torture, pro-Wall Street, pro-insurance executive Democrats out.

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

yes

but my opinion of him and his policies have dropped off the radar in recent months. He, and every other Dem (and there are MANY) who betray the needs of the people in favor of big business and its oligarchs, can pound sand where the sun don't shine.

I will save my money and, more importantly, my elbow grease and foot power for the candidates and causes that coincide with the needs of the people. For example, I am currently going door to door in my precinct collecting signatures to repeal SB5 here in Ohio. I expect to devote many, many hours to this effort over the next several weeks.

What are the causes/candidates near and dear to your heart, and how has the current administration assisted and/or worked to meet those needs?

But here's the dilemma. When you voice your opinions you give new talking points to right wing trolls who will then turn and around and try to mimic you in order to stir up trouble. I'm not sure what the solution to this is because I certainly would not want to silence legitimate well meaning criticism of President Obama coming from the left. Yet at the same time I hate to see that type of criticism playing right into the hands of professional right wing agitators.

I would sure hate to be a moderator at DU. Trying to sort through all of this must be quite a task, and I take my hat off to those brave souls who have taken on the thankless job of being a moderator.

edited for typo

Sid

who derisively refer to "the far left" and promote right wingerism while talking about money they give to Obama.

low and disgusting - and very obvious, imo - behavior.

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

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

Sid

are really disgusted with the corruption all around us. No one needs to mimic the real thing. Read Matt Taibbi's Griftopia and see how happy are with the status quo.

This thread is nonsense and should be shut down.

No right-winger is well enough educated or smart enough to influence me.

Me neither, and these articles are really aimed at silencing the left. Sock-puppets are not a new phenomenon on Internet boards, so why all the hysteria over them now?

and discredit the left. The true liberals/progressives/leftists among us know a smear campaign when we see it. We're not going to be silenced.

This IS what the article is about. They've been around leftwing boards for along time. Easy to spot, and fun to play with, sometimes.

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

It's not surprising that some here resent/resemble the description.

Here's the money quote:

-- snip

Sid

that there are other plants here who insult actual left wingers while promoting lock-step obedience to the party.

Translation: "anything I don't agree with"

and anything that IS in line with Bush policies. Lots of pushing of Bush policies from the pretend progressives and lots of mockery of actual progressive ideals. There is language too that makes it easy, I read somewhere a long time ago they have lists of words to use when attacking progressives, and phrases. And they can never hide, no matter how hard they try, their Reagan-era hatred for 'lefties' for whom they have a list of names which are now so familiar you'd think someone would come up with a new one. They really hate the Civil Rights era for some reason but they have to be careful when they talk about it, hiding behind certain words and phrases, like a kid covering their face with their hand and thinking you can't see them. :rofl:

I get a kick out of them, frankly.

that should be easy.

Just because many people do not agree with your exact positions doesn't make them RW or Bushes.

I know from experience.

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

It's like porn, you know it when it you see it.

it shouldn't be hard to point to it.

Take your time.

you have no real examples.

Just what I thought.

:rofl:

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

You replied to yourself.

:thumbsup:

still, hope springs eternal, although it would take a miracle.

with right-wing criticism of my stance.

Social Security and public education -- two basic Democratic tenets. I support them fully, but we get anti-Social Security as well as crtics of public education in huge numbers on DU.

makes me laugh.

thinking they have cleverly blended in when in fact they stand out like stop signs on a one-way street.

there are problems with the far left. The far left is no friend of liberalism or the Democratic party. I would suggest understanding the difference between a "leftist" and a liberal.

anybody to the right of Attila the Hun by certain posters.

that there are references to the "far left" that are meant to include liberals, progressives and virtually all Democrats, when the actual far left is pretty small.

There's the inevitable us vs them setup before the carefully phrased boilerplate starts.

Sid

social manipulation. It's a serious problem.

designed to silence criticism from sincere Progressive Democrats who speak out against the DLC/Third Way moving the Democratic Party continually to the right.

It is an attempt to further legitimize the embracing of corporatism by the Democratic Party while at the same time cast suspicion on Progressive Democrats who view corporatism as the root of the majority of this country's problems.

It's also damage control and cover for the real RW trolls that keep pushing the DLC/Third Way/moderate republican agenda.

Most everybody is getting wise to the tired tactics of the RW and Third Way trolls, so they are now using this bullshit as fodder for a diversionary arguments and cast suspicion on those that argue for progressive policy as opposed to Third Way corporatism.

And here's another clue :think: It is not the radical Progressives on DU that never criticize conservatives/republicans.

Reality: No Progressive Democrat is going to be influenced by some bozo troll on a progressive forum that is pretending to be a liberal.

Seriously. "Golly gee, doofustroll is right, Obama did not close Guantanamo. I'm gonna go vote for Sarah Palin!"

Or whatever; it just Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

We may complain a lot, but we Progressives always vote Democrat and always support genuine progressive policies.

The right wing is well funded and morally corrupt. They will do any nefarious thing, no matter how seemingly insignificant to further their agenda. They have to, because they do not have truth and facts on their side.

would figure it out. This is becoming quite common, this type of article over the past couple of months. I think a lot of good people in this thread misunderstood the sneaky attack on progressives this is.

DLC/Third Way/moderate republican agenda.

Exactly, the article reeks of it. And the goal is to silence any criticism whatsoever of the DLC and their corporate policies. I think we must be about to be disappointed again. Could it be they really will go after SS? That would explain these articles 'warning' about people who criticize the party.

I totally agree.

Do we need to be identical robots? There are maybe two topics where I fall out of line with some democrats, but I consider myself a progressive, and in fact, while my state doesn't have an issues list for the party, looking at other state progressive parties, I am 100% in line with the platform.

Yet I and others are often referred to as NRA Republican shills, for upholding all our civil rights, including due process in the face of the patriot act, and the terrorist watch list.

It's bullshit, and I'm tired of it.

Depending on the state, I'm MAYBE out of line with the actual party platform on nuclear power. That's it. Hardly makes me a right winger. But that's not good enough, it seems.

I post in the guns forum because the democratic stance on guns is hurting our voter turnout. I don't post in the forums where I agree, and have nothing to contribute. That article is pure, wedge bullshit.

Totally agree, just another weekly "anyone who criticizes the best Pres evar!!11 may be right wing trolls so take their opinions with a grain of salt!". And clearly that is a exaggeration but it IS implied. It is simply to sow fear and mistrust of any progressive critics of the Democratic party.

I've been around since '03 and they were here then...The general number ebbs and flows...

He's almost up to 100 posts and hasn't been banned yet.

four years. They have thousands of post. They may be the same person.

Just because I am seeing only two, that does not mean they are alone. They are simply the two I have noticed.

on all politics? I come from the democratic moderate camp, but make no mistake about it, I am a democrat through and through. I often find myself crossing swords with many of the people on DU calling themselves progressives.

what stances would you expect a true Democrat, by your standard, to support?

What kind of litmus test or standard do you use in judging whether someone posting on DU is a true Democrat or a troublemaker?

...just "curious" that posters who attack "the far left" because of opposition to the afghan war, declaring that we must remain in afghanistan just in case we need to invade pakistan, are here marginalizing actual left wingers who oppose wasteful foreign wars.

Especially on Libya.

I don't necessarily want to accuse posters who support Obama's Libya policy of being "pro-war" or accuse them of being "sock puppets."

At a certain point I was on the fence about that policy (admittedly duped by the media propaganda push), and I'm not accusing those who still support it...

...but it certainly is offensive to see these same posters leveling accusations at others.

From the outset, there was a vocal pro-intervention contingent. It seemed too early, at the least, to me, to know if we were even supporting the right side. The media loves a war, quell surprise they would make Gaddafi out to be some kind of demon, mowing down his own people. Smacked of 'iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators' in Kuwait.

I'm sure Gaddafi is a bad dude, and his people need him to go, but we have interfered with, and inflamed the situation. At this point, we pretty much own the outcome.

Hope we did all the right things.

It can be framed as pro-war or pro-freedom.

All of those posting on the Libya thread are pro-freedom.

I have been an ardent supporter of freedom movements in South Africa (actually participated), Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and hopefully the other nations that are ruled by autocratic, authoritarian, right-winged-brained murderers - hopefully, they are all eventually freed.

Unfortunately for the Libyans, who started out protesting peacefully, they encountered Gaddafi and his army and not Mubarak.
And there is absolute proof for this - because ICC will be issuing warrants for the arrests of three people in the Gaddafi regime.
They do not do that without proof.
They have hard evidence that when the uprisings happened in Egypt and Tunisia and before they started in Libya, Gaddafi had already decided that the protesters would meet bullets and other assorted weaponry.

Lastly, my hero, Desmond Tutu supports the Libyan FFs ---- having experienced a freedom movement in his country, South Africa. And BTW, so do many progressives, and the group Anonymous.

So, thank you for a very unfair smear.

I've supported nuclear power as a low-CO2 alternative to coal, gas, etc. It has a high availability and high utilization. I am often painted as a death monger, and nuclear industry shill for it, too. Shame on me for wanting to avert catastrophic climate change.

I support freedom for the Libyan people. Much more than you might suspect. However, I do not believe we, or we as the principal member of NATO, should own the outcome. To do so, requires boots on the ground. Indeed, the CIA already does.

I would be a lot more intersted in supporting a group effort to free Libya, if it weren't for the precendent (and ongoing wars) of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya's status as a net oil exporter.

So now we start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

We have lots and lots of information about the Al Qaeda network. That is what our government wanted.

We are now starting to negotiate our exit from the area. We will never be entirely out. India probably would not want us to be.

they also like to play that they are Democrats, until they go out in a blaze of glory.

I've always wondered...I've been reading and occasionally posting for years. Why does everyone but myself and a few others have over 1,000...I've contributed so that isn't it. Am I to believe that everyone that shows 1000 posts has been here for years when I hardly recognize their names? Just wondering.

with the name changes after the elections, but you can recognize some of the ones that have been here a while by their posts. Some things are consistent.

only the tip of the phenomenon. It's about what things mean and what the implications of certain lines of thought are.

The best thing to do about it is to ask POLITE questions.

after that, you can't tell how long they've been here if their profile is blank. also, they usually don't have a star.

Sounded like you are fishing, not having a star does not say much, it could be that the individual is going through financial difficulty or they don't want to donate at present.

I use to have a star but have not come round to donating at present and your comment is not going to change that either.

What I can add to this discussion though is I wish DU will go back to the strigent moderating that they use to have before everyone started posting suggestion as to how to monitor the board.

i didn't call anyone out in particular, so no need to go there.

the star? it's not really that important, but it's the combination of things, as well as post content. you have a profile that goes back many years, longevity counts for a lot, imo. i remember the old days when strife was at a minimum, and we had a very common enemy. now? not so much.

it's just very different here now :shrug:

We have the White House, and the Senate. Might regain the house. Solidly on track to retain the White House.

So, people want to see things get done. Each of us has pet issues we want to see specific movement on, and as soon as you bump into another person that has a different priority, or doesn't like your particular position on an issue, out come the suspicions. (Not you, specifically, not being personal here, just human nature)

For instance, some of us want to see real action on Gay Rights, and there has been some, here and there, in a slow, political way, when we want to see fast action, if nothing else than to start to make up for hundreds of years of mistreatment. But when fast change doesn't come, we turn on each other, and start doing the 'no true scotsman' thing.

although I did for years before I lost my job. I would think many of us are in this position, but I don't feel unwelcome, nor has anyone here ever made me feel as though I'm not a "dues-paying" member.

and you'd be doing very well if you could name 2,000 DUers. Some are far more active than others. Many just come here to read.

Of course, a certain amount of our registrants are the same sockpuppets re-registering, that's why I'm lowballing this.

because we hate the GD and Presidential flame wars. If you're not a Lounge denizen, you may not recognize me, for instance.

I imagine there are a lot of folks here with high post counts who stick to other particular forums (guns, Israel, LGBT, specific states) and don't spend a lot of time in GD getting flamed.

I think this last one hits the mark. I don't often visit other areas here...I think I'll start. :0)

I like GD because I'm here not just to say what I think but also to read the opinions of others. I think it is interesting.

goats, mainly

will not discuss anything. In fact, they just screech louder.

Regulate + Arrest; Liberal/Progressive + Hate; The South + ignorant . . . I'm sure you can think of others.

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people out there who either pretend that everything on the internet can be taken at face value, or want so much to believe whatever that they don't/can't recognize bias when they see it, or they just simply have very underdeveloped or non-existent critical faculties.

Honestly, I think the effectiveness of this 'social media messaging' is greatly exaggerated - at most, it has the effect of reinforcing people in what they already (want to) believe. Seems like another hot new internet industry that will have its time in the sun, then fade away...

:hug:

:hug: I now know I am not alone in my sentiment.:grouphug:

before that.

It's hard to keep your balance when your a serious far-lefty or a really strong liberal.

There are legitimate criticisms of the Dems, but it is possible to hold a strong, almost "extreme" ideology, without proposing that others endure pain and suffering in order to see your ideal fulfilled. That's what 3rd partyers propose. That's the difference between us and "them"; we think people hurting other people is wrong, no matter the ideology, the ends do not justify the means, and they think people hurting other people is the measure of the value of an ideology, especially Libertarians.

SOME harm is going to be un-avoidable, but Good liberal/progressive ideas will be fundamentally damaged by any harm we willingly inflict in the long, drawn-out, very very dicey process of seeing those Liberal ideas become real. And anyone who implies that it's going to just be as easy as ________________________, just the snap of your fingers away, "if only you/everybody would just _________________ and then everyone else will start getting it right," is dangerously naive or downright evil.

We need to think more about HOW all of the various demographics play themselves out, in order to avoid spinning our wheels and ultimately not getting anywhere, because we didn't build wide enough coalitions.

For Liberals, the challenge is to stay strong, and real, and very clearly Liberal through all of the crap going on, and around/with most/any/all other political perspectives, so that when things are getting done, when we pick up and build again, Liberals are there (with others) to do it, not discarded or side-lined with "just cause" for failure manifested in one form of violence/coercion/un-necessary damage or another. We need the right chance to show that our ideas work.

I'm having trouble articulating this; but relative to the original article you linked above: the trolls work off of the criticism that the Left/Liberals are not strong enough and anyone who tries to work with other perspectives is proof of that "fact", they are weak, when the truth is that it takes MORE clarity and MORE strength to stay yourself and work with DIFFERENT others, than it does to break away into whatever 3rd party with whatever label. At this point, there just are not enough numbers there, those 3rd party folks, even if some manage to get into office, are doomed to failure ON THE ISSUES. ONLY the Libertarians stand a chance of putting together a big enough of a coalition to do something. Anyone else, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, is going to be a flash in the pan that ends up DELAYING any further progress toward Liberal values and, thus, hurting more people than they would have if they had worked with others.

The only place 3rd party stuff makes any sense is local.

I will keep in a special place particularly if their is a sense of me losing my balance.

Patrice we are in some interesting and painful times. The liberal battles have already been fought with allot of blood and especially tears in the process. I ask myself frequently, why are we going back wards? Déjà vu anyone...

I can't thank you enough for the eloquence of your words. As I type so many feelings seem to flood my mind, a bit of sadness maybe.

The one thing among the many the right has done, is they never stopped building the infrastructure, whether it be bill $ think tanks, media and so on, so that they may attack and tear down all that was accomplishment. I am still dazed and it's a culture shock when people tell me that climate change is a myth , the right to choose is murder or guns save lives!!!To observe people who were fortunate enough to grow up with Roosevelt vote for teabaggers.
Thom Hartman frequently says that things may become worse before they get better. You are correct in saying our job is to be there no matter what and to remain true to our principles.
Peace

Moderators please help, how do I reduce the page size.

Thank you for always being yourself Sasha!

The internet is REALLY very much like a house of mirrors; suspicion does breed suspicion.

You are not a person who is suspicious of dissenters.

I too am very concerned for Earth! It is long past time for all of us to humble ourselves and come together.

Om namah Shivaya! (which roughly translates to something like: may my life manifest the truest truth).

:grouphug:

The status quo is not pain free and extrapolated over a longer time it is highly plausible that the long term suffering will be much more than the intense but plausibly shorter term pain of upheaval.

You have only faith to tell you which direction is more devastating to real lives both present and future.

Your argument isn't sound because you have no more actual proof than someone arguing the other polar extreme of this point. The reality is you BELIEVE you will be more comfortable working within the status quo but your evidence doesn't exist and your argument is more about ensuring the argument never is put to the test using fear of the unknown as motivation.

There is a strong argument supported by history and reflection on human nature (and arguably science) that maintaining a circumstance tends to reinforce it versus creating a path away from an undesirable circumstance. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest, objects in motion remain in motion without an equal or greater forces cause a different result.

Your argument is largely and perhaps exclusively built on it's self and the natural fear of the unknown.

There is no possible argument that the path we are on is going to lead to a broadly beneficial end or will avoid disaster. We are building a disaster of epic proportions, you aren't avoiding that but rather short term upheaval and disruption of a life of relative comfort, in my opinion.

Least resistance is not always for the best.

Who else would waste a day here, when they hate everyone on the forum and the planet too? Just to try and get threads locked and spam assaulting good threads/liberals. Trolls suck and should be forced to live under bridges with no internet access in their tunnel.

between a democrat and a republican and who loosely hurl the insult Dino at the more conservative democrats. Republican moles can infest liberal websites if they think that amounts to a hill of beans, but they can't think for the members of said sites. I often read attacks on good solid democrats of moderate and conservative bearing here on DU that would make the most ardent freeper blush with joy. How sad is that when those that claim they want the purest form of democratic action go to great means to prevent it?

I've seen maybe 3 people type that out of thousands of posters. Anyone that thinks they are the same is on the wrong forum imo.

when I read it. So, my counting may be off.

so if that actually happens to you, then you should alert that. I have never once seen one DUer call another a DINO. Not once.

a comment I've made many times here. Both parties take vast sums from the very same Corporate Masters, and in the big picture - finance, militarism, environment - the differences are negligible. Or we could make another analogy - one Party throws you into the already boiling pot, the other puts you in the pot and heats it slowly.

I except a very few good Ds - a local Congressman, Hinchey, being one. He's on the right side 99.9% of the time (I actually can't think off the top of my head of any time he wasn't, but I put in the .01% on general principles - he, too, has to have $$ to get elected).

It's a given that anyone with an "R" after his/her name has sold his/her soul to the devil, and there's is no reason, EVER, to vote for or support any R. (Unfortunately, all too often, there's also no reason to vote for the D). That anyone should be "required" to criticize Rs if they criticize Ds is just silly - (I see that a lot here - someone saying "they" never attack Rs - seems to me that it's easy enough to tell who is objecting to something the Ds do from a principled progressive stance and who's shilling for our Corporate Overlords) - who here ever advocates voting for or supporting Rs? Or supporting any of their positions? At least until the Ds adopt them, as Obama did with Romney care.

I come here because there's a lot of smart people hanging around here, a lot of good info, occasionally some great humor, and for SMW and WE. I post now and then for the same reason I presume a lot of people do - to blow off some steam.

I don't have a star and never will. Nor do I care if I never post here again, or how many ignore lists I'm on - I hope a good few, actually - or who reads my posts or who doesn't. Posting on an internet message board like this one is a totally solipsistic activity, utterly meaningless in terms of activism. It's a self-indulgence.

Just as electoral politics is a self-indulgence. It's a high octane activity - it generates intense activity, intense highs and lows, intense adrenaline. It's like a drug. Like driving a really fast car, or mountain climbing, or video-gaming, or any of the other means we use to keep reality at bay. And worth about as much in terms of saving life on this planet. Which is all that matters, in the end. For a little while.

I often read attacks on good solid left leaning liberals being bashed and told they are damaging the party. I have seen people here attacking liberal beliefs and being told that they are ignorant of how things work.

for future progress. But I am a moderate, so I would feel that way. I don't have an issue with most progressive thought. But I do have issue with what I see as a lack of perspective. Near the end of his life, Edward Kennedy remarked about how if he had been willing to take less to get health care reform passed maybe it would have passed many years ago. Progressives rail about not having the public option, without accepting the reality that if the option had been included, health care reform would be dead today and a state like Vermont would not be on the threshold of implementing a public option on a grand scale. I view President Obama as an almost unworldly calm and wise person, I can only imagine what Senator Kennedy told President Obama while they were in the Senate and after President Obama was elected. Could it have been a wise old man looked back into his youth, saw mistakes and counseled a young, promising Senator to avoid those mistakes?

can see that the republicans can not be reasoned with. If we are willing to water down our values in the name of bipartisanship, what have we gained? I am sure Obama is a wonderful person, I was very happy and thrilled to vote for him, however, I view him as simply a politician, very carefully crafted. He has done some good things and he has done some disappointing things too. He's not a bat shit crazy republican and I am grateful for that, and in November I will vote for him again.

...as long as they dont try to say that positions to the left of theirs are the spawn of paid Right-winged agitators

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

but in real life , I do know a few self professed moderates, but they are only moderates on a few issues and flaming liberals in the others. On the whole they are pretty respectful and we get along well. They have no problems with any of the left.

moved so far to the right over the last 40 years. It will take us on the far left to build the momentum to swing the pendulum back toward real liberal reforms that benefit working families, the elderly, children and the environment. This is the nature of politics: the extremes move the middle or else everything stagnates.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

And according to what was posted, the middle has moved to the right? Point out any other time in history where every racial group in the country had the level of civil rights that exists now. Point out any other time in history when women participated in making policy more than women do now. Point out any other time in history when a person had the right to watch their television programing, or buy their type of video recording. The middle has been the driving force for making change. The country IS more progressive, so by definition, that means that the center moved to the LEFT in making the country more progressive.

To whom do you refer, who are these radicals with a high level of civil rights, and what makes them radicals, in your view? Please be complete in your answer. Thanks.

Yes. I would.

are these 'radicals' with civil rights?

RACIAL, not radical.

Too funny.

Jump the gun much?

The poster wrote "racial group", not "radical group", yet you piled on.

Too funny.

the poster wrote "racial group".

not been any form of legal advance in civil rights for a 'racial group' in many long decades. An odd claim for a modern person to make. And because marriage equality is the civil rights battle of today, it is odd to hear that we are at some pinnacle of rights for which we should thank the moderates. When we have equal rights, then do a moderate dance of victory, but now, it seems so out of place as to be nearly unreadable on the page.

torture as defined by the Geneva Convention is state sanctioned, BP got more in tax breaks last year than the entire EPA was funded, union busting is more aggresive than it's been since the 1930's, women's reproductive rights are under legislative warfare in many states, some states are codifying racist laws, using child labor is back on the table, social safety nets are being slashed to pieces and war funding is so sacrosanct it isn't even open to discussion on public airwaves, and you think this is the most liberal time in our history?!

And WTF is the "right" to watch whatever bullshit your four corporate media overlords decide to feed you on tv - IF you can afford the outrageous cable costs, paying extra for MSNBC's sometimes liberal bias whereas Fox is available on every basic cable package. You are arguing we have more freedom and rights from a market-based, market-driven perspective. Meanwhile, the most progressive media outlet, a neutral, ungated Internet, is under constant threat of censor.

While it's true that more women and racial minorities are involved in policy-making, there is NO significant correlation between the numbers participating and the actual percentages of their numbers in the general population. Talk to me when 51% of Congress is female, 13% is black, 16% are Latino, 5% are Asian, 4% are GLBTQ and 20% are physically disabled. Or even when the numbers get anywhere near those demographics.

and everyone else.

Fueled, aided, and abetted my "moderates" working with the TeaPubliKlans to undo New Deal protections and promoting a false secular religion at the expense of most Americans and our habitat.

Right to "watch their programming" or "buy their type of video recording"? What the fuck are you talking about? What "progress" is that? What the fuck do you even mean? Are you painting BET as some great "moderate" powered advancement in civil rights?

In any event, you shit in our fiscal, martial, civil liberties, environmental, and about every other kind of punchbowl with the right and have worked ever to enrich the few and increase corporate influence in power that you ought to be sitting in the corner with a dunce hat on instead of continuing to do your level best to make this a more inclusive, less theocratic Republican party but the arrogance and drive to serve power never fucking rests.

For crying out loud, anyone so distorted as to be pushing specific corporate propaganda sources framed as race or gender friendly as an advancement to crow about.

Congratulations women and minorities, he says, you have enough market share that we will make advertising vehicles catered to you. Ain't America grand he says? You can be sold tampons while Meredith Baxter Birney finds out who took her baby.

Holy fucking shit.

goes on amongst some Liberals and others on this board isn't about Liberalism. It's about how to get from point A to point B most effectively/powerfully, the objective being not to lose on as many of our issues as possible. And people who push 3rd party stuff right now, at the national level, are whistling passed the graveyard. Yeah, they can put some numbers together, yeah they can primary some people, but IF they end up electing Republicans or Libertarians, their issues are going to fail, because that's just the way it is. I want us to stick together so that OUR NUMBERS mean something. We should also be more clear about accountability amongst ourselves. Issue advocates should NOT be shy about stating their quid pro quos for/with other issue advocates. That's the sort of thing that will help save us from the corruption of the 2-party system.

attack. And if anyone has a problem with word choice or something, let them state the problem specifically, so that the poster who erred can adapt his/her approach to be more functional to the issue at hand.

I have issues with conservative democrats. But I realize that those people come from states and districts where being a republican would be easier for them. Those democrats are democrats because they buy in to the goals that democrats since Franklin Roosevelt have had for american society. While I don't agree with conservative democrats, they are as much a democrat as I am. I will resolve my differences with conservative democrats once we as a group have sent modern republicans to the dustbin of history.

market" shit.

And you don't think Connecticut, Delaware, California, etc. can't elect a legitimate liberal Democrat?? Come on.

Conservative Democrats ARE the Modern Republicans.

"Conservative Democrats ARE the Modern Republicans". Modern republicans are extreme backward social conservatives that think pushing the country back to the twenties when women were objects and told to stay home, represents progress. Modern republicans want unions banned so that businesses can decide wage rates. Conservative democrats are not modern republicans. I have my differences with conservative democrats, but they are contributing members of the democratic party that don't agree with me on all political issues. I accept their difference for what it is, a difference. I will deal squarely with conservative democrats once I have helped banish modern republicans, until then when a split in the democratic party is not only inevitable, but the right thing to do, I, as a moderate, need conservative democrats guarding my rear flank.

Here you saying conservative Democrats are contributing members to the Democratic Party and that you don't agree on all issues. Gee, it would be nice if you acknowledged the same from Progressives who many do contribute to the Democratic Party. I voted all Democratic in the 2010 elections.

You don't realize the conservative Democrats are the ones likely to vote for Republicans. Gene Taylor endorsed Bush & McCain. Lieberman who isn't as conservative as Gene Taylor also endorsed Bush & McCain.

You're all over progressives while kissing conservative Democrats ass.

:crazy:

the definitions of "all" and "some". If neither is stated overtly, either is a possibility, so the reader/info-consumer makes a perceptual choice and that choice reveals something about his/her intent. Is this not so?

The OP implies that anyone who posts such views should be considered a "suspect".

Patrice has fully clarified the meaning of "all", and "some", for which I thank him/her.

We're not ALL paid Right-winged agitators.
Only SOME of us are.
But the clear thread message is that,We , who post from left of center should ALL be carefully looked at as suspect shills.

Posts from the left view should be scrutinized suspiciously, because SOME of them ARE sent by right-winged shills.

Be Careful what you say.

Of course, when you look at everything in black and white, nothing can be implied, right? Some of this stuff is starting to make my head hurt.

Umm, no it doesn't.

besides claiming to be liberal and criticizing the president/democrats, it absolutely does.

What it says is this: There are (supposedly) people out there posting as paid right-wing operatives criticizing the president/dems, claiming to be liberal or progressive. Therefore, there should be some doubt expressed towards people who espouse these views. It's what the OP implies, and it's what a lot of the posters in threads like these either imply, or directly say.

It is implied clearly.

:sarcasm:

I think this is the second or third I've seen. It's meant to stifle any criticism of the party. Very obvious tactic.

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

We do not need two conservative parties. :yourock:

a delusional fuckwit avarice filled fuck serving a false secular religion.

it's expected from the loyalists in our own party who constantly feign at our independent thinking. I wasn't born to become a party loyalist... when I see our side doing wrong(like being moving to the right) I will say something.

Some folks seem so determined to be contrarian and stir up shit that it's hard to imagine the really hold the opinions they are putting forth.

Toe the line, everyone.

Actually, I'm not sure I even know what a sockpuppet is.

say someone else said.

In case you need a refresher (this IS a quote, LOL):

"Quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks)<1> are punctuation marks at the beginning and end of a quotation, direct speech, literal title or name. Quotation marks can also be used to indicate another sense or meaning of words, phrases or parts of text by which one wants the reader to interpret the statement or text than the one initially suggested, such as to convey irony."

This was quoted from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

on a regular basis, are actually saying.

when you do the same thing to them, something like: All who criticize Progressives think Progressives MUST conform.

As I said earlier, I'd like to begin with the word "must". Could you please tell me the difference between your special usage of the word "must" and the dictionary entry on that word here:

- to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement: I must keep my word.

- to be under the necessity to; need to: Animals must eat to live.

- to be required or compelled to, as by the use or threat of force: You must obey the law.


If you did not intend the meaning of the word "must" in this sense, how did you intend it?

not a direct quote.

interpretation absolutely wrong?

threads like these.