I just cracked the DU lack of analysis code

[cui bono]

In every case, take all criticism of the US personally while simultaneously making ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments so as to avoid actually discussing the issues.

Anyone aligned with the principles/values of the US and who dares level any criticism of it and its administration should be viewed unfavorably compared to those who defend the US even when it is oppositional to its principles as laid out in the US constitution.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. Brilliant.

This board has been full of Bill Bennett and Bill Kristol parroting neocon "liberals" lately. Many of them bordering on xenophobic, but most just ignorant.

[cui bono]

2. Yeah, I don't know if you caught the OP that this is a parody of but it was the same headline

minus the words "lack of".

Basically saying "criticism is bad, mmmkay?"

[ForgoTheConsequence]

5. Unfortunately I did read it.

I have also read the posts that accuse anyone of questioning our foreign policy of being "anti american". Same shit I heard from republicans (and some democrats) during the Iraq war.


If you read the stuff Bill Kristol has been writing for the last few years they're basically parroting his talking points. Ironically, however, if you have a more left leaning and skeptical approach to foreign policy you get called a right wing Ron Paul supporter.

[Catherina]

9. +1. The neocons and neolibs are rigging the game in both parties, just like the corporations are n/t

[Enthusiast]

81. How about we just call them Fascists.

[Catherina]

86. Agreed. A fascist by any other name... n/t

[Fumesucker]

3. Addendum: Only holds true when your team holds the White House n/t

[cui bono]

4. So true. n/t

[woo me with science]

87. +1

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. You know what country caused the greatest extinction on the planet?

Russia....... think about damn it.



Well at least their Siberian traps did in the Permian extinction.


You noticed they were called TRAPS
think about it.

[cui bono]

7. You're just itching to bring Snowden into this aren't you?

Admit it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. Failure to Strike Syria May Result in U.S. Getting Nuked

if the U.S. doesn’t take military action against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime a nuclear war may ensue.




Nevermind I was channeling
Sen. Lindsey Graham for a second

Yeah.. Snowden

With every postI feel I both distance myself from a career in government and increase my chances of passing a polygraph.

[progressoid]

8. It's a trap!

[mindwalker_i]

11. I think this might be more representative:

[2banon]

54. That was a cute way of tying in last nights Cosmos' lesson.. good job! :) n/t

[Enthusiast]

82. I'll hate Russia forever for the Permian extinction!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Maedhros]

12. It's the result of emotional politics.

People are very emotionally invested in the Obama Presidency. Criticizing U.S. policy equates to criticizing Obama, which provokes an emotional response rather than a rational one.

"America! Fuck yeah!"

[cui bono]

13. Yes. And a team sports mentality.

And they are playing right into TPTB's game. Keep us divided into two teams that both enable TPTB, albeit one more so than the other.

As long as the people divided they won't stand up to TPTB together even though it would be best for them.

[Maedhros]

18. Closest analogy I can think of comes from Frank Herbert's "Dune."

Baron Harkonnen is given Arrakis to rule, so he installs his newphew Globbu "Beast" Rabban as governor and tells him to rule with an iron fist. After a few years of misery under Rabban, rule of Arrakis was to be transferred to the Baron's other nephew, the beautiful and charming Feyd Rautha, whom the people would love.

We had our eight years of Beast Rabban, now we have our adorable Feyd Rautha. But both are Harkonnens.

[villager]

35. And we are still waiting for our Fremen!

Though maybe there's some small hope to be gleaned in that the harsh penalties against "spice" are softening a bit?

[Demeter]

26. God knows why

There's no point in getting emotional about a man who has no emotions stronger than piqued. Or panicked.

[Maedhros]

30. In some ways Obama is an empty vessel, into which frustrated Democrats pour their dreams.

He is everything they imagine him to be: progressive visionary, political genius, liberal stalwart, diplomatic superstar. The glare from Obama's imagined brilliance blinds them to his egregious policy failures.

[Demeter]

31. An empty vessel with a large crack and no bottom

What one might call a conduit, if it weren't for the crack.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

14. Hilarious bullshit, cui bono

It's more simply calling you out, when you:

1] Quote and agree with Republicans, so as to attack Barack Obama.

2] Crow about "proving" that Obama is worse than Bush, when the only referenced facts you can cite is that in the 2008 election, he ended up supporting a compromise legislative reform crafted by Speaker Pelosi.

3] Doing your whole "Unfucking believable" moral sanctimony rant, and then getting all whiny about Ad Hominems when people point out that your logic doesn't prove what you think it does.

4] Deliberately twisting the words of people you disagree with because you don't want to address their actual words.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

16. You still upset about the other thread?

Aw...

Not playing your game this time. Suffice it to say that all your statements are false. However, I will point out that you are the one who defended BushCo's actions.

Carry on. Not going to respond to you any further so say what you like.

[G_j]

21. the "other thread"

that OP sounded like it was written by Rush himself..

[ConservativeDemocrat]

33. Not at all upset!

Seriously, cui, I was actually pleased at nearly having an adult, fact based, conversation for a few posts. Until you suddenly decided to fall back into your familiar habit of misrepresenting others - when you began to realize that the flaws in your reasoning, lack of actually pertinent facts, punched a devastating hole in your case about Obama being worse than Bush.

And we're not even counting the facts I provided which ripped your flimsy case to shreds.

> However, I will point out that you are the one who defended BushCo's actions.
The sadly amusing part is that I think you actually believe this bit of "truthiness" you just pulled out of your ass. But the record is there, if anyone else actually wants to go look at it. Not that I expect anyone will.

Besides, since according to your own repeated statements and "logic", Obama is worse than Bush, why wait for this invented "defense" of Bush that you claim to see, before pulling out the ("unfucking believable&quot swear words? Remember! According to you, Obama is worse than Bush! So therefore anyone who defends Obama like I did (and 85% of liberal democrats) must be worse than someone who defends Bush!

You should be screaming and ranting about the vast majority of Democrats. Oh wait, maybe you are.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

38. Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but that is all complete bullshit and you know it.

I don't know what logic means in your book, but it's not accurate if you think I'm not logical. I laid out the evidence to my claim, using a lot of info from the link you provided, and then you retorted with "the relevant part of the link". So you want to pull out only one statement that you think supports your claim and discard all the rest that proves mine.

Secondly, you are now falsely stating that I claimed "Obama is worse than Bush" without qualifying it to the one policy I was discussing. Way to misrepresent the whole situation, you're good at that, I know.

Now you are attempting to slander me by claiming I'm habitual at whatever it is you are claiming. Prove it. Prove it in a truly logical manner, not whatever you think logical means.

You are the one who defended BushCo's illegal warrantless wiretaps. In response to Spector saying that Bush just ignored the 1978 law anyway

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling that exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in 1978 act." Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program.

you said:

I would also beg to differ with Sen. Specter's interpretation, because essentially Bush was arguing that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against Al-Qae'ida and its terrorist allies was also Congressional permission to use any means to track them down - even if they were American citizens. And if this interpretation were correct (it was never tested in court), the 1978 law would be superseded by the later law. By passing a law in 2008, Congress was making clear that the wartime authorities granted in the 2001 AUMF did not extend to warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. Even if you had reason to suspect that a citizen was a member of Al-Qae'ida, you still had to get a judge's permission to intercept their communications.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4673518

You can catapult your propaganda all you want in however many threads you want, doesn't make it true.

And if you're not upset, why are you so obsessed with me and that exchange?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

56. Actually, I will cede one point to you

You are merely saying that Obama is worse than Bush on this one issue. And even though your evidence for this does not hold up in the least bit, it doesn't necessarily mean you believe that Obama is worse than Bush on all issues. So, I'll withdraw the general statement as an overreach on my part - partly in the hope that you're not so extremist as to expand this logic to all of Obama's actions.

None the less, your stating that Speaker Pelosi and (then Senator) Obama "pushed to get {illegal wiretapping} legalized." is a direct, and false, attack on them. The Speaker's bill in 2008 eliminated entirely a legal theory that we could still be operating under today, had it not been explicitly declared forbidden. The court challenges alone would have taken a decade to wind their way through the courts, and frankly, courts generally are very respectful of prerogatives of the executive when it comes to National Security, so there is absolutely no guarantee that anything would have changed at all absent the speaker's intervention.

That you choose to attempt to twist my rather unremarkable observation into a defense of the Bush Presidency speaks volumes about your willingness to adhere to the rules of debate.

Insofar as my response to you, I was going to just let it all go, since I try not to waste time with people who don't accept facts or logic. But as the front page suddenly had this piece of projection on your part being upvoted, I thought to make it clear that it was.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

60. Oh, that's so generous of you!

You'll withdraw an incorrect claim of yours not just because you are wrong, but "partly in the hope that you're not so extremist as to expand this logic to all of Obama's actions."

I said nothing at all about Pelosi. You brought her into this. I proved the rest already. Using a lot of info from the link you provided before.

If you didn't mean to defend Bush, that's fine, I'll accept that.

Seriously, this is a dead horse. If you want to revisit it yet again, feel free to reread the original posts.

But thanks for proving the point of this OP and kicking the thread!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

64. This is Speaker Pelosi's law we're talking about

Which I directly quoted previously and you attacked Obama over. In fact, it was the totality of your evidence that Obama "legalized" illegal wiretapping:

Obama came down on the side of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act's courts, gives the final say over government spying. President Bush has argued that a war-time chief executive has powers that trump FISA.

"It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Obama said today.

Seriously, do you read?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

66. So what? That doesn't mean anything in relation to what we're talking about.

What does it being Pelosi's law have anything to do with Obama pushing for legalization? How does it then follow that I said Pelosi pushed for it?

Stop reaching so much, your sleeves are going to be too short for your arms.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

72. "So what?!?" That's your ONLY EVIDENCE!

I specifically asked you for facts associated with your assertion that Obama legalized illegal wiretapping, and the only thing you came up with that had to do with any sort of statutory change, were complaints about Pelosi's law.

Chiefly those were complaints by the EFF that her law didn't go far enough in their estimation, which while I may not agree, was at least a critique based in fact. You then tried to turn this into 'the law made it worse'.

And, apparently since you like to play games about accurate characterizations, you specifically said:

I used the link you provided to prove that he was NOT supportive of "major reform" as a senator.
...
I provided links showing he pushed for lax changes that actually made things worse when he was president.
...
As I pointed out in my post, if you would read it, it has gotten worse. They loosened the rules.

Unless of course, by reform you are talking about making the problem worse.

The link I provided was about Speaker Pelosi's compromise law, and Obama's support of it. The link you provided was also about Speaker Pelosi's compromise law, and Arlen Specter(R)'s concern trolling about it.

And now you're asking "What does it being Pelosi's law have anything to do with Obama pushing for legalization?" ?!?

Seriously, I think I have my answer now. You don't read. We are indeed done here.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

73. You have no idea what my argument is so you don't even know what that is evidence of, it's not about

Pelosi though, I can tell you that. I never brought her name up. You did.

Go reread the thread. Or read it to begin with. That's a good place to start.

I laid it all out for you over there. All you have to do is read. Much of it is from your own link, you know, the parts you wanted to disregard.

Go ahead. You'll see. Just as I said.

As to your being dumbfounded... surely you can see that there is a difference between what people push for and what a law ends up being. And surely you can see that I never said that Pelosi pushed for anything, which is the point I was making in this thread. I was making that point because you keep trying to change what I said in the other thread. You are on a mision and by golly you won't stop no matter how much you have to try to twist everything I said into whatever you wanted it to be. You really need to take a logic class and get some help for all the projecting and disingenuous arguing you do.

You're the one who has mangled this whole thing trying to make it look like I have not proven anything when I absolutely did prove it already, a long, long time ago by now. Seriously, all you have to do is go read my posts. I know you know how to find them.

[Maedhros]

19. Conservatives are wont to believe ridiculous things. [n/t]

[zeemike]

20. "Crow about "proving" that Obama is worse than Bush"

"Deliberately twisting the words of people you disagree with"

Oh the ironey...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

27. Your username still cracks me up.

Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman fan?

[Enthusiast]

83. Max Baucus.

I can't remember the last time I thought a "conservative" had anything worthy to say.

[bvar22]

32. ConservativeDemocrat, if you are going to "Call someone Out",

You really have to provide links or direct quotes that support your claims.

Please provide some support for your attacks listed here:

1] Quote and agree with Republicans, so as to attack Barack Obama.

2] Crow about "proving" that Obama is worse than Bush, when the only referenced facts you can cite is that in the 2008 election, he ended up supporting a compromise legislative reform crafted by Speaker Pelosi.

3] Doing your whole "Unfucking believable" moral sanctimony rant, and then getting all whiny about Ad Hominems when people point out that your logic doesn't prove what you think it does.

4] Deliberately twisting the words of people you disagree with because you don't want to address their actual words.

...if you do not provide direct quotes or links to direct quotes that unequivocally support your claims,
we will have to assume that you are just making stuff up.
While Making Stuff Up is acceptable among Conservatives,
we Liberals here at DU have a higher standard.

Thanks!

[Maedhros]

34. Don't hold your breath.

Conservatives are much better at bloviating than engaging in rational discussion.

[cui bono]

39. If he tried to you would see the argument we were having and that would be bad for him.

Especially regarding #4.

[sabrina 1]

41. Dont' hold your breath. Lol! Making stuff up to bait people with is the tactic. It never

works, but you have to give credit where it's due, not working is never a deterrent.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

42. Sure.

You're hardly one to talk about making stuff up bvar, but for the record:

The dispute here is where cui bono is quoting Arlen Specter(R - Pennsylvania) in an attack against President Obama.

To summarize, in 2001 the Authorization to Use Military Force against Al-Qae'ida was passed. Bush claimed that this declaration of war was Congress's permission to do whatever it took to track these terrorists down (superseding previous laws, including a 1978 law which outlawed the practice), and summarily ordered the NSA to engage in spying on U.S. citizens to find any such links. Most Democrats (including myself), considered that to be an overreach, so in 2008 Nancy Pelosi passed a compromise bill which explicitly declared that the 2001 AUMF did not give such authority, shutting the practice down entirely. As a candidate, Obama backed that compromise legislation. So these days, the only way a wiretap can be done on U.S. citizens is by court order.

* cui bono claims that supporting this compromise was worse than Bush's original construction of Presidential power.

* He also claims that I somehow agree with President Bush's construction.

* He claims (a direct quote) "BushCo committed illegal warrantless wiretapping. Obama pushed to get it legalized. It was legalized." He's pretending that Obama is worse than Bush.

* He quotes Arlen Specter pulling a classic concern-troll, in that attack.


I don't "make stuff up".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

46. No need to provide your false summary. You were asked for direct evidence.

None of which that is. That is simply your editorializing and taking things out of context. Hm... could it be you were projecting earlier with your accusations of twisting words? No............. say it ain't so!

And you would do well to not assume anyone whose gender you don't know is a "he". You could have easily found that out but then research is obviously not your strong point.

[bvar22]

53. ConservativeDemocrat...NONE of what you provided supports your claims.

The ONLY item in which you provided a direct quote is Here:

[font size=3]* He claims (a direct quote) "BushCo committed illegal warrantless wiretapping. Obama pushed to get it legalized. It was legalized."[/font]

Can you provide any evidence that this statement is FALSE?

...because I believe that to be a factual, historical (albeit brief) summary of exactly what transpired.
You may not like the implications or interpretations of what this represents,
but unless you can show where this statement is FALSE,
then you got nothing but your admittedly conservative opinion.

You DO know the difference between a FALSE statement,
and a statement that you just don't like?
Yes?

and you DO know HOW to prove a statement is FALSE?
Yes?

If you DO know these things,
please try again,
and support your opinion with something other than your own opinion.
Otherwise, You ARE just making stuff up.



Thanks!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

62. I am not interested in wasting time with someone who doesn't understand logic

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, it is up to them to provide evidence that supports it.

It is not up to others to prove such a claim false. No matter what size font you use.

However, just for you, here is a fact sheet, comparing Bush's policies to the FISA improvements made by speaker Pelosi in 2008, which was backed by then-candidate Obama as a compromise.

Then try your very best to pretend to yourself that the 2008 Democratic law is worse than the Bush administration laws. You know you want to.

Oh, and while you're at it, make sure to ignore that going this far is not what Obama really wanted, but rather what he agreed to as a compromise. I'm sure you can ignore that as well.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bvar22]

63. LOL.

You are confusing your "opinions"
with documentable Facts.

Tell us more about this Conservative "Reality Based Community" in which you are a proud member.

[cui bono]

65. You are conveniently changing the argument now and mistating my position as well as

leaving out the entire second half of it.

As to what Obama wanted, that was dealt with in my other posts. Go read them. I don't think you've actually done that yet.

You did inspire me though. To change my sig.

[sabrina 1]

61. You made plenty of stuff about me. Which was highly amusing

to me. Lol!

[villager]

36. Hilarious projection, Conservative"Democrat"

Since your "list" in fact does everything... on your list!

But no surprise there.

--Villager, proud member of the American Values Community

[Rex]

95. It is just a rebuttal to a now exposed sockpuppet that has been PPRd.

Wow, defensive much?

[jtuck004]

15. I read the other day Republicans look for voters, Democrats look for traitors. Seems someone agrees

with you.

[Demeter]

29. I don't know about that

Democrats in office don't look for the voters or the traitors. Not sure what they are looking for, anymore.

Someone to blame, mostly.

[Comrade Grumpy]

55. They look for campaign contributions.

[jtuck004]

58. They say manufacturing is dead. They haven't looked at our pols manufacturing excuses.

If that was worth anything we would be on the other side of a recovery.

[Rex]

17. Oh noes! You will upset the fringe groupies!

Kick and rec for pissing off all the RIGHT people!

[cui bono]

25. Not trying to piss anyone off. Just rebutting in same style.

Albeit with more substance.

That they really think serious policy critique comes down to such simplistic thinking is amazing. All one need do is look at the posts by the critics here and elsewhere on the internet to see that other OP was complete and utter bullshit.

I could not let it stand!

[Rex]

67. I know, it is just a saying - they HATE it!

I've seen a few try some weak copycat stuff, but it looks like they showed up in your thread and the results are exactly as I said.

Like moths to a flame.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. K & R

[bvar22]

23. DURec.

The Master Baiters are on the rise with their emotion based rhetoric of division and blame.

SOP for them to attack Liberals, Pacifists, and Intellectuals....
you know, the people who THINK,
gather evidence,
and consider options before immediately loading up the Freedom Bombs.



The Two Minutes of Hate lasted all day yesterday.




[font size=5]
If you're not FOR WAR in[/font]
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Syria
[font size=5]The Ukraine

you're WITH [/font]
The Communists
AlQaeda
The Terrorists
Saddam
Qaddafi
Assad
[font size=5]PUTIN!!!![/font]

Terror! Terror! Terror!
Evil Dictators!
Booga...Booga
Terror Drones and Freedom Bombs for Peace!!!
USA....USA...USA

They are killing their own innocent people.
Don't they know that is OUR job?
[/font]
[font size=4 color=firebrick]

[grahamhgreen]

28. Stop it, you're scaring the babies!

[ctsnowman]

37. lol Love it.

[sabrina 1]

44. That's it exactly. They never have to change the format

since our Foreign policies never change. The propaganda, the attacks on the Left, because it's always the Left, don't need to change, regardless who's using them, Bush bots or third wayers, they are applicable, don't need to spend money to buy more, just change the name of the latest 'scary enemy', find some lefties and drag out the old, I guess ancient by now, 'commie', 'terror supporter' etc., trash talk.

At least they are 'conservative' regarding saving money. Lol!

[G_j]

51. +1000

[Enthusiast]

84. +1 an entire shit load!

Thanks, bvar22! More good stuff.

[reddread]

88. uckin fay post rec

thread kick
hats off

[tea and oranges]

24. Narcissism of Small Differences

is what Freud called the tendency to shore up our independence by lashing out at those who believe similarly.

That said, there seem to be people on board who cherish beliefs that belong in the right-wing sphere & who, as OP says, [take all criticism of the US personally while simultaneously making ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments so as to avoid actually discussing the issues.] This is not a mature approach to politics or much else.

I discovered the IGNORE function 2 days ago. What a difference it makes!

[Autumn]

40. I think you really did crack it. Great job.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Aka: "America, Love it or Leave it".

[TheKentuckian]

45. Sounds about right.

[fascisthunter]

47. Wasn't That Hard Was it?

You can only get stronger when you are willing to look at what's wrong... unless of course you think things are going right.

[ProSense]

48. That's

"In every case, take all criticism of the US personally while simultaneously making ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments so as to avoid actually discussing the issues."

...NonSense. Only a Pro would claim that tactic is used.

Uh, I see what you did there!!!

Creeping hypocrisy.

[sabrina 1]

57. Do you think that people who disagree with our foreign policies, are 'Saddam/Putin/Assad et al

lovers? We know that was the view of Bush bots, now we are seeing it here on DU, ad hom attacks on people who dare to express their opinions. Have WE become THEM, the ones we laughed at for 'marching in lockstep' regardless of how wrong the policies were?

[Cha]

70. So creepy.. and so not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. Considering the source it's

a fucking badge of honor, ProSense.

[NuclearDem]

49. I don't take it personally at all.

In fact, I criticize US foreign policy and war crimes all the time.

The problem is that I don't see a lot of consistency or intellectual honesty out of others who do. Some jump to the most ridiculous tu quoque fallacies to divert blame from Putin for escalating tensions in Crimea, some set up a false dichotomy of either being pro-Putin/anti-Ukranian fascists or anti-Putin/pro-Ukranian fascists, and then some more claim that Ukraine is just an attempt to distract from Benghazi--uh, the CIA.

That's my issue with it. Just want the same consistency in opposing undemocratic homophobic fascist war criminals that I show.

[woo me with science]

50. K&R

[treestar]

52. Oh BS

Some people have nothing but criticism and jump onto any critical bandwagon, and you're not calling THEM out. There are several posters always seeing only the negative side and never have anything positive to say. It is BS to make them out to be some sort of victims. They get plenty of say, especially on a board for Democrats.

[joshcryer]

59. I commented in the thread about this exact pettiness.

This proves my point.

[cui bono]

68. You mean in that other petty thread this one parodies?

The petty thread whose pettiness you failed to mention in your petty post?

Good one.

[joshcryer]

71. Nope.

It's obviously inferred. The self-congratulatory indulgences exist in both threads for anyone to see. Though I think one group does it out of having a noxious attitude and the other does it to feel validated, as it is always very one sided.

[Rex]

93. Too bad that other thread starter was a sockpuppet.

Congrats! You rec'd Pretzel Warriors sockpuppet! Nah, nothing petty about making a new account because the admins put your main one in Time out!

But I'm sure both sides do it so...

[reddread]

96. yeah, those recs are real n/t

[Rex]

69. Kick!

nt.

[Bobbie Jo]

74. No, not so much....

You started a self-congratulatory, high-fiving, come ye forth and mock thread.

That's about it, really.

Back to the festivities, enjoy!

[cui bono]

75. Oh, so then I'm sure I'll see a post from you saying this exact same thing in the thread

this one is a parody of.

Good to know. Hey... wait a minute... all you posted in that thread was a simple agreement of another reply that disparaged other DUers. That can't be right... hmph. Well that's a head scratcher all right.

Oh, btw... still waiting on you to provide me with quotes to back up your slanderous statement about me in another thread. Funny how you never came up with anything.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. Well, that *would* explain *this* bizarre spectacle:

Who's wreaked more international havoc lately? US or Russia?

Regards,

Etc. Manny
Using the contraction "etc" to hate on the LGBT community since 2014

[woo me with science]

77. kick

[Fumesucker]

78. Kick

[reddread]

79. aka "Freeper logic" n/t

[Joe Shlabotnik]

80. K&R n/t

[Enthusiast]

85. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.

[Zorra]

89. On a related note, DU progressives may want to update their jury blackilists, and ignore lists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298088&sub=trans

[cui bono]

90. Haha... PW always had almost 0 chance of being on a jury and I don't use ignore

so I'm set!

[Rex]

91. It looks like you cracked something!

Who could have guessed that such a blind faithful follower of Obama would create a sockpuppet to harass us liberals while he was in timeout! I'm so shocked I tell you!

You cracked the Sockpuppet Code! Congrats!

"Zombies! Zombies everywhere!"
(Thanks Sid)

[cui bono]

92. It's sad that all his methods are right wing methods.

The simplistic, binary thinking of that other cracked code post, the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality, the no criticism of our fearless leader mentality and lastly the "I don't have to play by the rules and I'll cheat if I have to to try to get my way" mentality.

So sad.

[Rex]

94. It is, if only everyone would play by the rules here and only have ONE account!

Yeah underhanded tactics are what we expect from people that post at FR, but I digress. Yep to the binary thinking...it is as clear as day with some here. I think us old timers notice it the most. Lack of critical thinking skills, lack of honest debate. Good idea to be wary.

I have to say, the admins have shown a lot more restraint on DU3; he was kicked off DU2 for shit stirring and was given a zillion chances here to clean up his act. I guess it is just too tempting for some to make a sock, because they cannot STAND it when there is a hippie that needs punching!