What's with using right-wing sources to attack the Dem candidates?

[knowledgeispwr]

This ranges from posting editorial columns by conservative writers, to using foreign news sources with superficial and dubious understandings of our culture and processes to flat out using right-wing websites filled with racist and misogynistic articles.

Many of these attack pieces are posted with little or no commentary from the OP. The only effect seems to be spamming DU with garbage. It's lazy, sickening and disgusting. Those "sources" don't become legitimate just because they are attacking a candidate that isn't yours. Using half-truths from these writings in a pseudo-intellectual way to smear a candidate is even worse.

Legitimate, rational, thought-out criticism is one thing. Posting right-wing drivel is quite another entirely.

[LostinVA]

1. The other day I saw someone with less than 100 posts use StormFront as a link

They're still here.

Boggles the mind.

[Yossariant]

2. ..

:wtf:

[knowledgeispwr]

4. Thankfully I missed that one...

but from what I've seen, sadly it doesn't surprise me. It amazes me how some still manage to hang around despite posting very offensive crap, and defend it as if it were legitimate.

So much for us supposedly being "better than that."

[Danger Mouse]

20. you shitting me?

:puke:

[LostinVA]

30. I wish I was

He claimed he didn't know what type of site it was. How could you NOT notice it's a neo-Nazi site?

[Danger Mouse]

34. He's full of it, obviously.

What a pig.

[Jamastiene]

28. I saw that.

That was horrendous. :puke:

[HughMoran]

3. I couldn't agree more

The depths to which some will stoop to make a point here is incredible.

[knowledgeispwr]

8. The ironic thing is that it weakens arguments...

at least in my book.

Maybe having to resort posting junk like I described just shows that while anyone can have legitimate reasons for preferring Clinton or Obama, both Dem candidates are pretty good.

[HughMoran]

14. I was thinking that too after posting

I was trying to imagine why people would have to resort to such tactics, then I realized that our candidates are both very good people and all that's left is the lame old right-wing talking points. OTOH, I am almost certain that some folks who only attack one candidate and never praise their own candidate are just Freepers taking advantage of the situation at this time. Fortunately, we have special features here that allow us to "not see" these characters. :D

[knowledgeispwr]

19. I think you may be right about those who only attack...

and never support/praise their own candidate.

I've just started to utilize those "special features" to avoid some of those characters. ;)

[rusty quoin]

5. I sincerely hate all of it, all the infighting. nt

[angie_love]

6. I couldn't agree more. I can't believe some ppl call themselves democrats with a straight face

Or maybe they are reallly freepers in disguise. I hope for our sake they are, I wouldn't want to be associated with "democrats" like these.

[Jamastiene]

29. Yeah, with Democrats like those, who needs Republicans? n/t

[DemGa]

7. I wonder if they will give as much credence to right-wing smear

when it is directed at their Obama. LOL

We shall soon find out!

[knowledgeispwr]

10. There are right-wing smears directed at both Obama and Clinton

in GD: P. Maybe you just missed those threads. Neither candidate has been immune in this forum.

[madfloridian]

9. You need to lower your expectations.

Right wing sources are ok here now.

[blogslut]

11. So far today

RW sources cited: David Brooks, GOPBloggers, Frontpage, Fox news and Michael Savage.

[knowledgeispwr]

13. Michael Savage!!??

:crazy: That one and Stormfront I hadn't heard until I created this thread. Is that poster still around?

[blogslut]

17. Okay, not directly

It was a post citing a Frontpage piece that called Obama an affirmative action candidate. And we all know that Mr. Wiener started that one.

So, I fudged a little. :)

As for the poster. I don't want them banned. I just want these fanatics to stop using RW sources to justify whatever the hell they're trying to justify.

[Yossariant]

15. Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, Peggy Noonan

--- a veritable who's who of right wing shills with threads started by their blatherings if they attack and/or support a candidate and, sorry, but it is pretty one-sided.

[Adelante]

31. Add Daniel Pipes to that list

I alert on any I see, but it's hard to keep up with it anymore. For us and for the mods.

[AlCzervik]

12. i'm waiting for someone to post a Daniel Pipes essay, that'll button it for me.

[HughMoran]

16. One was posted a while back, but I had never heard of the person

I didn't read it but people reacted violently to it - what is it all about?

[AlCzervik]

18. he's bad, really bad. Huge neo con, ultra uber con and he specializes in the ME

i saw him debate another writer one night on Charlie Rose, i literally thought it was going to come to blows and Charlie there in the middle trying to tamp it down.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes

[HughMoran]

21. OK, someone pointed out that he was a neocon

That post went the way of the dodo bird, so I can't link to it!

[AlCzervik]

22. he favors interment for muslims and agreed with Michelle Malkin about the interment of the japanese

and he's written about a bazillion articles about Palestine.

[HughMoran]

25. Thanks

Next time I will know right away if I see someone post this crap. I love that avatar of the girl wishing that freak, Bush, would get away from her! :rofl:

[Adelante]

32. Well, go look, chimps

I don't remember the thread title, but I just saw Daniel Pipes in a post ten minutes ago and not for the first time.

[Yossariant]

23. I suspect that some freepi are posting here. Some of these are their usual sources.

[knowledgeispwr]

24. Yes, I bet SOME are....

but sadly, I don't think ALL are.

I don't know what to think about the non-freepers posting this mess.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Evidently nothing's against the rules anymore

There's a popular thread now quoting Peggy fucking Noonan.

There's another thread that just says "FUCK THE CLINTONS".

There's no longer a requirement that a thread be meaningful, or non-flamebait. The rules are out the window, the admins don't give a shit, and this site is a bigger cesspool with each passing day.

[HughMoran]

27. Rules?

We don't need no stinkin' rules!

:D

[UALRBSofL]

33. Totally agree. Do your homework before posting an article

Just my opinion.