If you DON'T think this is happening on DU, then I have some swamp land to sell you

[AnnInLa]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/23/political_bloggers_fear_publicists_will_infiltrate_sites/?page=full

Political bloggers fear publicists will infiltrate sites

By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | February 23, 2007

Snip...tells how RedState.com caught a McCain operative who had infiltrated their site, and was talking up McCain, who is not much favored there on RS.

With big corporations now hiring public relations firms to pay fake bloggers to plant favorable opinions of the businesses online, many political bloggers are concerned that candidates, too, will hire people to pretend to be grass-roots citizens expressing views. "This is going to happen more and more, and blogs are going to have to be vigilant," Erickson said in an interview. "I expect there will be commenters jumping in and trying to build negative campaigns to cause scandal for the other side. That's my fear."

snip

The Internet has already become a prime target for such manipulation. Tom Rosenstiel , the director of Project for Excellence in Journalism , said the growing influence of political blogs, combined with the relative ease of posting negative information anonymously, make them "irresistible for dirty tricks and attack politics.

"Candidates, history shows, will do anything they can to win. The only downside to a candidate is getting caught," he said. But the downside for blogs could be far greater, because the blogs' credibility rests on the idea that they represent unvarnished grass-roots opinion.

snip

Public relations agents are attracted to the blogosphere because Web comments "can fly under the radar and have no fingerprints attached to them. They have the impression of being citizen-based and independent, and if the conditions are right, what's in the blogs can influence the mainstream press and have a real echo effect on a campaign dialogue," Rosenstiel said. "I think the impact is going to be that when the 2008 campaign is over, blogging may be damaged." For now, bloggers must be their own police. Participating in online political discussions without disclosing financial ties to a candidate would violate the unwritten rules of the blogosphere, website operators said.

snip


For the presidential campaigns, however, the stakes may prove too high to resist. About 15 percent of Americans get their political news online, according to a January study by the Pew Foundation, but political consultants said that percentage was higher among the party faithful who knock on doors, attend rallies, and make campaign donations. A good reputation among activists who get their news and views online, political strategists say, will be a crucial asset in the early stages of the primaries.

much, much more at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/23/political_bloggers_fear_publicists_will_infiltrate_sites/?page=full

[Guaranteed]

1. I'm seeing lots of newer posters supporting either

Sen. Clinton or Obama. Also seeing lots of them trying to push the "Gore isn't running" idea.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Ummmmm, But Gore Isn't Running, Nor Is There Reason To Believe He'll Change His Mind.

Not sure that's because of paid bloggers. :rofl:

[libertypirate]

54. Irony

[scarletwoman]

74. (*chortle*) (nt)

[Stephanie]

153. no kidding

[Bronyraurus]

11. Yo, I'm a new poster and I support Obama

Since when are Clinton and Obama Republicans?

[TheWatcher]

90. Exhibit A?

[uppityperson]

135. !

:toast:

[JackRiddler]

95. Who said this was an exclusively Republican phenomenon?

Or that it refers to you?

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

139. Great example...

... and nice insertion of false choices. Typical discussion stifling tactic.

[mzteris]

15. it's not the supporters I'm suspect of -

it's the HATERS...... of Clinton. Obama. Edwards. Anyone.

If you have to trash the competition, then something's wrong.

I'm AUTOMATICALLY suspect when the *only* things a person posts is something like,

"well, I'm not anti-(insert candidate name) BUT s/he did/said such and such blah blah blah and I think that's really despicable/awful/etc..."

[MissWaverly]

23. hey, just mention the "he lives in a big house people"

We need to examine the candidates on the issues not on their clothes, wardrobes, cars
or homes or their HAIR.

:-)

[mzteris]

49. and not just ONE issue, either.

As important as individual issues are - there's a whole lot to running a country.

AND there's no such thing as the "perfect candidate". You're never going to agree with any single candidate on 100% of the issues.

[MissWaverly]

104. yes, that's true, but I am leary of candidates who attack liberals

saying we don't represent the country, this is not the time for liberal ideas, blah, blah,
blah, look at what we have been through: rigged elections, renditions, wiretapping, war based on bad intelligence, wounded soldiers mistreated, Katrina, 9-11, if ever there was a time to listen to liberal ideas, it's now.

[mzteris]

119. In the interest of fairness -

There are those of us who are pretty far left. There are those who are pretty far right. And pretty much anything to the "right" is suspect to me. lol

However, the vast majority of "America" is neither to the right nor the left. They ARE the center. Drifting a bit left on one issue. A bit right on another. This is supposed to be a representative government - for as many of the people as is possible. NOT just one group or another. While I, personally, would like to see much more farther to the left - I'm not sure that would be fair to the vast majority who is NOT far left. (Those in the center and to right.) And yeah - probably only 'lefties' would even CARE about that fairness, eh?

My very honest opinion is - this country under Bill - a definite centrist - was FAR superior to what we have now - or had under any Republican administration. I didn't agree with him on everything. I decidely disliked *some* of his policies - but overall - for the country? Well - NO ONE can say this country wasn't better off with him at the helm.

The fact that Hillary Clinton is also a centrist is a plus as far as I'm concerned. She's NOT a "one trick pony". She does think of more than just one issue. She does think beyond her 'own' Presidency (should that happen.) The fact that she's "Bill's wife" that is running is really immaterial to me. (Except maybe for the fact that she knows better than any other candidate what the office of the Presidency is REALLY like, eh?) We shouldn't discount any candidate who is QUALIFIED - just because they happen to be related. Maybe she should divorce him and run as a Rodham? Would that make the "anti-dynasty-ers" happy, d'you think?

I don't agree with everything she says or does. I don't even know if I'd vote for her in a primary. I like Obama. I like Edwards (I'm from NC.) And I really really like a lot of things about Clark. But boy would I dearly love to see just about anyone other than another "white male" in the "White House". (Maybe we should change the name ....)

[MissWaverly]

120. well, there much truth in what you say

I really would like Gore or Wesley Clark to run for the presidency.

But if not, I don't want someone in there who will continue business as usual for Bush, pardons for everybody, status quo in Iraq for another 4 years and possible involvement
with Iran. In short, I don't want someone like Joe Lieberman in the oval office, and I am looking very carefully at the candidates, quite frankly I am tired of gunboat diplomacy and I am very sceptical of any war hawks right now.

[Alcibiades]

143. But hair matters!

If you look at the outcome of all the last general elections in the modern era, it's always been the candidate with the better hair who wins. There is a certain type of perfectly presidential hair that the American voter loves--somewhere between Reagan and JFK.

John Edwards has the hair.

BTW, we know that both 2000 and 2004 were stolen because the candidates with the better hair lost to Bush, someone with bad hair, indeed.

[MissWaverly]

148. well, you may have a point about the Hair

then there was Nixon's appearance in the debate with Kennedy, it cost him the election

[NobleCynic]

32. True....

But some individuals are just negatively minded from the get go. One can be a pessimist without being bought and paid for.

But you are correct that it does look a bit suspicious when new members just go around attacking a single candidate or issue.

[mzteris]

48. or even some "old" members

ya know?

[Matariki]

66. heh - you nailed it. it always starts w/ "I'm not anti-candidate x"

or "I have nothing against candidate x" a little creativity maybe?

[JackRiddler]

98. I have something against Clinton

It's memory-related. As in, I remember what she did.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. Um... Clinton and Obama are the most popular candidates, and Gore has said he probably isn't running

So there's really nothing suspicious about any of that. They could be paid infiltrators, but Occam's razor would militate against assuming that they are.

[Madspirit]

39. Occam's Razor

Thank-you. Exactly.
Lee

[JackRiddler]

99. Not again!

As a thread increases in size, the probability that someone will invoke "Occam's Razor" as though it proves anything rises to 1.

[Zodiak]

109. hahahaha....so true Jack

people need to understand Occam's Razor fully before they spout it off as some sort of proof.

It makes a person seem smart to say "Occam's Razor" , but that veneer of intelligence is only one molecule thick when the same person doesn't understand that it is a principle of convention, not truth.

[Madspirit]

128. I know exactly...

I know exactly what Occam's Razor means, in depth. I was probably in college before you were even someone's nasty little thought. I have been a radical leftist since the Viet Nam war. My beliefs, my principles and my values are just deeply felt enough that I am not scared of some Secret Agent Infiltrators. Are yours that weakly believed that you are threatened by these people? They will either present arguments that we can debate or they will be flame baiters and will get tossed. That's what I don't get about this paranoid drivel. Are your beliefs so easily threatened? Are you that weak? I'm not. I also think spewing paranoia only lessens our credibilty. ...but by all means, go for it.
Lee

[JackRiddler]

175. Woah... Someone got up on the wrong side of the rock today! n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. In this case, however, it's a good way of compressing many lines of tedious argument.

To put it into longhand:

It would be amazing if there were *not* significant numbers of geniune new posters arriving, expressing support for the most popular candidates, and saying that Gore is unlikely to run.

As such, the fact that there are large numbers of new people who could be either genuine posters of paid infiltrators arriving and saying those things does not constitute evidence for the presence of paid infiltrators.

That took me two paragraphs to say what I could convey in two words, though.

[havocmom]

167. Didn't Occam have a beard?

;)

[JackRiddler]

174. I guess he didn't use his own razor!

[ecstatic]

110. exactly! Before giving serious thought to the whole

Iraq war/IWR Hilary was at the top of my list. Of course that opinion has never been popular on DU, for some reason--but many democrats loved the pre-scandal leadership of Bill Clinton.

[Arugula Latte]

132. Yes, but what about Occam's tweezers?

;)

[cgrindley]

22. I'm sorry I thought Obama was a democrat

I didn't realize that he was a Republican. Same goes for Hilary.

Jesus, just because the Kucinich and Gore people are utterly without any connection to planet earth doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy against them.

What the hell is wrong with wanting to win the god damn election? Are we supposed to want to lose it again?

[Straight Shooter]

29. "just because the Kucinich and Gore people are utterly without any connection to planet earth"

:wtf:

Totally uncalled-for swipe, cgrindley. Here's my connection:

[cgrindley]

33. But Gore isn't running, although I would probably support him

If he was.

I could see myself working to help a Gore/Obama ticket. But since Gore isn't running, supporting him doesn't actually make any sense.

Part of me would want to argue that Gore had his chance and won by such an intensely narrow margin that the election was handily stolen by the bad guys.

This time, we have to win big so that they can't cheat. I don't know.

[Straight Shooter]

57. "But Gore isn't running ..."

Que sera, sera
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que sera, sera
What will be, will be

;)

[MissWaverly]

105. I am hoping Jimmy Carter will help us out here

he's invited him to run.

:-)

[uppityperson]

172. Yet. eom

[Felinity]

115. Exactly what I was going to quote

Please, let's try to make some sense. :dunce:

And isn't it a little ironic, that Al Gore, running or not, has done more to help save our Mother Earth than the entire group of under-performing assholes in Washington have ever done. Not connected to Earth?

:spank:

[kiteinthewind]

133. I'll take Gore, thank you! Best chance for our country, IMHO!

:toast:

[cgrindley]

151. You can't have Gore, he's NOT running

Jeeeez

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[cui bono]

86. Last time I looked my feet touched the ground

and I recycle everything I can and buy organic mostly and use biodegradable products. How is that not being connected to the earth?

:grr:

[cgrindley]

93. Can you read?

Gore isn't running and Kucinich can't get elected. No one said anything about the environment.

[Felinity]

118. Take note

A lot of people relate the concept of "Earth" to the concept of "the Environment." The are related because:

1) They both start with "E."
2) They both relate to where we live, as in the concept of a "habitable planet."
3) "Environmentalists" invented "Earth Day" and the"Earth" makes a full rotation on its axis in ONE DAY.
4) "Earthlings" can't survive much longer if they don't wake up to severe "Environmental" threats.

I could go on, but you'll probably have to take time to establish new brain sequence firings to get this much.

Just in case: :sarcasm:

[cui bono]

134. Yes I can, and I responded to what you wrote. Can you think?

Here let me lay it out for you so maybe you can see how the exchange went:

YOU: "Jesus, just because the Kucinich and Gore people are utterly without any connection to planet earth doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy against them."

ME: Last time I looked my feet touched the ground

and I recycle everything I can and buy organic mostly and use biodegradable products. How is that not being connected to the earth?

YOU: Can you read?

Gore isn't running and Kucinich can't get elected. No one said anything about the environment.

Hm... you used the word earth. So did I. I didn't say anything about Kucinich or Gore, so why did you make that statement about them? I responded to your comment about "Kucinich and Gore people" being that I am one of them and yet you bring them up as if I had mentioned them. And like you said, "No one said anything about the environment", including me, so why did you bring that word into it? Hm... who is it that can't read? Or do you just not comprehend simple English?

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[cgrindley]

155. Are you trying to say something?

I said that Gore and Kucinich supporters had no connection to planet earth... which is a perfectly normal way of saying that they have bats in their belfry. EG Gore isn't running and Kucinich has a slightly lower chance of getting elected than Santa Claus.

Somehow you think that stating the bleeding obvious is somehow Republican? And you're trying to silence me for it? Trying to intimidate me?

Well, maybe you're the one who has the problem. Gore isn't running, and Kucinich does poll ower than Shirley Temple.

And if you think that the expression "no connection to planet earth" has anything to do with the environment, then you probably need some remedial English.

[cui bono]

157. Excuse me, what makes you think I'm trying to silence or intimidate you?

Where did I ever do that? Please show me.

You attacked Kucinich/Gore supporters and I made a sarcastic comment regarding that attack that clearly went WAY over your head.

So then you attack me personally saying I can't read.

Then you apparently couldn't handle my reply that didn't warrant being deleted and most likely clicked on the "alert" button since I see that your personal attack on me is still there.

Saying that you are using Rovian tactics against me by attacking my strong point is not calling you a Republican, nor is it anything close to trying to silence or intimidate you. Neither is a sarcastic comment suggesting that you are on the wrong board since you couldn't come up with a reasonable reply, just an unsubstantial attack. How did you ever get to that conclusion? Extremely faulty reasoning there.

And I never said anything about "the environment", but I told you that already and you didn't get it then so I don't expect you to have gained any comprehension since then.

[cgrindley]

160. Well, maybe the words you type?

Yes. Claiming that someone is using Rovian tactics *is* exactly the same as claiming that they are Republican.

Yes. Telling someone that they are posting on the wrong board is pretty much synonymous with calling them a Freeper.

Yes. Both of your tactics *are* indicative of someone who is attempting to silence debate.

Unsubstantial is not a word.

And you are incorrect. Criticizing Gore supporters by pointing out the simple fact that he is NOT running is NOT an insubstantial criticism. It is a simple and verifiable truth. Plain to all.

The same holds for criticizing Kucinich supporters for being incapable of recognizing that their man has absolutely no chance of being elected by the general population. No poll even gives him a remote chance of beating even the weakest and most evil of the Republican candidates.

You have not refuted, nor can you refute, those two basic points, nor can you refute the obvious conclusion. That Gore supporters, like Kucininch supporters appear to be challenged by reality. And to make myself perfectly, crystal clear, s much as I would like Gore to run (provided he doesn't immediatley lose his backbone), he isn't running.

[cui bono]

164. Wow. Seriously, you need to develop your reasoning skills.

Perhaps a class in logic will help you.

None of what you said is logical and follows. You are reaching conclusions that you are pulling out of left field. You are so lost it's getting a little scary.

So you think only Republicans can use Rovian tactics? So if a bleeding liberal uses them all of a sudden they turn Republican. I think not.

And suggesting you are on the wrong board automatically makes you think of one specific other board out of the tens of thousands, if not millions, of other boards on the internets? I think not.


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=unsubstantial

(damn, I really was hoping insubstantial was not a word.)

I don't need to refute that Gore and Kucinich aren't running because that was never part of the argument. The point at hand was that you insulted Gore/Kucinich supporters, it was never about Gore/Kucinich themselves. But then you can't follow a simple conversation much less debate points so I don't expect you to understand this. Try going back to the beginning and starting over. It's not that difficult. You can do it. Remember the little engine. The little engine that could.

Good luck.

Over and out.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[uppityperson]

136. Exhibit B

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[timtom]

163. I'm afraid I don't understand

the esoteric and byzantine underpinnings of your post.

Are you a psychaitrist?

Or is this a sci-fi post?

[DianaForRussFeingold]

26. I have noticed with every new issue,we have a new operative spewing propaganda

First I would love to have a woman be president. I was so happy and proud of Nancy Polosi.I count on DU to help me know the candidates. We must have a strategy to win.We must counter their propaganda. Why did Murdock support Hillary Clinton and why did she support the president on the war. They built Hillary up because they know they can knock her down. They want Hillary Clinton to win the primary. They also know they cannot swift boat Gore. If we want to win ,we have to Think about that. I wish everyone could check candidates voting record and bio before they support them.

[anitar1]

140. Hear , Hear, Diana, and thank you. n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

38. A lot of people join here during election time - I did in 2000 after the stolen election.

I think there's a pretty big upswing everytime there's something big going down.

[Pastiche423]

61. Huh?

You din't join until 2003.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

69. That's not correct. I joined in Nov 2000.

I changed my screen name and for some reason it changed my join date.

[Pastiche423]

71. DU did not exist in November 2000

[MODemocrat]

72. When did DU begin?

I think I've been here for about 4 years or longer.

[dweller]

77. Jan 20, 2001

to the best of my foggy recollection.

somone tossed an egg at the motorcade during the inaug. parade, a DU banner was hoisted, and the rest is history.

there used to be a post about it here somewhere...
dp

[kerry-is-my-prez]

73. I joined during the Gore-Bush thing - so it had to have started before Jan 2001

Either that or I'm in serious need of some medication because I was posting on something.....

[Pastiche423]

76. DU was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001

About Democratic Underground, LLC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

[MaggieSwanson]

124. The same thing happened to me.

There was a name-change option after the 2004 elections, and I took it. It changed my join date.

[mikehiggins]

147. After scanning the posts listed in reply, let me just say

WESLEY CLARK!!!!

Honest, I just didn't see his name listed and I hate it when that happens.

On topic? Of course the sleaseballs are going to try and infiltrate the on-line conversation. Why would there be a moment's doubt about that? YOu think only freepers troll?

[Pattib]

159. How can you spot a newbie? I don' t post a lot but have been here since the beginning.

I come here just about every day. I signed up after the 2000 election. I don't post a lot but I pop in and read. I think my post count was at 10 for the first couple of years.

[wtmusic]

2. Problem is, any kind of spin is promptly hammered here

so they better be on their game

[roody]

3. I rarely read the candidate stuff. It is not really news.

Another good reason not to ask us to stop bickering about candidates.

[Monkeyman]

4. We shall find them he he he

[blm]

5. We've seen this before - remember during Alito filibuster when 'concern' trolls

popped up and said they worried that a filibuster will harm the party?

We also had GOP operatives here working on dividing us during the primaries in 2003 and stuck around till election day. Some we outed, some outed themselves.

The Dem PR people do pose a problem, but my guess is that there are enough toughminded people at DU that marketing ploys will be easily recognized and countered.

[mainegreen]

6. Who here doesn't consider post count though? n/t

[Dr.Phool]

7. I've suspected it.

Just question anything Israel does, and you'll think you're under AIPAC assault.

[meldroc]

9. Yep. Astroturfing has a long history...

I'm not sure who I'd identify here on DU as astroturfers though.

[JackRiddler]

102. Preempt! Prevent!

Accuse'em before they accuse you! Jump out of Kanga's pouch and yell, a-ha!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. Who cares if they're here? Aren't they entitled to push their candidate like everyone else?

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

56. I'm with you...

and we're free to kick the crap outta them.

Even if they spend all of their time telling us we
have to say nice things or nothing at all....

Yellow Dogs at work:

http://ok1tzd.goo.cz/Hear%20No%20Evil,%20See%20No%20Evil,%20Speak%20No%20Evil1.jpg

[ecstatic]

111. good point. what's the difference between a paid opinion and free one?

LOL... At least the paid opinion might make more sense (include more facts). Who knows? But I'm sure we're strong enough to engage in discussion with someone who might be on Candidate X's payroll without becoming brainwashed.

[rman]

117. How many people can you pay to push your favorite candidate?

This is one way how big money interests influence public opinion.
It is commonly known as propaganda.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

131. If their arguments fail there's no damage done

I say bring it on

[rman]

162. So if if their arguments don't fail, damage is done.

good point...

[Edweird]

12. No matter how strident they may be...

I still like who I like. I don't care what the concern trolls or paid shills have to say about it. Bring it on.

[KoKo]

13. I think that this might be a caution that's valid but that it's also scare tactics

to have everyone on blogs "looking over their shoulder" and an "excuse" to disrupt the Bloggers who are doing Great STUFF bringing the Liberal/Progressive views to the forefront.

I think that most of us can figure out "agenda's" of people posting on Blogs or here on this Message Forum.

The only worry is when there are "More of THEM" than the "REST OF US." :shrug: So far...the "paid" are easy to spot...there are some who "hide" very well, but then...they are great foils and good to spar with.

[cui bono]

87. Also to discount the blogs as campaign propaganda rather than reasoned

discussions.

[AnnInLa]

14. I don't care about people pushing their candidate either, but

I sure don't like the idea of a DUer being an operative, and pissing on the candidates of other people here on DU. It's one thing to be positive about your candidate, but when I see new DUers attack one of our dem candidates, then I think, "uh oh."

Like BLM I remember the "concern trolls," repukes who infiltrate here....and I think we will see alot more negative attacks on all of our Dem candidates in the guise of being "concerned" about harm what this/that candidate could do to "our" party/cause.

So, I would have no problem with an Edwards operative, or an Obama operative, or a Clinton operative on here to praise their candidate, but would not agree with them tearing down one of the other candidates. And, I have a "hugh" problem with republic operatives on here during campaign seasons, trying to cause divisiveness.

[Porcupine]

41. The Vapid cheerleading is getting annoying.

I have read all to many new threads whose sole purpose seems to be to put somebodies (cough, Hill-Edwards, cough) up on the top of the post list at 6pm eastern time. Then they are followed by a number of posts that consist of "me-too's" without any substance. A typical example is "Clobama was just endorsed by the DHL drivers union" or some such no-news nonsense.

I have to say I am unrelenting in promoting certain basic Democratic policies, the environment and climate change, single-payer health care, and a commitment to peace and civil rights. Candidates who don't measure up get their POLICIES questioned.

Any candidate who can't take the kind of criticism allowed on DU should quit now. They're not tough enough.

[bigtree]

103. I don't see any problem at all in advocating a candidate here, or angling for good exposure

what gives you the right to dictate how someone advocates for a Democrat?

Often the folks who complain that someone 'can't take criticism' are just not prepared for posters to fight back against their unsupported rhetoric.

[Bake]

17. I'm holding out for Al and I've been here since the beginning of DU

Or damn close to it.

So there.

Bake

[NashVegas]

18. It's Been Going on For Years

..

[northofdenali]

19. As long as it's not major trash talk, who cares?

DU will eventually "out" any trolls - we have a long, strong reputation for doing that (remember '04?). As long as a Clinton/Obama/Biden/Richardson/whoever supporter is doing so in a positive way, I really don't mind. We'll eventually have to have an Election '08 forum, but the Admins are good about spotting when such is needed.

Hey, if someone wants to pay me to troll around a few RW sites and promote whoever, who am I to bitch? :P

[Swamp Rat]

20. Bring it on!

:D

[walldude]

78. Agreed! Come on into the hornets nest

you may just get stung by actual facts and information!

[Beelzebud]

21. I've seen a few people here that I suspect are paid to post.

I'm not going to name names, but when someone talks about a candidate, to the point where they sound brainwashed, it really makes me wonder.

[Elwood P Dowd]

24. Like the daily "I'm really starting to like Bill Richardson" posts?

There a couple on here constantly pushing a candidate who supported every single job-killing, union-killing free trade deal to come down the pike. He made me sick with all the bullshit he threw out during the NAFTA fight.

It's no secret that the big money elites want someone like Richardson who has supported their policies in the past.

[paulk]

34. I would be more suspicious

of someone who trashes a candidate in an out of context to the thread post.

Kind of like you have....

[H2O Man]

35. Impeach Dick Cheney!

Sorry; couldn't help myself.

[paulk]

46. impeachment would be too good

for him...

[dweller]

81. ...

:kick:


chuckling to myself thinking you enjoyed yourself posting that, at the same time,
dp

[Elwood P Dowd]

37. I'm telling the truth, not trashing

Go back to the 1990s and tell me I'm wrong.

I wouldn't have anything against Richardson being Secretary of State. I just do not want another free trade advocate in the White House. Those deals are killing us.

[paulk]

44. there are several bigtime Richardson haters on this board

real over the top dislike for someone who is so low in the polls.

it makes me wonder why.

especially when they post about Richardson on a thread that doesn't have anything to do with Richardson


----------------------------------

[Elwood P Dowd]

52. Because he has pissed off tons of democrats

He sold us out on every fucking trade deal. He costs us jobs. He hurt unions. I was so heartbroken when he, Rostenkowski, Matsui, Foley, and other dems in the house jumped in bed with Gingrich and the repukes. We could have stopped it in the House had it not been for them.

[bigtree]

100. It's interesting that you think there's something that insulates you because you're critical

of the candidate. Somehow advocacy is supposed to be suspicious, but jumping on Richardson threads with the same criticisms, over and over, is just fine with you because it falls in line with your animosity toward him. Here is a thread about spammers, yet you see no problem in using the thread to spread the same tired rhetoric you've posted in other Richardson threads with the same lack of references, attributions, or relevant facts to back up you criticism.

[havocmom]

170. some Richardson advocates too (present company excluded)

who camp in posts about Richardson and attack any other poster who is not enamored of the guy for things like being a free trader and for effectively blocking the recount in NM

One doesn't have to be a paid advocate to work toward getting some of the problems of various candidates out there as topics of general discussion. One might be doing so to get people to actually pick wisely and for love of country and party.

[live love laugh]

40. Yes. I see them too. The effect is either to divide or completely turn

people off altogether and away from the boards and they win either way.

The hide thread option is becoming very handy for me. I just hid another ANS thread.

[bigtree]

101. of course, you make no mention of the anti-Richardson posters

what a crock

[FreeState]

51. Yep thats what I have seen

Yep thats what I have seen, lots of them. And they cross post the same post into several places... big tip off IMO.

[bigtree]

97. Again, what a crock

posting in several places means NOTHING. Character assassination is much more pernicious on this board than advocacy.

[bigtree]

96. what a crock

This is a political board. You have no right at all to cast suspicions on folks who are advocating for a candidate with such innuendo.

I can't tell you how angry this makes me to read this. What is a Democratic board good for if you can't come and advocate for your candidate?

I'm more worried about the folks who don't seem to have a candidate at all who spend their time posting trash about the candidates without reference, attribution, or relevant facts to back up their criticisms.

[Alcibiades]

144. But I really am starting to like Bill Richardson!

Can I get my check now?

Seriously, I would vote for anyone I thought could beat the Republicans, except for someone like a Lieberman. Richardson's got a great resume, he's a governor in the Southwest, and I think he's electable, but I thought that Kerry's being a veteran would help too, so what do I know. If you want a "big money elite" candidate, look no further than Senator Clinton.

Also, if you could post a link or two explaining how Richardson has been anti-union, that would be great. An anti-union Democrat does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone, and if that's his actual position on unions, he should be tarred and feathered.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I'm still waiting for my check from the Gore camp.

Goooooooreeee... Gooooooreeeee.... Gooooorrrrreeeee!!!

[Pastiche423]

63. I'LL give you a check

if Al decides to run!

[Warren DeMontague]

82. If he runs

Please send the check directly to his campaign!

[Pastiche423]

83. That, I will happily do!

I've never wanted to spend money so much.

[not_a_robot]

25. WHOA!

I ran an open animal rights & vegan lifestyle online forum for two years. First of all, they are already here and have been since day one. Secondly, they are incredibly transparent and easily exposed. Lastly, they will do anything, no ethics whatsoever. The issue of course is that there are too many people that pretend they don't exist, or at least are not willing to evaluate other posters in that light. Read up on sourcewatch and about the tobacco PR drones, there's not much too them.

[Swamp Rat]

80. error! error! program malfunction!

report to the nearest robot drone docking station.



:D

[DianaForRussFeingold]

27. Kicked and Recommended!

:patriot: :kick:

[Jacobin]

28. Oh yeah. They're here

Its interesting to watch how some attempt to ram certain mantras or talking points down our throats, almost as if they are testing them to see if they 'work', usually about an issue affecting a particular candidate.

Very tiresome, but I guess it was inevitable, and shows the influence of DU so we should take it as a compliment.

They are actually kind of fun to play with, since we tend to be an independent crowd and not easily corralled, as a rule anyway

[Nikki Stone1]

43. How can we jam their transmissions?

:)

[Jacobin]

60. Why do that?

They're fun to play with!
:crazy:

[Jacobin]

30. Oh, btw, if that swampland in S. LA comes with mineral rights

I'll take some!!

(your post stands as written though)

:-)

[Vidar]

31. I have no doubt that we have paid trolls & collaborators here.

[lyonn]

45. What's neat about DU is when someone states something

outlandish someone will call them on it and ask for proof. And sure enough, someone on here will do the job for the rest of us that are not as handy with the info.

[w8liftinglady]

36. DU has never been shy about holding people to task

bring it on.

[lyonn]

47. That damn picture makes my eyes get wet.......

[lonestarnot]

58. I thought for sure you were going to be speaking of a pic of a tombstoned freep.

The picture were actually talking about gets me pissed off looking at it.

[Cleita]

42. I've noticed some astroturf on the universal health care

threads. The health insurance industry is notorious for hiring publicists to spread disinformation into forums about how health care is administered in other countries and why their privatized, insurance based, high deductible plans are superior to nationalized health care.

[chknltl]

50. true...likely been here awhile but...

I only wish I got paid to discuss my views on DU...desperately could use the $$
That said I have my problems over a candidate or two myself but because of all my fellow DUers crying foul each time someone brings up a negative point about a candidate I fear bringing mine up. Now add the likelihood that paid CATO instituters are disrupting stuff here...well this makes it twice as tough to debate stuff... I think KKK rove would be happy with this.

So exactly how do I go about politely debating my concerns over a candidate here?

[bigtree]

53. I'd do it for my candidate of choice for free

:shrug:

[wordpix]

59. it's not just candidates who get fake bloggers on their side---it's issues, too, like when

I wrote that Israelis and Palestinians needed to make peace. Someone really flamed me over that and even sent a note in my email box about how dangerous my statements were.

[Bobbie Jo]

62. All I want to know

Is where to snag one of these jobs? I can't seem to get away from this place as it is, so getting paid for the time seems like a win/win to me. :evilgrin:

[Bucky]

64. Yeh, I have my suspects here.... but truth is if they support a Dem candidate, they belong here

This is a site for Democrats to converse. I assume employees and campaign volunteers of any Democratic candidate is still a Democrat. Is my support for Clark any more valid a point for discussion here just because I'm not being paid by his campaign? If the candidate drops out the operative might stay behind and still post. That's cool too. Or they may drop out, but nonpaid candidate supporters sometimes go away too.

This is all one big nothing of an issue.

[marlakay]

65. No one can change my mind

I don't post a lot but I joined the beginning of 2004 upset about Bush I found DU on Michael Moore's site. I am a big fan of his. Not young I am 50 now and just want the world to be a better place for my kids and grandkids.

We voted for Gore in 2000 I worked fulltime for Kerry for 9 months and I will work again for Gore and only vote dem for the rest.

Thats a pain in the ass that we will have to wonder for the next 18 months if people are trying to manipulate us. I may not write a lot but I love this site and how everyone is so different and from all over.

[merh]

67. I've seen it, The posters are relatively new and are loaded

with links that support their candidate. When you post the opposition they make fun of what you post or belittle it.

Yup, this is definitely going on.

[SlowDownFast]

68. Lieberman In 08!!!

Just kidding.

Or am I????

;-)

[Elwood P Dowd]

70. Lie-Berman is the man

Remember the posters defending him last fall?

[badgerpup]

75. CONSTANT! VIGILANCE!

Whoa...my left eye is spinning again...:crazy:

[Synnical]

84. Oh, they're here

And the easiest way to check the non-pros is to check their profiles, it's usually disabled. The pros are more subtle.

Just chiming in.

[calimary]

85. That's already happened.

Who do you think a lot of the CSPAN callers are? Who do you think is trying to plant stuff and stir things up on talk radio - either as an irritant to one of the Air America people or Larry King or even hate radio? They have already done this. And still are. I mean, look at that "mob" of "angry voters" banging down the door and scaring the people in Florida who were trying to count the votes? There's a DUer who posts here whose every post has that famous photo taking up the lower half of the message space - and EACH and EVERY ONE of those purported protestors is actually some republi-CON congressman's staffer or associate or political operative. That photo, btw, has them all named and labeled as to who sent them. They were simply stooges, put up to do this, their transportation and lodging no doubt paid in one way or another by the American taxpayer. There was no spontaneity OR genuineness about it. Not one nonpartisan, non-affiliated civilian in the lot. NOT ONE. It was ALL faked.

That same "ethic" (so to speak!) remains in place to this day.

[snot]

88. Agreed--seeing a lot of flaming lately even from 1000+ posters --

but not from the 1000+'ers that I know of old.

Personally, I look to see if the person is correcting a factual error and providing authority, or respectfully offering a counter-argument. If they're just attacking the OP'er or the person quoted in the OP with name-calling or making fun of them, I wonder why.

[orleans]

89. maybe we should be infiltrating the republic sites

"relating" to the posts of discontent with remarks such as: yeah, mccain used to be such a maverick--what the hell happened & why did he turn into such an ass-kisser?

or

maybe we could make more subtle comments such as:

i think dick cheney had another stroke

or

...well, you get the idea.

i tried it on one site about a year ago--but i lost my cool and got kicked off for saying something a bit too obvious like: republicans are real assholes. (i knew it would be all over--and i admit i was relieved. reading their crazy-ass posts was just too disturbing for me)

[Greyhound]

91. Easily dealt with, if there is a need, I'd like to see it just to verify/refute

what I already suspect.

Create a forum for the professionals.

Create a disclaimer for the log-in (By logging in to this website, I hereby affirm that I am/am not a paid employee of any political campaign)

A new site rule stating that misrepresentation gets you the tombstone.

[ellie]

94. Of course there are

You can set your watch by them.

[NotGivingUp]

106. it's definitely going on here at DU...i don't see any way in stopping it.

[stuartrida]

107. I would suspect some of the Kucinich supporters

He has an abnormally large number of supporters here, even though he polls about 1% nationally. I find it pretty strange that a disproportionate number of people here support candidate who was anti-choice and anti-flag burning up to a few years ago.

[Zorra]

114. Yuh, corporations are paying big bucks to Kucinich supporters

here at DU. It's obvious.
:eyes:
:sarcasm:

[stuartrida]

121. And it takes the money of corporations

to get hired bloggers to log on to DU and post here.
:eyes:
:sarcasm:

[sellitman]

142. I support Kucinich and I am broke....SEND MONEY NOW!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Greyhound]

154. Of all the possibilities, this is the most asinine I've seen. Yes of course, it is the

underdog of underdogs that is planting operatives in the message boards, undoubtedly financed by his communist backers in their ongoing effort to to undermine The Amerikan Way.

Why is it so often Florida?:banghead::eyes:

[stuartrida]

158. I see you aren't biased about this at all

:eyes:

National polls make it very obvious that very few people care about Kucinich's candidacy, but he tops the polls on progressive websites. We'll never know, but I think my theory is very possible.

It really doesn't make a difference to me one way or another, I'll still hold my nose and vote for him if he is our nominee.

[lonestarnot]

108. Al we are still waiting and watching.

[ecstatic]

112. Are "paid posters" more convincing then people who post for free?

Are their skills so wonderful that upon reading that first word of their post, we will immediately become brainwashed and switch sides? :shrug:

Let's not begin a witch hunt. Just continue as always. As more *mainstream* Democrats join the site, yes there will be Hillary Clinton supporters. Believe it or not, Bill Clinton and his wife are really well liked. When deciding who to begin a witch trial against, try to at least take into account whether or not the opinion expressed is mainstream (the opinions expressed here are sometimes way left of mainstream).

[Individualist]

126. They delude themselves into thinking they're skillful,

but they're more annoying than convincing. They just can't quite get the fact that some of us are not susceptible to propaganda and worn out memes.

[Zorra]

113. It's the corporate funded bloggers that worry me. Even though

their ideas are bullshit, they are excellent propagandists. Hardcore grassroots Dems see right through them, but they can be very persuasive to sheeple.

[Ezlivin]

116. Go to the 9/11 Forum

You'll see plenty of cointel operatives working in there.

[earth mom]

123. Can someone let the Gore Campaign know that I'm available?

I could really use the cash and I would also love to be able to justify the time I spend on DU to my hubby! O8)

[leftofthedial]

125. There are paid operatives of every political stripe

posting regularly on DU.

[Joe Chi Minh]

127. It's logical that they should do it, in view of the new, genuinely

democratic power the blogosphere has clearly given to the politically-savvy leaders of the actual American people. We know how "representative" our (in the UK, too) official political leaders have been, and the blogosphere has scareed them witless.

It's been increasingly angering me to see the way certain Trojan horses, particularly one died-in-the-wool war-monger of egregious ambition, are being touted here by their PR "bloggers". And they are completely shameless of course. You can adduce any number of verifiable and deeply unpleasant facts concerning their record, but they will simply carry on as if there was no such thing as truth.

They are, it seems, determined to divide, indeed fragment the Democrats' support for their leaders - and that in favour of their favoured candidates. It makes fraud that much easier.

Imo, there is currently only one candidate able to step in John Kerry's shoes, and that is John Edwards, his and your Vice President. But we're being deluged by posts tallking up all the others. Great to read your post.

[Madspirit]

129. Won't bother me...

I have been a radical leftist since the Viet Nam war. My beliefs, my principles and my values are deeply felt enough that I am not scared of some Secret Agent Infiltrators. They will either present arguments that we can debate or they will be flame baiters and will get tossed. That's what I don't get about this paranoid drivel. Are people's beliefs so easily threatened? Are people that weak? I'm not.
Lee

[Vinnie From Indy]

130. Sure there is, but as another poster mentioned

DU is a pretty brutal fact checking arena. Falsehoods are usually caught quickly. I have no problem with people advancing their candidate's views. They must remember however that they will do their candidate no favors by presenting false information.

[uppityperson]

137. Send me money and I'll post things like...

Hillary is known by her FIRST name. Why?
Clark, is he Really Superman?
McCain can McMake it! I'm Series!!!11

On the other hand, of course there are disruptors, paid and unpaid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

138. So can I send a bill?

I want to get paid for the time I spend here. :)

[aikoaiko]

141. If a couple of publicists can make DU posters vote red, then we have only ourselves to blame.

Seriously, let em come and say what they have to say.

[depakid]

145. I always wonder about this on the fast food threads

All sorts of people suddenly show up with "favorable" opinions of McDonalds.

:puke:

[creeksneakers2]

146. There's too much clutter

A troll is only one voice among millions. How can a troll stand out?

One post can change the world if netizens choose to pass it along each other, and an idea spreads from E-mail group to E-mail group until the whole net becomes aware of it. Spreading only happens though for one post in millions.

A troll could try to start an ugly rumor about an opponent, but most people are savvy enough not to believe something based on a post on the Internet. The people who are taken in by manufactured rumors are people who wanted to believe what the rumor claimed anyway.

[tbyg52]

149. Of course it goes on here

It goes on everywhere. The good thing is, we're thinking and informed enough to ignore or discount it.

[sampsonblk]

161. We all can think for ourselves

That, to me, would be an enormous waste of time at this site. There are far too many people here who think for themselves. However, they might find some success at Freerepublic!

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

168. Of course it's happening.

They were here in '04, and have been converging since then for a feeding frenzy in '08.

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

169. Duh.

A quick perusal of GD-P on any given day would convince a blind man.

[Gryphons Eyre]

171. In the long run, the ability to think, to see through right-wing (and left-wing) bullshit,...

An excerpt from an article published in "The Nation" suggests the following:

...If we want a durably decent society, we have to improve the quality of political discussion. Yes, we will always need to address people's hearts and imaginations. But in the long run, their ability to think, to see through right-wing (and left-wing) bullshit, is even more important. After all, Rush Limbaugh is most dangerous not because he's a right-wing moron but because he's a moron. Karl Rove is most dangerous not because he's a right-wing liar but because he's a liar. Jerry Falwell is most dangerous not because he's a right-wing demagogue but because he's a demagogue. If voters had even a slightly enhanced tolerance for position papers and policy proposals, the influence of Limbaugh, Rove, Falwell et al. would evaporate, or at least be vastly diminished. Isn't that a worthwhile goal?

Critical thought can be supported in so many ways; one of which is what members of this forum are all about.

g

[newsdude]

173. Look to your left and look to your right

At least one of you three people are really a Republican in disguises....

I was thinking yesterday, if there's one thing DU needs, it's to be more paranoid about who posts on the website.

[TankLV]

176. they may and have tried, and are easily recognizable...the truth is easy to spot...

every single time...

they will not succeed, just as all the "Chavez is a dictator" bullshit posts and threads have come and gone and been THOROUGHLY rebuked...

[Fenris]

177. Locking.

This thread is a flamefest.