Fun Times !!!! http://www.democraticunderground.com/

[Dianne]

I was introduced to this very liberal, progressive site today; and was amazed at the postings.

Believe it or not, these people really feel abandoned by Obama. They in their innocence really believed Obama was a truthful guy. Read the posts in your spare time.

At least we can call a spade a spade (nothing racial there), but we all knew McCain was a piece of s*** , and certain Obama was a piece of s***, but these peeps who hit 14,000 views on a four hour post really believed Obama was honest... I kind of feel sorry for them. They are truly the sheeple.

[ChaosControl]

Why do you call them progressive? In what way do they promote any kind of progress at all? Wouldn't regressive be more accurate? They want to increase authoritarianism to the degree of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is regression.

Anyway, they were dumb to believe Obama. A lot of fools did, look at all the grassroots support he had. I doubt he'll have anywhere near as much in 2012.

[Epic]

Ah, the sheeple underground...

these are the dregs of society, the people who don't have a clue how the world works.

Obama told them he was gonna amp up the wars during the campaign, why are they surprised? He told them he was gonna create bigger government, why are they surprised?

[hugolp]

Why do you call them progressive? In what way do they promote any kind of progress at all? Wouldn't regressive be more accurate? They want to increase authoritarianism to the degree of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is regression.

I love this. From now on I am going to call progresives regresives.

[randolphfuller]

If all troops are out of Iraq in 2011, and most have started coming out of Afghanistan, and unenemployment 8% or less, Obama will be considered one of the most remarkable of men and his re-election a breeze.

[Brett]

My sister used to be a legitimate member there. She was exiled when she dared say that Glenn Beck wasn't racist, just "misinformed".

I feel too sorry for them to bother trolling there. They must lead sad lives if Obama was their hope (and now their failure).

[Todd]

LOL...
the Dump

[TortoiseDream]

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7410389

they're talking about paul on maddow. most all of them think he's nuts.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7410389

they're talking about paul on maddow. most all of them think he's nuts.

"He is a teabagger. Racist and anti-choice."

"Total nut. He is further right than Dick Cheney."

Programmed lefties cannot caste off their petty issues and left-right goggles.

[TortoiseDream]

"He is a teabagger. Racist and anti-choice."

"Total nut. He is further right than Dick Cheney."

Programmed lefties cannot caste off their petty issues and left-right goggles.

yea it's pretty sad.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Never have I seen people type faster than they think on Democraticunderground.com. Lots of STATIST SOCIALISTS to the extreme. Kinda on the communism level, except for the Kucinich supporter/backers. Even they take a beating from their own Marxist Leftist members. I chuckle at them because they're just like Alan Combs (one of FOX's token LIBERALS) they contradict themselves in their sentences & ideologies... man are they full of hate.

[TortoiseDream]

Never have I seen people type faster than they think on Democraticunderground.com. Lots of STATIST SOCIALISTS to the extreme. Kinda on the communism level, except for the Kucinich supporter/backers. Even they take a beating from their own Marxist Leftist members. I chuckle at them because they're just like Alan Combs (one of FOX's token LIBERALS) they contradict themselves in their sentences & ideologies... man are they full of hate.

good way to put it. i don't know if i can even debates lefties anymore. i'm too busy debating about an-cap lol.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

in response to Paul's smack down on Cheney


Careful Ron. Don't want to be taking too many nips at that hand that has fed you so well for so long.



http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/2/oblivious128648464675175752.jpg

[revolutionisnow]

The amount of misinformation in that thread makes my head hurt.

Seems like this is a great time to start a marketing campaign though.

[jmdrake]

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7410389

they're talking about paul on maddow. most all of them think he's nuts.

These jackasses and the ones at DailyKos attacked Dr. Paul during the primary. One particularly heinous blogger claimed that Ron Paul was only antiwar because he was "greedy" and wanted to save the money for other "greedy" things. :rolleyes: The same blogger claimed that Ron Paul wanted health freedom so that herbalists could "sell poison". (I thought these flower children were for alternative medicine? :confused:)

Here's the bottom line. Ron Paul represents a bigger threat to these people than any other republican. Had he received the nomination in 2008 he would have taken away the one issue that most Americans agree with them on and that's the war. If these dems had really been antiwar they would have supported Kucinich in the dem primary and sought to have Paul as the GOP nominee because no matter who won you'd get an antiwar president. But of course that didn't happen. :(

[Andrew-Austin]

These jackasses and the ones at DailyKos attacked Dr. Paul during the primary. One particularly heinous blogger claimed that Ron Paul was only antiwar because he was "greedy" and wanted to save the money for other "greedy" things. :rolleyes: The same blogger claimed that Ron Paul wanted health freedom so that herbalists could "sell poison". (I thought these flower children were for alternative medicine? :confused:)


LOL thats hysterical.

I really don't know how to describe that. Infantile? Pathetic? Disgusting? These people are so absorbed by their own petty cultish world view, so detached from reality, they can't see straight. I can just as soon find a psycho schizophrenic living in a dumpster who can utter similar statements.

[SWATH]

It kills me that everyone still thinks he's racist. That is the 2nd time in 1 week where I've read the phrase "he has a long history of racism", and one of them was from a self-proclaimed "conservative Republican".

Are people really this fucking stupid or what?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Generally speaking, the DU Anti-Paul'ers tend to be fucking denser than a bag of hammers. They spout all kinds of bullshit and yet NEVER point to anything like proof to back up their retarded assertions. I wonder how many of their posters are COINTELPRO/Disinfo douchebags.

[hugolp]

It kills me that everyone still thinks he's racist. That is the 2nd time in 1 week where I've read the phrase "he has a long history of racism", and one of them was from a self-proclaimed "conservative Republican".

Are people really this fucking stupid or what?

Yes.

[Mini-Me]

It kills me that everyone still thinks he's racist. That is the 2nd time in 1 week where I've read the phrase "he has a long history of racism", and one of them was from a self-proclaimed "conservative Republican".

Are people really this fucking stupid or what?

I like hugolp's direct answer of "yes." ;) To answer the question seriously though, I think it's mainly a case of people's rational thought patterns being entirely short-circuited by their prejudices and emotions. Even most intelligent people are generally irrational about politics (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm), and their biases keep them from treating issues (or people) anywhere near fairly.

[The Deacon]

At the end of the day, the Democrat sheeple fall in line. The outrage is a show, and Obama knows they are toothless.

90% of liberal democrats approve of Obama, (and at the lowest point in his term it was about 86%. See here. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20100104_1650.php)

Even most who don't approve of him will end up voting for him if they go to the polls. Best thing that could happen is they don't vote at all.

[Mini-Me]

At the end of the day, the Democrat sheeple fall in line. The outrage is a show, and Obama knows they are toothless.

90% of liberal democrats approve of Obama, (and at the lowest point in his term it was about 86%. See here. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20100104_1650.php)

Even most who don't approve of him will end up voting for him if they go to the polls. Best thing that could happen is they don't vote at all.

That's not going to do any good so long as the neocon-lovers are voting though. :-/

[kathy88]

The amount of misinformation in that thread makes my head hurt.

Seems like this is a great time to start a marketing campaign though.



It seems they like his foreign policy stance, but think he's nuts on everything else. The Repubs like most everything else, think he's nuts on foreign policy. Hmmm.

[constituent]

lol. no comment.

[Dianne]

I am amazed at how much traffic they have. Comprised of lots and lots of people with a lot of free time on their hands.

[TheState]

We should all start posting on that site. Not going there and calling everybody idiots, but slowly start pointing out inconsistencies and problems and insinuating more liberty-minded solutions.

I'd be interested to see their responses. It might help us understand and tweak our message to reach out to more people.

[Dianne]

Agree.... as long as everyone looks professional and does not come across like a troll.

[Todd]

Agree.... as long as everyone looks professional and does not come across like a troll.

Yep... Does anyone remember what happened in 2007 on another site? PM me for the details. We really burnt some bridges. The members here who typically troll these sites aren't the ones who should be doing it.

[Dianne]

Alright I'm done, lmao.. That site is for those with a stronger stomach than I have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7412463

Hello, my fellow, Liberal/Progessive Dems!
The Teabusters-Strongly Against the Tea Party Movement are having its March For Change on Friday; January 15, 2010 in D.C. The Teabusters ia a brand-new, Liberal/Progressive grassroots movement who are STRONGLY AGAINST the Tea Party. The TB's nex march will be next from Febraury 4-6 at the Natioanl Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee at the Gaylord OpryLand Hotel & Resort. Yes, this is a PROTEST AGAINST the negative-ass Tea Party. So, if you live in Nashville or the surrounding areas, get ready! But, first, is ther anybody here going to the March For Change, in DC?

[TortoiseDream]

Alright I'm done, lmao.. That site is for those with a stronger stomach than I have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7412463

Hello, my fellow, Liberal/Progessive Dems!
The Teabusters-Strongly Against the Tea Party Movement are having its March For Change on Friday; January 15, 2010 in D.C. The Teabusters ia a brand-new, Liberal/Progressive grassroots movement who are STRONGLY AGAINST the Tea Party. The TB's nex march will be next from Febraury 4-6 at the Natioanl Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee at the Gaylord OpryLand Hotel & Resort. Yes, this is a PROTEST AGAINST the negative-ass Tea Party. So, if you live in Nashville or the surrounding areas, get ready! But, first, is ther anybody here going to the March For Change, in DC?

yea don't even bother. you'd have a better chance of getting a piece of gold to support ron paul than anyone over there.

[MsDoodahs]

I am amazed at how much traffic they have. Comprised of lots and lots of people with a lot of free time on their hands.

Lots and lots of .... gov't employees.

;)

[MsDoodahs]

I read at DU every day, the big forums "latest breaking news" and "general discussion." I also read at the topic forum "economics."

While my take on news items is usually different from theirs, I appreciate the fact that they have many members posting a range of news items.

[Romulus]

"He is a teabagger. Racist and anti-choice."

"Total nut. He is further right than Dick Cheney."

Programmed lefties cannot caste off their petty issues and left-right goggles.

this. not worth the effort.

[constituent]

Yep... Does anyone remember what happened in 2007 on another site? PM me for the details. We really burnt some bridges. The members here who typically troll these sites aren't the ones who should be doing it.

Agreed. Finesse isn't always their strong suit.

The ability to subvert a message relies heavily on the more subtle arts of persuasion.

Too many kamikaze types at times.

[silverhandorder]

Wow that place is really pathetic. I love it! I spent 3 hours reading their drivel. I think I am going to start trolling them. I graduated from Forumfall so be prepared for some major lulz in the future :D.

[LibertyEagle]

good way to put it. i don't know if i can even debates lefties anymore. i'm too busy debating about an-cap lol.

There may be a message in there. Think about it.

[Dianne]

Actually they are really current on the news articles on main page. I just saw this, and have not seen it anywhere else:

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/emanuel_exit_L7xm8DmR1A9i6YofkRPWRL

Emanuel exit?
Comments: 10

Last Updated: 10:28 AM, January 7, 2010

Posted: 12:20 AM, January 7, 2010

DC clairvoyants say<p>
</p><br>Rahm Emanuelwill leave as<p>
</p><br>President Obama's chief-of-staff in the not-too-distant future. Though once a congressman himself, Emanuel is said to be frustrated with lawmakers who won't bend to his will. And his temper -- similar to the Ari Gold-like eruptions of his super-agent brother,<p>
</p><br>Ari Emanuel, in Hollywood -- has not been well received in some quarters. The buzz was reinforced on "The McLaughlin Group" Sunday, when Rahm was labeled "Des tined for Political Oblivion by the End of 2010." Obama's fiercely loyal adviser<p>
</p><br>Valerie Jarrettis said to be the frontrunner to take his place.<p>
</p><br>
RSS DC clairvoyants say Rahm Emanuel will leave as President Obama's chief-of-staff in the not-too-distant future. Though once a congressman himself, Emanuel is said to be frustrated with lawmakers who won't bend to his will. And his temper -- similar to the Ari Gold-like eruptions of his super-agent brother, Ari Emanuel, in Hollywood -- has not been well received in some quarters. The buzz was reinforced on "The McLaughlin Group" Sunday, when Rahm was labeled "Des tined for Political Oblivion by the End of 2010." Obama's fiercely loyal adviser Valerie Jarrett is said to be the frontrunner to take his place.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/emanuel_exit_L7xm8DmR1A9i6YofkRPWRL#ixzz0bwYgFiwZ

[Dianne]

OMG, I fell out of my chair laughing at what they call Coulter:

Coultergeist LMAO !!!!

[TortoiseDream]

There may be a message in there. Think about it.

Beats me :confused:

[LDA]

The people there usually have an "us versus them" mentality. They view Republicans as the other team. Of course, when it comes time to actually debate policy, and put party affiliation aside, some of them like to make "appeal to emotion" arguments that basically equate libertarianism with selfishness. They've been brainwashed by Olbermann/Michael Moore/etc that have told them that the government can provide all these goods and services by borrowing the money.

[lester1/2jr]

I have been going to DU for years because the set up is so user friendly though I'm not a liberal.

Their relationship with Ron paul really reveals alot. they do this VERY creepy thing where they say" he's like a stopped clock, right twice day".

virtually every single thread has this remark. it's SO weird. It's like a communist parrot.

They phone in a bunch of stuff about the newsletters and him being anti choice (as if there weren't pro life democrats) but I think what it really comes down, ironically, is a capitalist issue:

Paul has a better product than them and they kind of know it. thus they have to be extremely careful in praising him. for every nice thing they say they have to bring say 5 not nice things. they have invested alot of time and energy into the democratic label and they feel like they can't afford to abandon it.

[TheState]

I would like to start a thread over there saying:

Since we're approaching the one year anniversary of Obama becoming president, what have liked/disliked about what he has done so far? What do you think are his best achievements/worst disappointments. What should his goals be in 2010?

I think it would give us some idea into what causes they are upset about and how we can make headway.

I don't have enough posts over there to start a thread though, does somewhere here have enough?

[LibertyEagle]

Again, PLEASE do not troll over there. We do not like it when people do it to us, here, so don't do it to anyone else.

[Dianne]

I just joined it yesterday, but this post has been on their main page since yesterday. A good indication as to how they feel atm:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/seafan/3709

Just a profound sense of loss and betrayal.
Posted by seafan in General Discussion
Tue Jan 05th 2010, 11:34 PM
Since the turn of the new year, I've reached some kind of threshold in the way I view what is happening to us. I really cannot adequately articulate it yet, because it is a change so overwhelming in scope.

In the insufferable day-to-day rancor over Tiger Woods, Rush's satisfaction with his health care or the absolute standstill of Congress and the deliberate, cynical failure of our elected officials to mind the business of the people, we are finding ourselves careening toward a concrete wall with no control over the wheel.


With headlines bringing news like this over the weekend:



There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well. ----Washington Post, January 2, 2010





.....

About six million Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income...

One in eight Americans now receives food stamps, including one in four children.

Here in Florida, the number of people with no income beyond food stamps has doubled in two years and has more than tripled along once-thriving parts of the southwest coast. ----NY Times, January 2, 2010




It is profoundly difficult to pick yet another battle to fight.


Then I read Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times today, and it perfectly describes what I am feeling-- a penetrating forlorn and a deep sense of loss.




Bob Herbert in the NYT:

January 5, 2010



I’m starting the new year with the sinking feeling that important opportunities are slipping from the nation’s grasp. Our collective consciousness tends to obsess indiscriminately over one or two issues — the would-be bomber on the flight into Detroit, the Tiger Woods saga — while enormous problems that should be engaged get short shrift.
Staggering numbers of Americans are still unemployed and nearly a quarter of all homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Forget the false hope of modestly improving monthly job numbers. The real story right now is the entrenched suffering (with no end in sight) that has been inflicted on scores of millions of working Americans by the Great Recession and the misguided economic policies that preceded it.

.....

This is a society in deep, deep trouble and the fixes currently in the works are in no way adequate to the enormous challenges we’re facing. For example, an end to the mantra of monthly job losses would undoubtedly be welcomed. But even if the economy manages to create a few hundred thousand new jobs a month, it would do little to haul us from the unemployment pit dug for us by the Great Recession. We need to create more than 10 million new jobs just to get us back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007.

.....

The fault lies everywhere. The president, the Congress, the news media and the public are all to blame. Shared sacrifice is not part of anyone’s program. Politicians can’t seem to tell the difference between wasteful spending and investments in a more sustainable future. Any talk of raising taxes is considered blasphemous, but there is a constant din of empty yapping about controlling budget deficits.

Oh, yes, and we’re fighting two wars.

If America can’t change, then the current state of decline is bound to continue. You can’t have a healthy economy with so many millions of people out of work, and there is no plan now that would result in the creation of millions of new jobs any time soon.

Voters were primed at the beginning of the Obama administration for fundamental changes that would have altered the trajectory of American life for the better. Politicians of all stripes, many of them catering to the nation’s moneyed interests, fouled that up to a fare-thee-well.
Now we’re escalating in Afghanistan, falling back into panic mode over an attempted act of terror and squandering a golden opportunity to build a better society.




Just a profound and crippling sense of loss.


And besieged with leaders who lack moral courage, we are on a collision course with tragic social upheaval.

[LittleLightShining]

Again, PLEASE do not troll over there. We do not like it when people do it to us, here, so don't do it to anyone else.

Is there something in the mission statement about that? Why is trying to have a conversation "trolling"? God forbid we try to fackin educate people :rolleyes:

[Dianne]

Again, PLEASE do not troll over there. We do not like it when people do it to us, here, so don't do it to anyone else.

I agree... no trolling please. I am just interested in reading the articles. And actually there are a few things I agree with that they are promoting; such as the legalization of pot in Nevada.

[LDA]

Yeah, I don't agree that it's even "trolling." The people in question are ignorant and are spreading misinformation; they need to be called out.

[Todd]

For those of you trolling their site. Let me remind some of you how that turned out the last time:

Pay close attention.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=62981

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=677718#post677718

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=695471#post695471


The best way to say this is if you haven't got any restraint....then you're just going to hurt this movement.

[Todd]

Is there something in the mission statement about that? Why is trying to have a conversation "trolling"? God forbid we try to fackin educate people :rolleyes:

I guess that depends on WHO and HOW we do it.


Oliver sure wasn't the one...:(

Neither was ghemminger.

[LibertyEagle]

Is there something in the mission statement about that? Why is trying to have a conversation "trolling"? God forbid we try to fackin educate people :rolleyes:

Did I say it was in the mission statement? No, I did not. :rolleyes:

Joining a forum whose underlying beliefs you do not share, solely for the purpose of converting them to yours, is trolling.

Beyond being rude, it backfires.

[LittleLightShining]

I guess that depends on WHO and HOW we do it.


Oliver sure wasn't the one...:(

Neither was ghemminger.That's the truth. I just find it really irritating that not only do we have a moderator here trying to stifle discussion and dominate the board we now have said moderator suggesting that rpf members not take the message elsewhere.

[Todd]

That's the truth. I just find it really irritating that not only do we have a moderator here trying to stifle discussion and dominate the board we now have said moderator suggesting that rpf members not take the message elsewhere.

I don't get that at all. LE can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if your going to join a site and preach the gospel of PAUL, then you become a part of the community first and then present ideology.
That was the mistake made earlier

[Dianne]

I always think of "trolling" as posting just to start arguments. I've posted responses to a couple of threads since I joined yesterday, but they are not hateful or spiteful. I think that's the difference.

[LittleLightShining]

I don't get that at all. LE can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if your going to join a site and preach the gospel of PAUL, then you become a part of the community first and then present ideology.
That was the mistake made earlierOk, ok... I hear you.

[silverhandorder]

Relax guys some of us are not newbies to the art of trolling.

[LibertyEagle]

That's the truth. I just find it really irritating that not only do we have a moderator here trying to stifle discussion and dominate the board we now have said moderator suggesting that rpf members not take the message elsewhere.

That is not at all what I said. I asked the forum members to please not troll DU. Josh has also made his position on doing such things clear on this board before.

Note: You have an issue (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2473067&postcount=189)with me and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Either grow up and settle it with me personally, head on, or take it to Josh. These little swipes that you're making are very childish indeed.

[low preference guy]

Joining a forum whose underlying beliefs you do not share, solely for the purpose of converting them to yours, is trolling.

Beyond being rude, it backfires.

I disagree. You have to be tactful. Sometimes you talk to a friend and very nicely show him inconsistencies in his beliefs. You might do that asking questions and sometimes they'll feel that they figured it out on their own. But you have to be very skillful, and only the few that are qualified should try to convert people from other forums.

[LittleLightShining]

That is not at all what I said. I asked the forum members to please not troll DU. Josh has also made his position on doing such things clear on this board before.

Note: You have an issue (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2473067&postcount=189)with me and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Either grow up and settle it with me personally, head on, or take it to Josh. These little swipes that you're making are very childish indeed.

You're the one who keeps bringing up past problems. I have a problem with being told where people should post OFF this board. When you stop acting tyrannical I'll stop calling you out.

[LibertyEagle]

You're the one who keeps bringing up past problems.

I have a problem with being told where people should post OFF this board. When you stop acting tyrannical I'll stop calling you out.

I made a request. If you consider that an act of tyranny, TAKE IT UP WITH JOSH. :)

[LittleLightShining]

I made a request. If you consider that an act of tyranny, TAKE IT UP WITH JOSH. :)

IF you would rationally explain the potential problems and WHY you are making said request it wouldn't seem like you were being tyrannical.

[LibertyEagle]

IF you would rationally explain the potential problems and WHY you are making said request it wouldn't seem like you were being tyrannical.

I tried to do so and Todd filled in the gaps.

Go fight with yourself, LLS; I'm not interested.

[LittleLightShining]

I tried to do so and Todd filled in the gaps.

Thankfully Todd did come in and offer a voice of reason.

[LibertyEagle]

Thankfully Todd did come in and offer a voice of reason.

:rolleyes:

[silverhandorder]

If you are going to troll DU don't link Ron Paul to your self. For that matter your first attempt shouldn't be at converting.

[TheState]

anyways.... it's always good for us to expand our horizons beyond RPF once in awhile (gracefully and not trolling). Take a look at the Sherdog Forums for example (which is the most popular MMA/Boxing website w/ 182,000 members).

Their "War Room" (http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f54/) has some great liberty-minded conversation because of Ron Paul supporters. Right now there's a discussion on libertarian solutions to air pollution, Ron Paul on Maddow last night, and Dodd's retirement and Schiff's chances.

Remember, this is a site frequented by young men, so it's great that they see discussions like this and learn our standpoints.

[LDA]

I mean, what do you guys think this forum is? Do we not welcome people with differing points of view? Will we not engage those people that disagree with most everything we stand for, and debate them? The goal here shouldn't be to only have discussions between people with basically similar ideologies. That's totally pointless. That shouldn't be the goal on any political forum.

If you truly stand behind your convictions, you should be ready and willing to engage the opposition. I'm not afraid to be convinced of the truth of any matter. I'm certain that I am wrong about some things, as I have been in the past, but the only way of discovering what those things are is to put them on the table and see if they are truly defensible.

Joining democraticunderground doesn't mean going over there and engaging in inflammatory/personal attacks. Personal attacks aren't necessary anywhere and they only highlight the weakness of your argument.

Besides, who goes around to different websites and identifies themselves as "an RPF member." It's not like this is the only forum I'm on. I'm my own person. Anything I say or do is not said or done on behalf of the administrators or members of RPF.

[silverhandorder]

I mean, what do you guys think this forum is? Do we not welcome people with differing points of view? Will we not engage those people that disagree with most everything we stand for, and debate them? The goal here shouldn't be to only have discussions between people with basically similar ideologies. That's totally pointless. That shouldn't be the goal on any political forum.

If you truly stand behind your convictions, you should be ready and willing to engage the opposition. I'm not afraid to be convinced of the truth of any matter. I'm certain that I am wrong about some things, as I have been in the past, but the only way of discovering what those things are is to put them on the table and see if they are truly defensible.

Joining democraticunderground doesn't mean going over there and engaging in inflammatory/personal attacks. Personal attacks aren't necessary anywhere and they only highlight the weakness of your argument.

I am more than willing to engage anyone. I think we should have unofficial raid on other communities mainly democratic ones. Infiltrate, dilute your message heavily, concentrate on agreements, and over long period of time continue to challenge their assumptions from distance. Then eventually who knows maybe they change their mind on their own at some point or continue to ramp it up to the point when you look like your are one of them and has been converted to the "dark" side.

[LDA]

I don't think you're going to infiltriate anything, or trick anyone into believing anything. You have to actually convince them. Something you may say will cause them to call into question a thing they never before considered. You will have planted the seeds of doubt. There may be 20 or 50 or 100 people after you that do the same thing. "Converting" someone is not going to be a sudden realization, it's going to be correcting the misconceptions that they have and justifying the things that you claim to believe.

[RBS51]

We should all start posting on that site. Not going there and calling everybody idiots, but slowly start pointing out inconsistencies and problems and insinuating more liberty-minded solutions.

I'd be interested to see their responses. It might help us understand and tweak our message to reach out to more people.

Just don't do it all at once - you will get kicked off eventually. All political sites do the same thing (including this one) stray too far from the agenda of the site and your free speech is not welcome.

If we're going to salvage this wreck of a Republic we are going to have to learn to talk and listen at the same time...

[talkingpointes]

I have a membership at two other sites, 912project.org (glenn becks pet project) and huffingtonpost.com . I don't "troll" just merely state my positions and debate. Also it's always good to see what's on the other side, it gives you a look into there plans. For instance I received an email from the moderator from 912 about polling they were doing with Frank Luntz which was very entertaining.

[MsDoodahs]

Offered merely as suggestions to those who are considering branching out and attempting to spread the message at other online venues...

When posting at other sites, never EVER name call. Even if you are attacked and called names, do NOT respond in kind. Always remain above it. That strengthens your position.

Also, remember your audience and approach topics fully aware of who your audience is. Don't alienate them or antagonize them - talk to them. Don't back away from your beliefs - do be mindful of how you are presenting the ideas.

And lastly, remember also that those who post at whatever venue you're using aren't your sole audience. There may be a person lurking there, searching for answers...who is ready to hear the message of liberty, but has not heard anything of our philosophy.

Trolling - going to another site with the intent to piss off the membership - is ignorant and childish. I like to think you guys are above it.

:)

[TheState]

Offered merely as suggestions to those who are considering branching out and attempting to spread the message at other online venues...

When posting at other sites, never EVER name call. Even if you are attacked and called names, do NOT respond in kind. Always remain above it. That strengthens your position.

Also, remember your audience and approach topics fully aware of who your audience is. Don't alienate them or antagonize them - talk to them. Don't back away from your beliefs - do be mindful of how you are presenting the ideas.

And lastly, remember also that those who post at whatever venue you're using aren't you sole audience. There may be a person lurking there, searching for answers...who is ready to hear the message of liberty, but has not heard anything of our philosophy.

Trolling - going to another site with the intent to piss off the membership - is ignorant and childish. I like to think you guys are above it.

:)

+1!

Also, don't do anything that would make people pre-judge you. Such as having "I heart Ron Paul" in your sig or the gadsden flag as your avatar. Don't always mention specifics (like, I'm a follower of Ron Paul, etc), just state things as your opinion. You don't want any preconceived notions to arise in their mind.

[silverhandorder]

I don't think you're going to infiltriate anything, or trick anyone into believing anything. You have to actually convince them. Something you may say will cause them to call into question a thing they never before considered. You will have planted the seeds of doubt. There may be 20 or 50 or 100 people after you that do the same thing. "Converting" someone is not going to be a sudden realization, it's going to be correcting the misconceptions that they have and justifying the things that you claim to believe.

Unlike our forum UDers are batshit crazy. Just read them defending Obama against their own. They call foul because they think the original source is not a supporter and call for defending the president no matter what.

You are not gona win those people over by engaging them with rational discourse. The best you can do it to marginalize them by making them look crazy as they are.

[klamath]

DU has very specific forum guidelines that they post and enforce very strongly. Every thread has posts "removed by mod". Their mission statement is to promote democratic candidates period. Any slur against the democratic party or promotion of ANY other party over the democrats will get you BANNED. RP is a republican so he must be attacked. The site is as partisan as you can get.

[angelatc]

I was introduced to this very liberal, progressive site today; and was amazed at the postings.

Believe it or not, these people really feel abandoned by Obama. They in their innocence really believed Obama was a truthful guy. Read the posts in your spare time.

At least we can call a spade a spade (nothing racial there), but we all knew McCain was a piece of s*** , and certain Obama was a piece of s***, but these peeps who hit 14,000 views on a four hour post really believed Obama was honest... I kind of feel sorry for them. They are truly the sheeple.

I routinely peruse the liberal sites, and I have to say that DU is pretty much the bottom of the intelligence barrel. I read it for entertainment value. I think the Daily KOS has much better diarists.

While you're at DU, check out MadFloridian. She's all fired up over the fact that Obama is systematically moving away from local school control by implementing charter schools. I can't remember her ever talking about the children in her arguments - only the unions and the teachers.

There was another thread that I ached to discuss, but I didn't want to start anything. Basically a woman needed a medical device, but her state wouldn't pay for it because it wasn't something that a person who works at a desk would need. (Socialism - all workers, all the time.)

She was upset (I would have been) and several other people started sending her links to charities that specialized in this type thing. Again, all well and good.

BUt then it got weird. She only applied at one charity because there was "too much paperwork" involved with another, or something. Instead of passing the hat, like we do, the fellow DUers started contributing to the charities, even though they hadn't agreed to help her .

In the end, a guy gave her the devices she needed. It's just something he does.

I saw the whole scenario as "Ron Paul is right. Charity and the free market are better than the state." She came away thinking that after the Feds took over, things like that won't happen any more.

[angelatc]

I disagree. .

YOu can disagree all you want, but if you read their TOS I think you would find that they couldn't make it any clearer that they're not interested in debating. Their mission is to get Democratic candidates elected to office.

Their mods are very adamant about sticking to the mission statement. Good for them. Boards fall apart when the overall philosophy is sacrificed .

Besides, if you don't think they'll come back here and get away with a lot more nonsense than they tolerate, I don't what to tell you.

Board wars suck.

Preaching to them only irritates them. Time is much better spent on the moderates and undecideds. Off the internet.

[angelatc]

Is there something in the mission statement about that? Why is trying to have a conversation "trolling"? God forbid we try to fackin educate people :rolleyes:

Bryan and Josh have issued similar statements in the past, albeit possibly not about DU specifically. Their terms of service clearly indicate they don't want left -v-right philosophical discussions over there.

Just because Josh has apparently decided that it's ok for our nasty little cell of anarchists to do things like calling Ron Paul and all of us who actually support him racists doesn't mean that all boards share the same self-destructive management style.


Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

They don't go there to philosophize - they go there to observe politics and strategize.

[BuddyRey]

Just because Josh has apparently decided that it's ok for our nasty little cell of anarchists to do things like calling Ron Paul and all of us who actually support him racists doesn't mean that all boards share the same self-destructive management style.

OK, I'm not saying you're wrong or that you're in any way misrepresenting the truth, but when specifically have you actually heard any of the Anarcho-Capitalists or Voluntaryists here denigrating Dr. Paul or calling him a racist, because I've never seen this.

If I did, I think I'd be the first to disassociate myself from these people's statements, and I classify myself as a Voluntaryist. Is it possible that this might just be a generalization?

[angelatc]

OK, I'm not saying you're wrong or that you're in any way misrepresenting the truth, but when specifically have you actually heard any of the Anarcho-Capitalists or Voluntaryists here denigrating Dr. Paul or calling him a racist, because I've never seen this.

If I did, I think I'd be the first to disassociate myself from these people's statements, and I classify myself as a Voluntaryist. Is it possible that this might just be a generalization?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2479705&postcount=33 Later in the thread he says yes, that's exactly what he means.

This is in the context of an immigration argument. I'm used to having the lowest common denominators resort to the "racist" moniker, but I wasn't even in this conversation up until that point.

Anybody who comes here to complain that the constitution exists is in direct conflict with the forums mission statement and should disassociate themselves from all discussions of same.

[BuddyRey]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2479705&postcount=33 Later in the thread he says yes, that's exactly what he means.

This is in the context of an immigration argument. I'm used to having the lowest common denominators resort to the "racist" moniker, but I wasn't even in this conversation up until that point.

Anybody who comes here to complain that the constitution exists is in direct conflict with the forums mission statement and should disassociate themselves from all discussions of same.

This definitely surprises me, and I'd be interested in hearing Constituent himself clarify exactly what he meant by that remark. Normally, the only people I hear accusing Ron Paul of racism are left-liberals and neocons.

Your last paragraph seems to be where we part ways slightly. While I do agree that anybody who comes here with the sole and explicit intent of denigrating the idea of Constitutional government probably doesn't hold individual liberty as his ultimate goal, I think it would behoove everybody (Constitutionalist and otherwise) to realize that no document is above serious scrutiny and that there is at least some question as to whether the U.S. Constitution was a strong enough restraint against the accumulation of too much government power.

[Andrew-Austin]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2479705&postcount=33 Later in the thread he says yes, that's exactly what he means.

This is in the context of an immigration argument. I'm used to having the lowest common denominators resort to the "racist" moniker, but I wasn't even in this conversation up until that point.

Anybody who comes here to complain that the constitution exists is in direct conflict with the forums mission statement and should disassociate themselves from all discussions of same.

1. lol I didn't even know constituent was an ancap. I can't even keep track of all of them.

2. He rolled his eyes when he said it.

3. If you look in the context of the thread, he was arguing with a guy who really does come off as racist..

[angelatc]

This definitely surprises me, and I'd be interested in hearing Constituent himself clarify exactly what he meant by that remark. Normally, the only people I hear accusing Ron Paul of racism are left-liberals and neocons.

Your last paragraph seems to be where we part ways slightly. While I do agree that anybody who comes here with the sole and explicit intent of denigrating the idea of Constitutional government probably doesn't hold individual liberty as his ultimate goal, I think it would behoove everybody (Constitutionalist and otherwise) to realize that no document is above serious scrutiny and that there is at least some question as to whether the U.S. Constitution was a strong enough restraint against the accumulation of too much government power.


To swing this back around to something vaguely resembling the OP's topic, I don't care what you think would behoove me. There's a difference between talking about amending the constitution and abandoning it. The mission statement says we are here to support a constitutional limited government.

I didn't write it, but if I didn't believe it I wouldn't be here.

I don't post at DU, even though I could cozy right up on war issues, because their mission statement specifically says they don't want me to behoove them.

[BuddyRey]

I don't care what you think would behoove me. There's a difference between talking about amending the constitution and abandoning it. The mission statement says we are here to support a constitutional limited government.

I didn't write it, but if I didn't believe it I wouldn't be here.

I don't post at DU, even though I could cozy right up on war issues, because their mission statement specifically says they don't want me to behoove them.

That's fine. I'm not saying you shouldn't be here. Anybody who supports freedom should feel welcome here. So why create false divisions among ourselves when we essentially agree in at least drastically scaling back the size and scope of government? Why create enmity where none whatsoever should exist?

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't care what you think would behoove me. There's a difference between talking about amending the constitution and abandoning it. The mission statement says we are here to support a constitutional limited government.

I didn't write it, but if I didn't believe it I wouldn't be here.

I don't post at DU, even though I could cozy right up on war issues, because their mission statement specifically says they don't want me to behoove them.

I gotta agree with you on your perspective on forums, having been a mod before elsewhere.

There have always been people here who disagree with restoring the constitution as the ultimate and final goal though, I used to agree with it. Today I at least sympathize with the goal, and I would consider it a positive thing to work towards as an intermediary step, but yes I do think its a non-solution and would go further than that. The mods have never said that people like me are not welcome here. If a mod or admin made it clear that we were not welcome, I would leave. I come here mostly out of habit anyways, and the large majority of the time I'm not discussing ancap.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

To swing this back around to something vaguely resembling the OP's topic, I don't care what you think would behoove me. There's a difference between talking about amending the constitution and abandoning it. The mission statement says we are here to support a constitutional limited government.

I didn't write it, but if I didn't believe it I wouldn't be here.

I don't post at DU, even though I could cozy right up on war issues, because their mission statement specifically says they don't want me to behoove them.

You are the person who supports the status quo Corporatism and Socialism in our healthcare system. Even though I'm an An-Cap, I'm probably far more constructionist in regards to the Constitution than you are, so don't act like you hold some forum moral authority. Can you point out to me where SS, Medicare, Medicaid, FDA, AMA collusion licensing, SCHIP, VA, etc. is allowed for in the Constitution?

Thanks.

[cindy25]

but I still believe Obama was/is the lesser evil.

McCain would have already bombed Iran, and troops would be deployed in Yemen.
heath care would have passed with bi-partisan support, with no chance of repeal.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

but I still believe Obama was/is the lesser evil.

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that you're still voting for evil. Thats like being asked to choose between Mao tze-Tung and Adolf Hitler. The latter killed fewer people than the former (circa 16 million vs. circa 80 million), but who in the hell WANTS someone who is an evil fucko?

[Bucjason]

"He is a teabagger. "

" He is further right than Dick Cheney."



oh course he is , and that is why we like him...

[constituent]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2479705&postcount=33 Later in the thread he says yes, that's exactly what he means.

This is in the context of an immigration argument. I'm used to having the lowest common denominators resort to the "racist" moniker, but I wasn't even in this conversation up until that point.

Anybody who comes here to complain that the constitution exists is in direct conflict with the forums mission statement and should disassociate themselves from all discussions of same.

lol, you mischaracterize my argument, but whatever.

What's particularly funny is that YOU would call ME the lowest common denominator...


YOU, of all people!


(and what's with this strange obsession you have with me? bringing me up in unrelated conversations, mischaracterizing my argument and using it in your sig.? frankly, it's psychotic.)


YouTube - A Tribute To Ms. Veronica Crabtree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq6ansK9wH4)

[Bucjason]

but I still believe Obama was/is the lesser evil.



I actually think Obama is the worse of ANY evil....

McCain wouldn't have stood in the way on principal , but partisan politics alone could have slowed down this health-care boon-doogle with a republican president...

As far as the war goes , I think the strategy between King Barry and McCain would have been identical. Barry increased troop levels , so would have McCain.

[constituent]

1. lol I didn't even know constituent was an ancap. I can't even keep track of all of them.

2. He rolled his eyes when he said it.

3. If you look in the context of the thread, he was arguing with a guy who really does come off as racist..

Thanks Andrew, but you're talking to Ms. Veronica Crabtree here (angelats). She's impervious to logic.

(I'm not an an-cap either, just fyi.)