I notice a curios division here

[nadinbrzezinski]

It s between the conservadems and liberals concerning OWS. What makes me smile is that i am fully aware this is part of the process. For the moment debating going to the non existent OSD camp for a lecture, non existent as well, on the history of social movements. I mean some of the things I read here, that shit I ate for lunch is really powerful stuff!

[rhett o rick]

1. I find this debate very interesting. I am sure you can list the benefits

the liberals feel OWS has brought to the table. But what is interesting is, not that the conservadems disapprove of OWS, but the fervor they show against OWS. I can see them thinking it is a waste of time, but why are they so passionately against OWS to the point that they actually echo right-wing, anti-OWS talking points. Most wont explain their apparent hatred of everything OWS even to the point of justifying police brutality. A few say that they are disappointed that OWS isnt more organized so they can be more successful. Think about that argument. Instead of saying that they support the OWS effort but wish they would be more effective, they disparage OWS because they wish they were more successful. Does that make sense to anyone? The only thing I can think of, is that they are afraid the OWS will ruin their status-quo. They are actually afraid of change and willing to let Americans suffer to maintain their status-quo. I am open to other opinions.

[L0oniX]

2. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Status quo

Some folks, actually most folks, are afraid of change or don't care. It is instructive that change is always brought by very committed and loud minorities. That includes the revolution. 1/3 was for it, 1/3 was not...and 1/3 was neutral.

[sad sally]

36. This movement - Occupy - has been somewhat different than past ones.

Sometimes the 1/3 "was not" and the 1/3 "neutral" are only moved to support social movements where there is an articulate and charismatic leader who can elegantly articulate people’s concerns, and inspire an emotional response - they find it unsettling to act without having a known leader.

Then, if corporations and elites (with the help of corporate media and political elites) can pursuade a portion of those 2/3 that it's their individual shortcomings that are to blame for the social injustice (i.e., they overindulged - bought too much and didn't read the fine print, they're unemployed because they're either lazy or uneducated), the status quo can be preserved regardless of how wrong or misguided its become.

This Occupy movement has grown without one leader and has identified problems deriving not from flawed individuals, but from flawed public policy. While it may experience pain, it will continue to grow since the undoing of social and economic justice in America continues.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. It is different

That's for sure.

[kctim]

58. OWS is not even close to a 1/3

People aren't afraid of change, they just don't agree with the problems/solutions that OWS is calling for.
Perhaps claiming they represent 99% of the people when they more than likely represent only 10-20%, has clouded their judgement.

One thing for sure though, is that in a nation of 300+ million, it will take the support of tens of millions, not thousands, in order to be effective.

[annabanana]

59. I'm not sure they "claim to represent" the 99%. They are just

pointing out that there IS such a divide.

[stevenleser]

67. Really now. You know you are one of the few DUers with a Fanbase on FR? THey think you belong there

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2835871/posts

you will continue to "marvel" for as long as you wrongly believe it is YOU who knows what is in THEIR best interest. It's not about your opinions on education, it's about their views on individual rights and freedoms.

-Oh-oh! ANOTHER LFT comes out of the woodwork! This time it's DUmmie kctim. Please continue, kctim . . .-

Are people who place individual rights and freedoms ahead of statistics and numbers, "voting against their own best interests?" . . . Resorting to weak haves vs have not arguments is not working.

-DUmmie kctim, you are now one of the "haves" who have a Kewpie Doll! Congratulations!-

No one has the "liberty" or a "right," in a decent society, to callously disregard the suffering of their fellow human beings while sitting atop a vast pile of cash, much of which is stashed offshore, and lighting their cigars with $100 bills while virtually pissing on the rest of the country.

-DUmmie hifiguy responds with the $crooge McDuck argument.-

The people you are condemning in your post believe placing the government before citizens is NOT protecting rights and freedoms. It takes freedoms away from citizens and fully gives that power to the government. Government is the ONLY entity with the power to do this.

-DUmmie kctim, I think you're about to feel the power of a tombstone.-

You seem stuck on this 99% vs the 1% nonsense and that the wealthy are all that stands in your way. You are wrong, and you will continue to be wrong as long as half the country keeps believing that it is government who is overreaching.

-LOCK! BAN! DELETE! LOCK! BAN! DELETE! MAYDAY! MAYDAY!-

what another person legally earns is a non-issue that has been turned into an issue for political purposes.

-LALALALA!!!! I CAN'T HEEEEEEEAR YOU!!!!!!!!-

-Enough from kctim. See you in freeperville. Now let's get back to those highly intelligent, non-name-calling, non-enemifying arguments of the progressives . . .-

[kctim]

89. Just a few problems with your assumption

I am a Democrat and I support Democratic ideas, which according to the rules, allows me to be here.
I am also one of the few people on this site who openly supports President Obama and who is eager to support him in his re-election campaign. If DU were to become a site who did not support the leader of the Democratic Party, I guess then I would not be welcomed here.
I am also very pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. I'm sure FR would welcome me with open arms with that, wouldn't they.

As you can see from your little cut and paste, I am also VERY pro individual rights and freedoms. Seems you have a problem with believing a Democrat can be for those things, why is that?

And just so you know, I am a proud common sense moderate Democrat who will not be bullied into blindly falling into lockstep with silly partisan ideology. This means that I will sometimes butt heads with liberals and progressives, but that is how the Party becomes better.
Oh, and it also means that I am part of the majority that makes up the Democratic Party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. So citizens united, to mention the top of the problems

Is not a problem?

Ok.

[kctim]

93. That's not really what's going on

Right now, there a a few citizens 'united' that are mentioning what THEY perceive to be the top of the problems.

It's not really a problem until they appeal to the masses and get their support.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. So I have imagined this

Thanks.

[Summer Hathaway]

18. So ...

you're saying that only conservadems 'disapprove' of OWS? There are no liberals who 'disapprove'?

I am putting 'disapprove' in quotes, because one can be a non-supporter or non-participant without disapproving. Some people (conservadems and liberals, and everything in between) may not believe OWS to be effective, or even relevant. Some may be in sync with OWS's general aims, but not their tactics or behavior.

To characterize non-participants - or non-approvers, to use your language - as "passionately against OWS to the point that they actually echo right-wing, anti-OWS talking points. Most wont explain their apparent hatred of everything OWS even to the point of justifying police brutality" is complete nonsense.

I haven't seen anyone here "justifying" police brutality, nor have I seen anyone expressing "passionate hatred", nor anything even close to it.

"The only thing I can think of, is that they are afraid the OWS will ruin their status-quo. They are actually afraid of change and willing to let Americans suffer to maintain their status-quo," as though there is no other possible explanation for anyone to be dismissive of OWS.

Over the past few weeks, I have seen people here who, if they even infer they are not one-hundred percent behind this movement, have been called unAmerican, unpatriotic, water carriers for the 1%, willfully ignorant, unconcerned with their fellow citizens, etc.

Firstly, I know many far-left liberals who are not OWS adherents (myself included). Their reasons for not being so are varied; some feel that OWS is ineffective, some think there are better ways of accomplishing common goals.

Secondly, and more importantly, the attitude of many OWS adherents here smacks of "if you're not with us, your against us", and a demand for lock-stepping with OWS - things which used to be held in contempt by the vast majority of posters on this site.

[rhett o rick]

25. There is a huge difference in those that are "dismissive" of OWS and those that

go way out of their way to disparage OWS at every opportunity. And yes I was generalizing when I said that liberals support OWS and Conservadems do not.

I dont know anyone here advocating being lock step with OWS. What I am saying is that I understand non-support. What I dont understand from Democrats, hopefully open minded, is why are some going to such lengths to disparage OWS. They are out there taking great risks to try to bring change. Why would Democrats disparage them? I cant get any conservadems to tell me so I have to come to my own conclusions.

Maybe you can tell me what is so terrible about OWS? Are they causing harm?

[Summer Hathaway]

27. The call to lock-stepping ...

"There is a huge difference in those that are "dismissive" of OWS and those that go way out of their way to disparage OWS at every opportunity. And yes I was generalizing when I said that liberals support OWS and Conservadems do not."

It is such generalizing that is the problem. It is akin to saying "all Italians are gangsters, all Jews are cheap, all blacks are lazy."

And you you persist in wielding that same broad brush by saying, I cant get any conservadems to tell me so I have to come to my own conclusions.", again implying that it is only 'consveradems' who are not OWS adherents.

Why would Democrats 'disparage' OWS? First of all, your idea of 'disparage' seems to be anyone who is not on-board with everything OWS says or does. I, for one, am not on-board - that doesn't mean I am 'disparaging' anything. It means I do not see OWS as being the 'means' to what many of us want to see as 'the end'.

That makes me neither a 'conservadem' nor any other label you wish to affix. It simply means exactly what I've said - that I do not see OWS as the viable way by which to effect positive change.

And exactly who ARE the 'conservadems' on this board? It would seem that anyone who disagrees with your take on things falls into that category.

As to whether OWS is causing harm - again you take the position of "If you're not with us, you're against us." In other words, anyone who is not on-board with this movement is to be taken as believing that OWS is "causing harm". You don't allow for the all-too-obvious middle ground, which is that many of those who are not OWS participants may think that the movement is irrelevant and ineffective, rather than 'causing harm'.

I have seen no examples of Democrats on this board "going to great lengths to disparage OWS". How have they done that? By disagreeing with Occupy's tactics? By pointing out that camping in public places is not the most effective way to promote positive change? By refusing to acknowledge that "all cops are pigs"?

As for advocating marching in lock-step, the many posts on DU demonstrate that concept to a fair-thee-well. "Believe as we believe, do as we do, support what we support" - or be relegated to the corner as a 'conservadem', a water-carrier for the 1%, someone who is "afraid" of the status quo being changed in any respect.

There is no room for dissenting viewpoints, according to many OWS adherents here.

[rhett o rick]

28. Wow. All that and you still dont say what you stand for. Conservadems are the ones on

here that continually bad-mouth the left. They are very easy to spot. Now you say they arent the only ones to bad-mouth OWS, but unless you show me otherwise, I dont believe it. Conservadems are those that support conservatives like Tim Geitner, Jeff Immelt, William Daley, Dave Cote, etc. Conservadems are those that are fine with the president extending Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, and supporting indefinite detentions. Conservadems are good with the Pres prosecuting food stamp fraud and medical marijuana dispensers, while letting Wall Street corruption go prosecuted. And Conseradems seem to have a passionate hatred for OWS. If you disagree please explain what conservadems stand for.

[Summer Hathaway]

32. Not being a "conservadem"

I am not in a position to tell you what they stand for. Maybe you should ask one - being as you've decided who they all are, it shouldn't be difficult to find them.

"Now you say they arent the only ones to bad-mouth OWS, but unless you show me otherwise, I dont believe it."

Well, you're the one who made the sweeping statement that it's the 'conservadems' who are disparaging OWS - so you should know who they are based on your own litmus test.

YOU made the statement - so why don't YOU back it up?

Honestly, I really don't care what you believe, or don't believe. You seem to be yet another lock-stepper trying to defend your lock-stepping as demonstrative of independent thought.

[rhett o rick]

33. Why are you so afraid to say what you stand for? Do you support single payer health insurance?

Do you support the Patriot Act? Do you support Medicare for all? How about Social Security? It's clear that you dont support OWS, but tell us what you do stand for.

And I have asked conservadems what they stand for, but they refuse to tell me. All they can seem to do is bad-mouth the left and OWS.

Some claim that I am saying that there are only two sides. And you are either on the side of OWS and the left or you are on the side of the oligarchs. I am more than willing to concede that there are those not committed to either side. But no one will tell me who they are or what they stand for.

[Summer Hathaway]

35. I have told you

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination (even yours) a 'conservadem'.

What I stand for or support is not the topic here. The topic was OWS and those who support it or don't.

Why are you insistent on changing the subject? It leads me to believe you can't (or won't) support your own statements about the actual topic-at-hand.

Attempting to change the subject when cornered is most unbecoming.

So just a reminder: The topic we were discussing was who supports OWS and who does not.

Your contention was that only 'conservadems' bad-mouth and disparage the Occupy movement.

Would you care to back that up - or not?

[rhett o rick]

44. You want to change the discussion from what I said

"But what is interesting is, not that the conservadems disapprove of OWS, but the fervor they show against OWS. " to some "contention" you have of what I mean.

My discussion centered around the why some here in DU are so adamant in their condemnation of OWS. I understand that there are Democrats that may not agree, but to be so active in disparaging OWS makes me wonder of their motives. If you have any insights as to their motives please share. As far as what to call these people, there are a lot of names put out there, like DLC'ers, The Third Way, Conservadems, Blue Dogs, etc. I dont think these people can be consider on the left, because they disparage the left. Rahm Emanuel is not a leftist, so what is he?

Again, there may be some on the left that disagree with the effectiveness of OWS, but I would be real surprised if any on the left go to the lengths that some do to disparage them over and over.

[Summer Hathaway]

48. I have yet to see

this 'fervor' shown against OWS that you are so adamant about, nor have I seen 'condemnation' of it. Therefore, I could not possibly have any insight into the motives of people who you seem to feel are so rabidly against it.

DLCers, conservadems, Blue Dogs, the Third Way - these are all labels I've seen affixed to anyone who doesn't agree with the "OWS-can-do-no-wrong" lock-steppers.

It seems we're back to the tired old 'purity test' by which people such as yourself decide who is a real Dem, who is a real liberal, who is a real leftist, who is a real progressive.

It is all rather tiresome.

But continue on, as is your wont. Attach labels to those who disagree with you - those who refuse to lock-step with the latest 'purity' crowd, or base their political identity on your childish assessments.

[rhett o rick]

55. The labels left and right are fairly well agree upon. Why are those that are neither

so afraid to stand up for themselves. Labels are not necessarily bad. Democrat is a label. Democrats in DU are happy to claim the label as do most on the left happily claim that label. It's the other group (heaven forbid I call them something) that continually bad-mouths the left, that wont admit to their beliefs. Wont tell what their principles are. Dont you understand why one might find that curious? Anyone can call themselves a Democrat. That's just a label. But a Democrat should be proud of their principles.

You change the discussion to labeling when that's not the issue. The issue is why wont you discuss how you differ from the left on issues or principles? Pick one. I believe in Medicare for All. What about you? Or you pick an issue.

You accuse me of demanding a purity test. No, I just simply want to know why you are so determined against OWS. These courageous citizens, that dare challenge the oligarchs are getting brutalized and some that call themselves Democrats, not only dont sympathize with the people, but actually support the police that are clearly using more brutality than necessary. I simply ask why. That's not a request for "lock-step" or "purity".

[Summer Hathaway]

69. This exchange started

with your claim that it's the 'conservadems' who are anti-OWS. I pointed out two things: (a) choosing to not be an OWS supporter or participant is not restricted to 'conservadems', but includes many liberals/progressives who do not see OWS as a viable way to effect change, and (b) the fact that one does NOT see OWS as a viable way as aforementioned does not constitute being anti-OWS.

I don't like golf; I do not consider myself anti-golf. I am simply not interested in the sport.

"I just simply want to know why you are so determined against OWS." Again the characterization that I - or anyone else who has chosen not to participate - is "so determined against it".

You keep talking about people who have "justified police brutality", and/or have "condemned OWS" Again, I have seen no evidence to support that assertion.

What it all comes down to, inevitably, is the concept of "anyone who doesn't agree with what I agree with is a conservadem, right-of-center, a RWer, etc.

The perfect demonstration of this concept at play is the posters who rise up the minute someone posts that Obama's favorability among "liberal Democrats" is very high.

They immediately scream that those who self-identified in such a survey are lying about their political leanings, or are mistaken.

I think we can agree that no one here has access to the names of those who identified themselves as liberals in the survey, nor access to those individuals' political resume or voting history.

Ergo, the only conclusion to be drawn is: I am a self-identified liberal/progressive, and because these people don't agree with me, they cannot possibly be what they say they are.

As for the labels of "left and right being fairly well agreed upon", not on this board they're not. People are accused of being "righties" - or conservadems - or any other number of things simply on the basis that they disagree with someone else here who holds themselves out to be the final judge of such things.

And it almost invariably comes down to the same thing: If you don't agree with me, you're not to be accepted in the 'group' I identify myself with.

I do not owe you a litany of what I believe in, or what I support. I can tell you that I am a very far left staunch Obama supporter - and that, in and of itself, has often had me labelled as "not a real progressive liberal" by lock-steppers who cling to the notion that their determination is the only one to be considered valid.

For the record, I am not "anti-OWS", nor "determined against it", nor "hoping to see it fail" - nor any of the other cutsie little phrases that get bandied about here on a daily basis.

It is simply irrelevant in my life, and I don't see it as a viable vehicle for accomplishing its stated goals.

And if you, or anyone else, want to construe that as something other than indifference, go to it. It is of no consequence to me.

[rhett o rick]

73. Just look at this thread. The OWS haters are not discussing issues, they are giggling and making

fun of the OP. There is a movement. If you dont want to be a part, fine, we dont need you. But please have the decency of not repeating right-wing talking points.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. The crowd went and alerted on the op as well

Which I found funny.

[me b zola]

50. Obstacles to overcome/work around

You can call your self liberal or the Queen of England, I don't care. But if you are whining about OWS then you are an obstacle.

[Summer Hathaway]

51. Pointing out

that not everyone who is not an OWS participant/supporter is not a 'conservadem' constitutes 'whining'? Really?

"... if you are whining about OWS then you are an obstacle."

"Either you're with us, or against us."

Same dif.

[Dragonfli]

64. By no means a complete list, but certainly an accurate synopsis, it is plain, in public view and

you appear to be paying attention.

I don't bother much trying to discuss things rationally with the conservadems myself, it is not that I shun them, I simply learned it is a waste of time trying to reach people stuck in the conservative faux paradigm. I tried from '85 to about '95 to argue with those stricken with such views, back then they were all calling themselves Republicans and pushing harmful Heritage Foundation policies such as putting the Insurance companies fully in charge of health care and calling it reform. (they pushed for it again recently and this time they were successful due to their clever use of the Democratic brand to enact that old Republican chestnut)

It began earlier, but the exodus from the Republican party of what used to be called moderate Republicans avalanched into the party in large numbers during the second half of the nineties. I found myself in the same old arguments with those we now call "Conservative Democrats", realizing they had taken over the leadership of the Democratic party by then It was too tiresome to argue with them anymore, they had a voice in both parties and the classic "pre-R take over" Democrats began being pushed out.

They keep pushing
I am still here.
But it is a waste of time to argue with a Republican even if they don't know they are one.

[rhett o rick]

66. Well it certainly is a waste of time trying to discuss issues with conserva-dems.

They will only attack what you say. For example, someone from the left might say that they do not like the NDAA bill and hope the president wont sign it. What the conserva-Dems say is that the left is terrible for denigrating the president when he has yet to sign the bill. They never say ahead of his signature whether or not they themselves like the bill or not. This would apply to the Patriot Act, Bush tax cuts, single payer health insurance. Then after the bill is passed, they become quiet. They never debate issues, only denigrate the left or OWS. They apparently are totally ashamed of their stands on issues. Some Conserva-Dems, like the asshole Lieberman, eventually admit they are republicons.

I agree it's a waste of time.

[sabrina 1]

45. When people use Republican talking points to attack a progressive movement, they are generally

viewed to be 'conservadems' assuming they are claiming to be Dems. Actual Conservatives of course hate this movement and make no pretenses about it. Their talking points are the usual talking points used against Democrats. But when you see THEIR tactics used, not just their tactics, but links to their actual words, on a Dem board, then you have to wonder, what is it about a social justice movement that could get any Dem, even a more Conservative Dem, so incredibly upset?

If I do not agree with something, the very last thing I am likely to do is to use a rightwing, pro-lifer who is lying, to try to make my point. Excuse us if we don't get it. This is something kind of new here, using Rightwing anti-women individuals to trash a progressive, social justice movement.

[Summer Hathaway]

49. As per usual

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

As for the idea of people linking to RW talking points, you recently referred to one such person as being "highly respected" here on DU.

[Dragonfli]

65. Sabrina referred to a right winger as "highly respected"? Link please, you "misremembered" I am sure

As far as understanding Sabrina's posts, I believe it would likely require a 10th grade education to understand the vocabulary and sentence structure used, some of her more nuanced posts may require more education, but she is hardly writing about the ontological mysteries of existence and I find it hard to believe you can not understand her posts.

I believe there are places to learn as an adult tricky things like English comprehension and how words are used beyond a politicians sloganeering that can be chanted over and over again.
Help is there, please take advantage of it so you can benefit from discussions here like most of the other posters do.

[Dragonfli]

70. Sabrina is actually more capable than I, I just have a great deal of respect for her

and find her easy to understand.

I never could see her talking up a right winger, I can only assume she was referring to someone that is a left winger that does not see eye to eye with every Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh that comes along, preferring instead to be guided by party principles rather than the power of personality when attached to right wing policies and Ideologies.

Dinos and Rinos do exist (well the rinos pretty much died out but many of them were reborn as dinos).

Perhaps it is the right wing ideas that such liberals fight and that those reagan/bush ideas are just as bad coming from a Democrat as they were when they came out of the mouth of a drunken Texan. Just sayin' .... could be, hard to say without a link.

Sorry about the condescension, I actually thought you were pretending not to understand her post. I will re read it, I could swear she was referring to right wing talking points against OWS rather than links. If I read it wrong I am sorry, but I know that if Sabrina says it she can supply a link to back it up as long as posting the link would not get her banned.


Try looking at it for a moment from her point of view, you may or may not agree with her but there is much truth in what she says and if your views differ you may even be able to learn from her and she from you if your words are of equal value.

[Summer Hathaway]

71. She did not provide links

which is why I was at a total loss to understand what she was referring to.

Sabrina and I recently had a lengthy exchange on another thread where I said, "I think a lot of people here (on DU) who post only for the sake of rec'ing anti-Dem/anti-Obama threads will leave if election mode rules are enforced."

Sabrina's response was, "So you're hoping that long-time DUers will be banned?" It was such a major non-sequitar, and so far afield from what I'd actually said, my jaw literally hit the ground.

So if you want to 'school' people on reading comprehension, you might want to start with her.

And here comes the 'alert' on this post ...

[Dragonfli]

77. I would never alert on your post, it is within rules and nowhere near offensive

I believe you are missing some back story, some prolific posters here have gone out of their way to get progressive posters banned simply for not supporting the president right OR wrong, many here support him when he is correct and call him out when he agrees with certain right wing views that oppose traditional Democratic values.

The truth is many support the left wing, not the right wing, and the people, not any corporation and when the more conservative (think Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Daley, any of the presidential financial "team&quot espouse right wing ideas they oppose those ideas. Such people have been targeted for not supporting these right wing ideas by another faction that claims one must support anything out of the mouth of any Democrat no matter how much it smacks of Heritage foundation. She must have thought by your provocative comments you were an ally of the purge brigade.

I don't know you from Eve, but you have to admit, given the back story your comments about election mode and people "leaving" could easily be misconstrued, given the current environment that is.

[rhett o rick]

105. I dont alert often and I didnt alert on her post.

In her post she said, "you might seek help in overcoming your arrogance and condescending attitude." Which I believe fails to me standards. However, I was just on a jury that allowed a post that said, "Screw your condescension and arrogance". The jury system needs tweaking. Hell, I need tweaking.

[Dragonfli]

107. To be honest, what she said about me was fair, I was being a condescending asshole at the time

That is why I didn't alert on it. I am a big boy and get a little out of line sometimes and expect to be called on it from time to time.

There are reasons my tone gets harsh at times and it usually has to do with my mocking someone that is being disingenuous or that I perceive to be being disingenuous. That is what happened there, I thought she understood Sabrina's posts just fine, I admitted I may have jumped the gun. I may have, I may have not. As I get to know the poster I will know the answer.

[suffragette]

72. Dragonfli, You read Sabrina's post correctly

There was a recent OP that used RW talking points to attack OWS. The article posted was written by a RW author and the person most quoted in the article was the RW leader of a branch of an anti-choice organization.

[Dragonfli]

80. How disheartening, right wing attacks against OWS openly in a DU post, The Republicans in (D)rag

(AKA Republicans that call themselves Democrats to undermine us) are wearing their costumes thinner and thinner on this board, how long before they are completely naked resplendent in there RW features for all here to see, even those more blind than most?

Once they drop that final flimsy gauze of pretense left, they will be obvious to all and will go the way of the freeper pizza.
This is not a threat, just a tradition here since at least 2004 (only lurked before then and didn't pay much attention to such matters), a right winger drops the costume and reveals him/her self for what they are, Skinner or his mods serve him granite for being a sock puppet for the Right. They let them pretend as long as it takes, they can't help themselves they eventually drop the pretense and get caught spouting Beck or Limpballs or something.

[rhett o rick]

100. On way to spot them is that they never discuss issues directly.

They attack posts/posters or post inflammatory posts w/o stating their opinion. If you dare ask them how they stand on issues, they disappear. There are a number of posters in this thread who do nothing but ridicule the OP poster. Their disguises are wearing thin. One the other day couldnt help himself, he stated "Democrat Party" in more than one post. Apparently he just could not type Democratic.

[Dragonfli]

101. I have a belief that a brain disorder in Republicans makes grammar and spelling impossible

A First grade teacher could correct most every thing they say, a first grade teacher may even be able to explain why the form Democratic is used in certain places. They just look and sound ignorant, like they don't understand English when they use "Democrat" in place of "Democratic".

They mostly need remedial English classes taught to them even in the Senate.

[rhett o rick]

102. LOL, you say that in response to my post where I said "on" in lieu of "one".

I am spelling challenged, so I dont like to use that as a criteria, obviously.

Also, the use of Democrat Party in lieu of Democratic Party is an intentional slight. Romney did it the other day in an interview.

[Dragonfli]

103. I know, it still makes him sound stupid tho.

[rhett o rick]

104. Oh I agree. But my point was that this troll's hatred was so

deep, that he couldnt even type Democratic to keep his cover.

[Dragonfli]

106. I've seen that before, it is like some kind of RW Tourette syndrome symptom

of their cognitive dissonance.

Brain washed people living in a fantasy world devoid of facts must be prone to all types of mental disorders.

Remember also how much fear, hate, and projection are involved in the conditioning of this created sub culture, they poke them with many sticks to get them to be that hateful.

[rhett o rick]

85. I ask that you read the following post and then tell me you still side with the

police.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002277616

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Your conclusion is the truth........

They are so vested in the capitalistic status quo that they can't conceive of any other way than tinkering with that status quo. And of course tinkering won't do anything effective. It would only slow down the careen towards neofeudalism. Since the Occupy movement looks to a new way of organizing society for the benefit of the 99% (even the 99% that doesn't SUPPORT the reorganization), they they threaten and challenge the world view of these people.

Either that or they truely ARE neoliberal enemies of the people.

[rhett o rick]

34. They fear change so much that they are willing to allow fellow Americans to suffer. nm

[socialist_n_TN]

39. EXACTLY! Or..........

as I said, they're neoliberal enemies of the people.

[rhett o rick]

43. Yes of course. nm

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. That is part of it

But change itself is scary.

[Dragonfli]

74. The comparison of the Neophilic vs Neophobic personality types is a discussion I haven't seen since

Some early stuff written By R.A.Wilson and it's a subject very interesting to me, I think I will go through some of my old books, I believe he made some relevant and interesting observations on both the existence and expected behavior of both these sub-groups.

If I recall, he spent a few paragraphs discussing the John Birch Society as a receptacle for neophobes exclusively. (I would put neo libs in that camp as well)

Interesting that I recall also that socialists (not of the authoritarian Stalinist variety), progressives and certain hippie groups (this was an old work) he considered the natural place for neophiles to inhabit.

I have got to find which book that was in, 30 years is too long for any reliable recall of his thoughts on the subject.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. The words might have changed

But I recall reading something like that in my masters.



We also read the classic in cult of personality.

[Dragonfli]

82. I am going to look for what I was familiar with, but intend to also see what is current

on the subject. It is an interesting added dimension to personality types that goes beyond the Introvert/extrovert dimension discussed by Jung. It also is something I have noticed to be an actual rather than speculative aspect of our specific individual human natures.

Such knowledge helps me to predict behaviors too well to be accidental.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Thanks for the kick

I love you man!

[sabrina 1]

7. You beat me to it. People might have missed it otherwise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. He is so good that he will keep kicking

[pintobean]

11. And if he doesn't

you'll do it yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Thanks man

[sabrina 1]

46. Not to worry, we will be happy to do it for her.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Thanks man.

[kentauros]

42. Not so fast, there, bucko!

curious
mid-14c., "eager to know" (often in a bad sense), from O.Fr. [font color="red"]curios[/font] "solicitous, anxious, inquisitive; odd, strange" (Mod.Fr. curieux) and directly from L. curiosus "careful, diligent; inquiring eagerly, meddlesome," akin to cura "care" (see cure). The objective sense of "exciting curiosity" is 1715 in English. In booksellers' catalogues, the word means "erotic, pornographic." Curiouser and curiouser is from "Alice in Wonderland" (1865).

curio
"piece of bric-a-brac from the Far East," 1851, shortened form of [font color="red"]curiosity[/font].

[Bluenorthwest]

60. The word 'curio' is a short form of the word 'curiosity' which means a curious thing.

The use is not so far off.

[tledford]

5. Yes, it's just down the hall from the bookcases division. eom

[randome]

9. I am happy that my corporate masters made you smile!

[zappaman]

12. I have no idea what the OP is even saying.

Could it be posted a little more coherently, please?

[pintobean]

15. It's in code

for the curios.

[zappaman]

16. Really?

I just thought it was super dooper classified!

[Summer Hathaway]

19. You obviously have yet to receive

your decoder ring.

I understand it's available from somewhere in Battle Creek, Michigan. You can Google for the exact mailing address.

[pintobean]

41. I think it's kinda like windtalking

And wasn't that 'supper dooper'? You may be on to something about that shit for lunch comment.

[msanthrope]

21. I really did put cider through my nose at your reply. DUZY. nt

[pintobean]

23. Sorry. I did that once

with tequila. It was extremely unpleasant and funnier than shit at the same time. I wouldn't recommend it, though.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck n/t

[Brickbat]

17. It's just part of the cycle, if you look at the great Tchotchke Divide of 1828,

you will see that we have seen these cycles before.

[msanthrope]

22. That you managed to mock this thread, whilst mocking another thread of the OP

is priceless. Must go back to the Giants, now.

[petronius]

20. In a nutshell, some DUers favor American Pickers, while others are devotees

of Antiques Roadshow. (The part about the OP's lunch, though, that does not sound appetizing! )

[pintobean]

24. I like both

and I guess that wasn't braunschweiger.

[Ikonoklast]

26. I've never seen steaming braunschweiger...

...until I read this thread.

[Zalatix]

29. It made perfect sense to me. Except I don't know the definition of OSD

Hey Nadine, would you mind sharing some of what you hear from that lecture on social movements with the DU?

[pinboy3niner]

30. OSD = Occupy San Diego nt

[pecwae]

54. No.

You are unworthy of the understandingness of the contentness. You have no comprehendingness.

[LeftyMom]

76. Hopefully it'll get cleaned up before it goes in the Wig Party newsletter.

[zappaman]

86. Wow!

Forgot about that one!
Yup, I salute you!

[pintobean]

90. +1

That was a blast.

[Justice wanted]

40. It boggles my mind that a Dem would be against OWS.

[sabrina 1]

47. Only a few. Most Dems are very supportive of OWS. And there are elected Dems who are active

in the movement. But they tend to be the kind of Dems who actually represent the people who elected them. Not the Corporate Dems who are more loyal to the Corps who pay to get them into office and to whom they are beholden.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. A tiny handful, and they congregate for snark fests and so it is easy to count them

a few at most, and none of them are posters whose support I'd expect for anything at all.

[pintobean]

52. Is this an exerpt from your

Guide to the Perplexed?

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Thanks once again for the kick man

and no, that be the answer to you...

[AngryAmish]

56. There are Hummell people and there are Lladro people, and they will never agree

It is the natural order of things. Accept it and move on.

[Brickbat]

57. Thread over.

Nicely done.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. The conservadems are not going to like this process much.

They are not happy with the spotlight placed on their opinions due to Occupy. Clear light of day makes them snarky and swarmy.

[brooklynite]

83. I'm guess you consider me a "Conservadem", and I'm not troubled by the spotlight at all...

Considering that I support almost all of OWS' "goals" (the stated ones), and only object to their "tactics", I have no problem defending my position in the DU forum.

[rhett o rick]

87. I get it. One of your best friends is in OWS. nm

[rhett o rick]

88. They dont have opinions on issues only snarky comments. nm

[NorthCarolina]

63. Twinkles.....

[Honeycombe8]

79. I think you mean conservadems and liberdems. If you're going cutesy on one name, it should be

the same for the other name.

[Dragonfli]

84. Brand tarnishing by a right wing faction known as "neo-liberals" has ruined "liberal" ProgressDems

is a much better cutesy word for what was once average, moderate, middle of the road Democrats that had the misfortune of living past the 70's.

I believe you know us as fringe radical extremists, we are no such thing, we were merely in the party before all the moderate Republicans flocked over to form the conservative Democratic caucus (in the seventies, with their views they would have been called Republicans, but New Dems is fair, the coup was successful after all. )

[renie408]

81. Is there a decoder ring for this? Can I get one? n/t

[pintobean]

96. It appears there are only 19 of them.

[WI_DEM]

92. it's curious btw, and what makes you think that everybody who has some issues with OWS

are conservadems?

It' doesn't mean that they don't overall support them and their aims.

[LanternWaste]

95. What the OWS discussion did for me (specifically, the discussion on DU-- not IRL)...

What the OWS discussion did for me (specifically, the discussion on DU-- not IRL) was to illustrate that I'm leaning far greater to the left than I would have previously thought.

I've honestly considered myself a moderate in more areas than not re: the progressive and Democratic platforms up until the OWS dialogs began, and then realized I was far to the left of many prolific posters who either dismiss/trivialize OWS, or melodramatically de-emphasize its impact.

[socialist_n_TN]

97. And that's why we occasionally need "labels".........

Labels let you know where you REALLY stand on the political spectrum. Now we don't need to get bogged down in labels, but they serve a useful function at times. It's one of the places that I disagree with Occupy about.

A couple of examples to go along with yours. My brother, who turned me on to this site in the first place and occasionally posts here, has taken to calling himself a socialist after doing some further study on socialism because of the rising public consciousness of socialism. He's not a communist like myself, but he always just thought of himself as a "liberal" UNTIL HE STUDIED MORE ABOUT WHAT HIS VIEWS ON ISSUES REALLY WERE. So now he's a Eugene Debs type socialist because that's where he stands on the ISSUES. Also RE: the Pew polls regarding American's stands on ISSUES as opposed to self identification. The ONLY way those polls can be reconciled is IF you include the ones who self identify as "moderate" with the "liberals" as left leaning on issues. That's the ONLY way to reconcile them. When you do, they dovetail almost perfectly.

Labels aren't necessarily a bad thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. In a way that will be good

But the political spectrum, du is just a reflection, has moved so far right, it's obvious the left needs to finally organize. OWS is part of it.

The discussions in real life, have told a few RW folk, self identified, that they are really left wing.