General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums4th day visiting Free Republic...one character there is like a broken record...
Dude is rabid about Hillary... lot's of links to right wing rags and even some to DU.
thanks DU for being the voice of sanity.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)"See, even DU hates Hillary"
freshwest
(53,661 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964
The Free Republic post where they rejoiced is on the thread, too.
They apparently live off our postings here. As do a couple of other sites. But then, they are not exactly the wellspring of new ideas either.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)And the same group that put that post up to 122 recs, are pretty much the same group that is going after Clinton here on DU. It's a never ending cycle of bashing president Obama, the party, and now those who will run in 2016. Right now it's Clinton, but they could add more candidates as time goes on that they will bash also. I have no problem with people disagreeing on who should be our candidate, that's normal, but when things get so carried away that the bashers start using right wing talking points daily, then that's going to far in my opinion. I always wonder what the real goal is of some of those who keep this carp going day in and day out.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Besides...I already am signed up to one site that has non stop Hill bashing.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)Dude posts non-stop.....
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)I couldn't stomach viewing Free Rep.
valerief
(53,235 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And psoriasis!
TexasTowelie
(112,422 posts)I thought that was Skittles job.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)You should see their mens forum. They even have a hottest celeb Op.
I don't use our mens group.
I'm talking about Free Republic...
Why you brining yout into the subject?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)before you came back in the house?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)RimJob STILL hasn't upgraded that website!!!!! It looks like something from the MS-DOS days.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,158 posts)The ones who really have nothing to say but keep on saying it badly are in my ignore list (there aren't that many, as I check every now and then and find that they get tombstoned). Funny thing is I seldom see missing replies in threads by other people. Maybe they only do OPs.
I know some here are adamant against using ignore but I find it helps me. I've also used the feature to prevent threads from showing with certain key words. Sometimes certain subjects are not only beating a dead horse but there is nothing left but jelly.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Ilsa
(61,698 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Got old real fast.
I do the same as you TexasProgresive
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Saturday night is bath night. Better fill the tub with bleach after that journey into the abyss.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And I like it. MG indeed...
Rex
(65,616 posts)Are they off on vacation?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Windows 3.1 has done him good. On to Windows 98!
Really, I don't know why anyone goes to that site. If they are jonesing for a troll fight fix...just head on over to Discussionist. Seems the smarter trolls from FR and stormfront are there now trying to figure out why we all think they are racist!
Rex
(65,616 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)Cry me a river. I'm reading this from the bottom up. Bass ackward.
Spazito
(50,453 posts)so has gone back to the old cliched attacks in hopes of getting attention. Thank goodness that doesn't happen here!
demmiblue
(36,885 posts)majority of DUers don't have to deal with the internecine squabbles in the form of thinly disguised meta threads that keep popping up.
I would also like to see more latitude given to hide meta-type threads.
I know it won't happen, but
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That was a scary place.
ChazII
(6,206 posts)I go when I want to see what the right wing is thinking. It is a bit more tolerable than Free Republic. You have a stronger stomach than I do, Trumad.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)On Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
4th day visiting Free Republic...one character there is like a broken record...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026326724
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Call out and personal attack against MannyGoldstein. Most people in the thread know it and he makes it clear in post #10. I say hide it for the attack (calling Manny a freeper) and for the lack of guts to debate Manny directly. This tactic is chickenshit.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:22 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree that this is a thinly veiled call-out. Probably won't get a hide but it is transparent enough that it should.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well...if this doesn't prove that there's a precious protectorate of Manny going on, I don't know what does. Fer chrissakkes.....stop the bullshit of protecting critique against Manny and let the little man defend himself.
Or is that what you are afraid of? Manny is terribly thin-skinned, isn't he?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alert on post 10 not this
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)Really, I didn't get that from the OP, but then I simply stopped reading Manny quite some time ago.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Wonder who the alerter was, and if they'll come forward to explain their reasoning?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)You and many others.
But you should check out his latest foray. He's getting some really good education in yet another attempt to trash Hillary. Will it do any good? Who knows? Is it fun-filled reading and a helluva thread but not in the way he was intending? Oh good gracious, yes.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Takket
(21,625 posts)I was #7. I did not comment because the absurdity of the alert didn't deserve an explanation.
Why....thanks...nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6329756
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is kind of complicated. Well not really at all. This poster insulted another DUer in a jury comment (called a poster "little man" , posted said results and comments in post #25, and then takes full credit for the insult in this post. Too cute by half and an attempt to insult without consequences.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:52 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Really sick and tired of attacks on fellow DUers. This place has become more like other sites that are not democratic. No one is allowed to post an opinion if it doesn't follow misanthrope and a few other's thinking. Absolutely ridiculous bull.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh grow up please.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I just don't see a reason to hide this post from the all the information provided and I read through the entire thread before deciding.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Where's the foul, I'm trying to watch a basketball game, leave it alone!!!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hide the whole sub-thread. One of those seemingly innocuous statements that is really an invite to cleverly, and not so cleverly in this case, attack members of DU. Waging personal wars under the guise of civil discourse. That said, the alerted on comment isn't hide worthy in and of itself. It would be pointless to hide just that comment. Where the jury verdict was deliberately entered into the discussion for the purpose of sharing the directed comment is, however, worth hiding. As is the sub-thread relating to it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: UGHHHHHH
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)This is getting ridiculous.
What a thin skinned buncha....
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)I think this may be the second time I've posted results. I'm only doing so because of the alert down thread. It looks like someone is out for you; not sure if it's the same person or people working together. This shit makes DU suck. imo.
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Here's the jury...... nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6327000
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This poster insults another DUer by calling him "little man" in the comments. Then posts the comments, and takes credit for the insult down thread in #60. Personal attack. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:07 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OMG are you serious with this alert. Stop it just stop. Manny is not royalty he's not privileged to be protected from any and all insults. If you have an issue with a juror's comments don't back door them with an alert like this...alert to admin. Jesus fucking christ I feel like this is high school and the 'cool' clique don't like the push back so now they're running and telling....
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting on jury results is a bit too meta for me. If there is a personal feud going on, we have the capability to ignore either the Hatfield or the McCoy.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the person who alerted. This juror comment is inappropriate.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Using jury comments as a slick way to make personal attacks sucks, and personal attacks are just about all this poster has ever brought to this place. Hide it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)apparently, so did this one. I think it's abuse of the jury system to ask jurors to consider a post that has been alerted on and passed.....so I'm glad administration sees all alerts.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)interesting is right.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)When you take certain user names and certain short phrases and run them through that helpful little search box.....you get something very interesting.
For example if you take the phrase "personal attack"......which is common to both alerts, plus a username or two? Administration has cleverly given us the tools......
Spazito
(50,453 posts)it is glaringly obvious not to mention kind of creepy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I suppose their odds of getting a hide goes up exponentially.
Gotta say...juror #1 absolutely nailed it.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Gird your loins against, "Stalkholm Syndrome", sometimes the unaware are taken in and brainwashed by their own infiltration. I made that up.
(Why would you even traffic that cesspool?)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Sometimes it is just funny as hell to read. Just shower with bleach after and use a scrub brush!
libodem
(19,288 posts)Our AM side of the dial is nothing but a thinly veiled hate dispensary of the usual Clear Channel Journal broadcast foxsnooze hate talkers. I get enough. Even Coast to Coast has a religious bias now. I miss Art Bell. He didn't always have it right but at least no one could get on and quote fucking Bible verses. I'm sick of it!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Faux Snooze 24/7 in all the diners.
libodem
(19,288 posts)[
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Did not know Marjoe Gortner was a freeper.
He'll, I didn't even know he was still alive!
Hekate
(90,793 posts)We don't want that stuff tracked into DU!
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)hatred of the Dem nominee does not encourage them to vote anymore than they already do. They hate Obama and he still won, twice. That is because the Dems win by mobilizing their usually apathetic base. The GOP wins by encouraging the Dem base to stay home.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Are a huge driver for their negative energy. The anti Clinton machine is already in place and well oiled.
It's reflexive.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In each of the last two cycles, the movement conservatives have seen the nomination go to someone they consider a RINO. Each time, the GOP establishment has touted that candidate as the one who can win, unlike the more conservative candidates. And each time, that establishment candidate has lost.
I agree with you that they'll vote, but they won't necessarily vote for Bush, whom they despise. When I look in there, I see plenty of comments along the lines of "If the GOP nominates Bush, they're dead to me, I'm voting third party."
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)When you could just stay here on DU?
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Wella
(1,827 posts)It boggles the mind.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)yup, "Free Republic" has some real assholes.
Sid
malaise
(269,157 posts)Visiting that cesspool
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I don't want that stink in here.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:05 AM - Edit history (1)
I now know that Hillary started the Iraq War and destroyed the American middle class, among other large bad things. I'm nostalgic for the '90s when she was just a pant-suited murdering lesbian who did not like to bake cookies.
(Just in case, this is sarcasm.)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thank you! Thank you!
I. Am. Humbled.
BTW, did you know that Hillary Clinton co-sponsored an bill to criminalize flag burning? Here's what the NY Times wrote:
Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode
Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.
It's hard to see this as anything but pandering - there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I also know she has the man that threatened Elizabeth Warren as her main adviser.
You really get to people. When they want to try to take you down with snark and have only, "so she apologized" as an answer to some objections, or don't respond at all to other objections, you know you are in the right.
Sweet dreams.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That bill was negotiated by the Senate leadership and sponsored by HRC to put the brakes on another bill that would have criminalized, with jail and fines, flag-burning in any location at any protest. Clinton's bill restricts the prohibition to federal property only. Already there are rules against starting fires on federal properties, so her bill didn't change a damn thing. What it did do, though, was satisfy a bunch of blowhards that were trying to shut down dissent, but who in the end, settled for the APPEARANCE of shutting down dissent, while nothing changed.
So, nice try, but big fail, there. Clinton's bill actually stopped a rabid, flag-waving Congress from criminalizing a common protest activity.
If you'd been reading DU at the time, you'd have known this--there were a number of discussions about it. But hey, that "J'accuse!" and "Gotcha!" crapola --stale as it is--is so much more fun for you, I guess...
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)HRC was viewed as the person who solved a very difficult problem (and it was a major problem as the original law under consideration would have probably gone to a sketchy Supreme Court). With her solution, nothing changed, and the flag-waving blowhards had no reason to keep pushing. It was a very clever legislative trick.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)So tough to choose...
trumad
(41,692 posts)Pretty lame reply Manny.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)as had the Executive Editor during the runup to Iraq, Howell Raines.
In that case, Miller and Raines would be guilty, in your eyes, of believeing roughly the same things as Hillary Clinton believed during the runup.
But, alas, Miller and Raines were both terminated by that time, and the team in place was the team that held firm when Bush warned them, in person, at the White House, not to publish the info on warrantless wiretapping.
trumad
(41,692 posts)So they are trustworthy now...
Ok...thanks.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)not whether the NY Times is perfect.
Given that the NY Times recognized that shilling for war was a mistake and removed the personnel responsible, and given that you seem to not see any reason to remove at least one person who was at least as responsible... heck, you seem to feel she deserves a huge promotion!... I gotta go with the Times.
trumad
(41,692 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Which is what makes me a Liberal.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I guess some would have been happier with the GOP version of the bill, which was to amend the Constitution to forbid flag burning?
HRC's compromise changed nothing because it's illegal to start fires on federal properties without a permit, anyway. Anyone burning a flag on federal land previous to this change was subject to that prohibition--nothing changed with HRC's legislation. She used diplomacy and some clever wrangling to avoid a rabid, intemperate, and moronic attempt to change the Constitution. But hey, Judy Miller's NYT gets the "thumbs up" here?
MADem
(135,425 posts)The fact that you'd have a "challenge" in that regard tells me all I need to know!
And were that not enough, there's always Google.
Yeah--so tough to choose, indeed!
I love transparency--and you are nothing if not that.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller
But she is, apparently, a wingnut. Or else they just pay better.
Or maybe since she's CFR she bats for both teams. So hard to keep up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)helping you--you're on your own. The NYT is not our friend. And by "our" I mean Democrats (I am one of those) and the Democratic Party.
You know a lot about this place, down to personalities, even predating your sign up date. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding the material in the archives and getting up to speed.
Not too hard to keep up, really--the Scooter Libby scandal was major news and Judy was in the thick of it.
trumad
(41,692 posts)One
He holds it and the world revolves around him.
Sorry Manny..... it ain't all about you.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Why am I not surprised that HRC would cosponsor such a Bill? Why is this the first I ever heard of this?
hatrack
(59,592 posts)You're a better man than I am, Trumad!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)They openly brag at Free Republic and the site whose name shall not be mentioned how they infiltrate this board, stake out the most extreme positions, and get posters here to agree with them.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Well you know the rest.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)But no, tell us the rest. Who is the duck?
trumad
(41,692 posts)Quack