Goodbye Will Twain: A ratfucker unmasked

[BainsBane]

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=309567&sub=trans

I had been suspicious for a while, but when I saw him use Leninist as an insult, that really raised a red flag.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6545243

[niyad]

1. wonder which sock he was/will be?

[NuclearDem]

2. Trolls gonna troll.

Fortunately, Skinner and EarlG gonna ban too.

[sufrommich]

3. I actually gave him advice on how to contact MIRT

because he claimed he was getting nasty emails,now I wonder if he made that up. Nasty emails piss me off, no matter who's getting them.

[SidDithers]

4. +1...

DU would be a better place without the ratfuckers.

Sid

[sharp_stick]

5. I'm sure he was just misunderstood

He didn't mean to come across as the ratfucker he seemed to be.

I wonder how all of his new rec friends are taking it?

[freshwest]

251. Wonder if they'll withdraw their recs? Too late, the internet never forgets... n/t

[geek tragedy]

6. That one was pretty obvious from the start

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5996373
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026000023

[BainsBane]

10. Seems like I've seen those exact same OPs

Posted by someone else. Hmmm.

[geek tragedy]

11. ain't populism grand? nt

[BainsBane]

14. . . .

[SidDithers]

45. boom goes the dynamite...nt

Sid

[freshwest]

253. Thanks, Hitler/Skinner/Sid! Love the bittersweet smell of censoring ratfuckers in the morning!

[greatauntoftriplets]

55. Is that what they're calling it these days?

[geek tragedy]

57. yup nt

[freshwest]

370. And Libertarians are the 'real liberals,' too. It's on their official websites and other places. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

379. And clearly, Liberals are really Libertarians

Amirite?

[greatauntoftriplets]

387. Unreal, isn't it, fresh?

I don't buy it, either.

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. !!!

[Bobbie Jo]

72. LOL!

Innit?

[freshwest]

222. I enjoyed his chief cheerleader saying they'd been here under multiple incarnations... n/t

[HughBeaumont]

12. That one blaming President Obama for the minimum wage . . .

. . . . you know, the whole minimum wage argument is frustrating and $7.25 is an insult and a money loss . . . .

. . . but thinking the President has the power to make a Wealth-puppeted, Pub-controlled congress do something they have no inclination to do is just displaying a supreme lull in governmental knowledge.

[geek tragedy]

13. he also blamed Obama for tuition costs and property taxes nt

[sufrommich]

19. Trolls always overplay their hand...they can't resist. nt

[okaawhatever]

22. Yes and the first 2 years when he had a democratic majority was during a horrible recession. I

don't think even the democrats would have voted for an increase in the minimum wage when businesses were shutting down right and left. The concern for job loss was too big.

[mmonk]

155. But an increase in the minimum wage would have boosted demand

which is the only way out of a recession without demand. However, government as an employer as a last result would be more prudent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. You know, I do not blame most people for thinking

that Presidents can do all they believe they can do. And if you listen to a few of the regulars here, yes, the president can do a lot of shit, that he cannot do, and the focus on the presidency is like insane.

I blame the fact that imperial presidencies are more powerful than they used to be. Fun fact, before FDR Congress was the focus of national elections, not the presidency. That started to change in the post war era, and really became what it is these days with Kennedy.

I also blame the media. We do a pretty poor job in explaining how any of this works, (mind you some of my local political reporters have no idea either... ah some of the stories I can tell). That said, I just wanted to leave this as a point of discussion, thought even.

Now back to work with me. And if people stopped hating each other we might actually get somewhere as a people... but that is a whole different kettle of fish, not appropriate, ironically, for a political partisan board.

[FSogol]

74. Not true: " before FDR Congress was the focus of national elections, not the presidency."

A quick look at newspaper and newsreel coverage will show that the Presidency was always the main focus. The voting turnout in non-Presidential elections will show your statement is in error also.

Lastly, FDR was probably our most imperial president and there is nothing wrong with wanting the Democrats to continue holding power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Why every third party that ever got anywhere

wanted to control congress more than the WH, and that includes the Republicans.

Why papers cover horse races? It is easier to cover a single horse race than multiple horse races.

And I got over the partisan shit a while ago. The people I talk to regularly, have lost complete trust in it as well. As I said, not, ironically, a good place to have this discussion.

Oh and finally FSGOOOL, I ain't talking of news coverage, but you should have gathered that, and FDR was NOT our most imperial president either. I got dibs on a few others in the post war era.

[FSogol]

88. When someone mentions facts, make word salad!

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. When we can't counter facts

Like every historian credits the national security state under Trumman as the origin of the national security state, go for personal attacks. It is rather cute.

[FSogol]

105. Did anyone mention Trumman (sic) or national security? We were discussing elections and 3rd parties

Your dismissive 'cute' response would be like me saying, "No, Ferris wheels were first invented by Pittsburgh Engineer, George Washington Gale Ferris."

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. You said FDR was the most imperial Evah

I stated a few others in the post wartime to mind. Perhaps I am wrong and 1947 precedes 1932

I live n a very different reality than you do. Mind you, that is a fact who knew it included the calendar. It is lovely and cute though.

[FSogol]

149. Word Salad!

Feel free to have the last word.

[BainsBane]

160. If you look at the numbers of executive orders

which are accessible through the National Archives website, that supports the point of FDR's as an imperial presidency. Then the four terms, efforts to stack the Supreme Court. He did good things, but he wielded a huge amount of power to accomplish it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. And he was still not an imperial president

You start that with Trumman. It is the definition of terms and it is not limited to executive orders. Like with the TTP who to believe on this? A panoply of distinguished US Historians....or....

Forgive me for believing historians on this.

[BainsBane]

178. Okay, which historians?

What are your sources?

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. Shlesinger among others

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33764/gaddis-smith/the-truman-presidency-the-origins-of-the-imperial-presidency-and

Add these guys

This is a recognized convention among American historians. (And I will add specialists in US History abroad)

Was FDR exercising some features of an Imperial presidency? Yes, so was Coolidge and his cousin no less, But he is not considered the origin of the modern form. That be Truman, with the rise of the National Security State.

This is so basic you get in AP history courses.

And I think having done extensive reading (add Caro to the list),

By the way, when was the last time that Congress declared War? Sep. of 1941. This is one of the features of it. It is a huge marker actually.

You can add Erwin L Morris in the American Presidency, theories on Presidential power chapter.

You can add my instructors in both US History and Political Science to the list.

As I said, who to believe? Standard understanding of this, or to use stevenleser words, "emotional arguments."

By the way, I find this need to rewrite history to fit a narrative, as an intense (and rather disgusting) feature of hyper partisans, regardless of party. One day I might even get it. Why people need to do it.

[BainsBane]

181. That's the title of a book review

It doesn't provide content. Did your AP history include learning how to cite sources? How about the concept of historiography? Or were you taught by a Rankean?

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. My masters degree IN HISTORY did that

but you know what? I am not going to bother writing a thesis to prove to you how wrong you are, on this. I have better things to do than try to prove to partisans that the sky is indeed cloudy outside my door right now. Or that a standard definition of the time line of US History is what it is.

You and your friend can live in an alternate, non standard, version of US History... it really affects me not.

You are wrong. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was NOT the first imperial president of the modern period, that is Trumman. Have fun with it That is a fact, regardless of how many times you try to get cute about it.

And this, the book, in case you are truly curious. I doubt you are, but hell, I am ok with it.

http://www.amazon.com/Truman-Presidency-Imperial-National-Security/dp/0930576128



For the record, Schlesinger also wrote an extremely good piece of work on anti intellectualism in US Politics, and you are exhibiting what he described in that book. And I am cool with that. It is what it is. Hyperpartisanship is truly a mystery to me. Perhaps, before I die, I will be able to decode it, but I truly doubt it, because I rather deal with realities in the field.

Have fun thinking that up is down and black is white. I guess war is peace, and the rations went up this week. I do not love big brother... so report me to big brother.

And I forgot, I find this extremely cute and telling.

[BainsBane]

195. I live for non-standard versions of history

That is what the discipline of history is all about. I don't have a background in US political history so I certainly don't claim absolute knowledge of it, as you evidently feel an MA enables you to do. Two whole years in grad school and you know it all, except of course what historians actually do. You have cited nothing to prove your point. Your ego does not suffice for evidence, and evidence after all is what establishes narrative authority in history.

Anti-intellectual. That's a good one.

You really are so wrapped up in your own ego you have no idea what you've wandered into.

[nadinbrzezinski]

206. You are for falsification of US history

I love how one personal attack blew in your face, so now you go for the next one... oh wait, there are three in this post! That must be a record of some sort!

Hey, it is what it is, and at this point in my life, is is extremely cute. It tells me exactly what you are and who you are.



It is what it is. And it is all but shocking,

Now seriously the entertainment and distraction is over. I got a few white papers to go though, the coffee finished brewing, and the wash is running.

[nadinbrzezinski]

216. How cute

mom can I keep this personal attack? CAN I? CUTE!

[Aerows]

366. Proud to be Juror #7

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 22, 2015, 09:55 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Both parties should go to their rooms without dessert. Super rude all the way around.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No need to be an asshole, BainsBane. NB just recently started posting again and here you are ridiculing her. Bad form.

[nadinbrzezinski]

369. Thanks

[Agschmid]

374. Sure seems like a personal attack there by juror #7...

Not sure that is something to be proud of?

[Aerows]

375. Step up to the plate

and alert on my post, then.

[Agschmid]

376. No I'd rather just openly let you know what I think.

[Aerows]

377. Thanks

And it is clear what I think, as well.

[Agschmid]

378. Indeed.

[pintobean]

389. The ridicule was reciprocal.

I don't know why a member taking a break would factor into the decision, though. It seems juries are just a popularity contest anymore, with the outcome dependent only on the luck of the draw.
Given the context of the sub-thread, it was a lame hide. Your jury comment was just as bad, if not worse.

[pintobean]

209. She does that often.

It's nice to see her pitching into your wheelhouse. This should be good.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

323. "My masters degree IN HISTORY..."

Did you save the receipt?

By the way, when was the last time that Congress declared War? Sep. of 1941.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026548590#post180

[pintobean]

330. On the 12th

The day after the Germans bombed the towers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

336. My mistake that was Dec, the point still stands

but as Dempjeep demonstrated, we live in alternate realities. In yours the President declared war and did not ask Congress for ANY input.

Yes, I am laughing at you, and with you at this point.

It is fun. And it is rather cute.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

385. "In yours the President declared war..."

When did I, or BB, ever contend it was the President, rather than Congress, that declares war? No one has said this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

405. Excuse me, but when BB went after standard timelines

of US History and did a series of vile attacks, it shows the shallowness of her argument, and yours at this point.

Did you keep your receipt is a shallow and funny attack.

I expect no less from some folks here. It used to piss me off. These days I find it extremely cute, Serious. Like a duck and water come to mind. I also find it extremely revealing.

My other point still stands too. In standard US History time lines the first IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY is that of one man that followed FDR, you might have even heard of him, Truman. It is not his use of a nuke, or two, it is the full reorganization of the state, and creation of agencies such as the NSA and the CIA.

That is what is standard. So forgive for assuming that in your non standard time line of US History, FDR declared war without consulting Congress. It does make for an interesting premise for a sci fi story though.

I wonder why the radical right and the radical center need to do this, and someday I will decode it.

IF BB wants to present that thesis as a paper at a history conference, by all means. I expect more than a few experts to listen politely and then politely chuckle.

And just to avoid a self delete...since you guys also tend to do that at times when fully caught.... and I guess I find it so cute I am keeping it.

Nuclear Unicorn (14,963 posts)
323. "My masters degree IN HISTORY..."

Did you save the receipt?

By the way, when was the last time that Congress declared War? Sep. of 1941.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026548590#post180

[Nuclear Unicorn]

406. "it shows the shallowness of her argument, and yours at this point."

You accused me of claiming FDR declared war. I asserted quite truthfully that I never made such a claim.

Did you keep your receipt is a shallow and funny attack.

You claimed to hold a Masters degree in history yet flubbed the date of one of the most pivotal dates in modern history.

My other point still stands too...

I really don't care. You storm into the thread casting airs but then flub basic facts and then make unfounded accusations about things where I never offered an opinion; all done combatively and in a style that would never pass a thesis examining board let alone survive to be deemed Masters-level work. That is, when you aren't playing the victim just because people push-back.

And, no, your autocorrect did not misspell Trumman for Truman.

If you want to be taken seriously and respected you could always try extending those courtesies to others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

408. I have not accused you of nothign

but have fun claiming that.

On the other hand you engaged in a vile personal attack.

As I said, this is immensely cute to me. Immensely.

Have an excellent day...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

410. "I have not accused you of nothign"

Dude, you can't write things so patently untrue when refuting your statement is just a hyperlink away. You wrote -- to me --

nadinbrzezinski (135,960 posts)

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #323)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 11:01 PM

336. My mistake that was Dec, the point still stands but as Dempjeep demonstrated, we live in alternate realities. In yours the President declared war and did not ask Congress for ANY input.

[nadinbrzezinski]

411. Dude are you so much into personal attacks?

and dudette, thank you very much.

I stated that since you kept defending BB for writing something patently out of the common understanding of US History. You tried to pile in, with personal attacks and you continue.

I find this extremely revealing. This is about you and yours alone. And it is about YOUR NEEDs not mine.

So as I said, keep it up. I find it extremely revealing and cute.

Here is the original of those personal attacks

Nuclear Unicorn (14,963 posts)
323. "My masters degree IN HISTORY..."

Did you save the receipt?

By the way, when was the last time that Congress declared War? Sep. of 1941.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026548590#post180

And my apologies if you feel this was a personal attack, but it was not.

Nuclear Unicorn (14,966 posts)
410. "I have not accused you of nothign"

Dude, you can't write things so patently untrue when refuting your statement is just a hyperlink away. You wrote -- to me --

nadinbrzezinski (135,960 posts)

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #323)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 11:01 PM

336. My mistake that was Dec, the point still stands but as Dempjeep demonstrated, we live in alternate realities. In yours the President declared war and did not ask Congress for ANY input.
The Law is where you decide to skip dinner and a movie with family and friends so you can take the money, buy a gun and badge with it and give those to another person so he can point the gun at your head and use the badge to shield himself from your complaints

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #323)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 11:01 PM

336. My mistake that was Dec, the point still stands but as Dempjeep demonstrated, we live in alternate realities. In yours the President declared war and did not ask Congress for ANY input.

You on the other hand started this with a vile personal attack, which I do not expect your apology for. I just expect further pile on. Why I find this extremely cute.

And quite brutally I have a news story to write. So enough wasting time with the pile on m'kay. but it extremely cute. Speaks volumes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

412. First, BB and I seldom, if ever, get along. So, there is no pile-on.

Second, you wanted to throw around having a Masters degree in history. Yet, you flubbed a fact known to any 2nd-grader. If you set yourself on a pedestal you can't complain about the height of the fall.

Third, you made a claim that I held a belief about who declared war. You fabricated that out of wholecloth. Frankly, I'm at a loss how or why you would even do that but it seems to indicate you are willing to say anything.

Fourth, you tried to play-off your habitual misspelling of Truman on autocorrect. This too indicates a willingness to say anything.

Fifth, your constant use of "cute" is nothing more than an effort to wear down the opposition with condescension. I find myself...immune.

[nadinbrzezinski]

413. Whatever dude

have a good day... and I find it quite cute. It used to bother me. It does not.

Feel free to put me on ignore if you so wish. You are not going on ignore, any of you is not. And I am not going away.

Now if you chose to apologize, that would be nice, but novel. You guys never, ever admit an error, or personal attacks. So for a reminder, here is your original and quite vile personal attack.

Nuclear Unicorn (14,963 posts)
323. "My masters degree IN HISTORY..."

Did you save the receipt?

By the way, when was the last time that Congress declared War? Sep. of 1941.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026548590#post180

If pointing a fact is being condescending, well guilty as charged.

And yes, I find it rather cute... sorry... it is what it is.

Oh and one more thing... I had to check, but kids do not learn of FDR's Pearl Harbor Address or the entry into WW II until 6th grade. I remember I learned of it in 5th grade, but that was another country. You might want to go blame Common Core for that one by the way.

Here

Objective:
Students will determine the meaning of words selected by FDR as he edited the draft of his December 8, 1941 address to Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Grade Level: 6-12
ELA Common Core Standards:
This Lesson meets the “Craft and Structure” component of the Common Core Standards under Literacy in History/Social Studies at each grade level.

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-teachers/lesson-plans/a-day-of-infamy.html

So you added even more insults. What can I say? This is extremely cute. This need to add insult on top of insult. But enough of this... I am giving you far more time than you either need or deserve.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

415. "If pointing a fact is being condescending, well guilty as charged."

That's not even coherent. What "fact" is being established by repeatedly using the word "cute" in a condescending manner?

I had to check, but kids do not learn of FDR's Pearl Harbor Address or the entry into WW II until 6th grade.

No one ever mentioned FDR's address to Congress. The mistake you made was claiming Congress declared war in September 1941.

You're all over the place. First, you're talking about Congress declaring war -- albeit in September 1941. I mentioned knowing the US was attacked in December 1941 is 2nd-grade history. Now you're talking about FDR's speech.

So you added even more insults.

Pointing out your errors is not insult. Is that the attitude you take with your editor? Because I'm pretty sure they don't print your stuff unedited.

[nadinbrzezinski]

418. Keep 'em coming

[Aerows]

367. Fail. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

386. How so?

[FSogol]

185. Do you know what I read in my AP English Lit class?

James Thurber's "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

[demtenjeep]

339. speaking of rewriting history-who did the US declare war on in Sept 41?

and also who is Trumman?


Do you consider Nixon to be imperialistic?

[nadinbrzezinski]

341. Well, at least in that alternate version of reality

we do agree that Nixon was part of the Imperial Presidency,. So is Obama in my version, every POTUS since good ol' Harry, who you apparently have no clue who this president is. But perhaps in yours he is not part of that line.

Nixon though was an extreme form in my version of history... did Watergate happen in yours? And did a couple reporters from the WAPO play a role in that? Did they also write "follow the money?"

I am curious how quantum mechanics is working here.

But in yours FDR did declare war on his own, and the Congress had zero input in this right? Are you a consultant with Harry Turtledove perhaps? It explains the Ford Island bridge though in one of his books which in my reality was built decades later. But perhaps in yours it was already there.

Curious.

See I can laugh at myself. And I find this line of enquiry quite cute as well.

[stevenleser]

170. Very nasty of you to use facts and historical records to counter emotional nonsense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. I am not sure who you are talking to

but if you are calling me emotional and not using history, am afraid Sir you got the wrong person.

But perhaps those of you who wish to rewrite terms and historical definitions might want to start arguing this with Arthur Schlesinger who authored "the Imperial Presidency" in 1973, not 1943.

Like everything else that partisans do, I find these attempts to appropriate terms and rewrite US History rather cute, problematic, but cute.

You might also go argue this point with these guys.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33764/gaddis-smith/the-truman-presidency-the-origins-of-the-imperial-presidency-and

As I said, I find the whole exercise rather cute... not in a good cute, but cute.

[stevenleser]

175. Really? DU's software makes it pretty easy to tell. Open that other post up and look in the upper

right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. And I find this even cuter

[joshcryer]

365. 90% of those executive orders were procedural.

Acquiring lands and exempting people from retirement age. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post (and we should not forget about internment), just saying the EO number alone isn't enough, you gotta go with more than that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

368. Anyway, historians agree that the modern imperial presidency

starts with Truman, not FDR. And I find this, on both ends, troublesome.

It leads to the creation of a lot of false narratives, for political ends mind you.

The actual history of FDR is something to be both troubled and be proud off. He was a man of his times, and the internment is not something to be proud off, but the New Deal, which is what a lot of moderates would like to hide, is.

FDR was, like all Presidents, merely human, with foibles and fears, and capable of great good and evil, and constrained by the social mores of his time. There is a lot to learn from both his achievements and mistakes, but that will not happen when false narratives are created.

[demtenjeep]

321. can you tell me who Trumman is? and we declared war in Dec 41 not Sept.

In Sept we were still trying to sell to the world that we were neutral

[nadinbrzezinski]

334. YOu shit me, you do not know who Harry S Truman is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman_Scholarship#/media/File:Harry_S_Truman,_bw_half-length_photo_portrait,_facing_front,_1945.jpg

And FDR declared war and not the Congress. Ok. I fully admit I live in a different version of the US. Who knew, alternate universes are connected. You are right, it was December not Sep... but in my version it was Congress, not the President. But as I said, we live in a different world and somehow, I guess it is DU... our alternate realities are connected. No wonder that we are not singing from the same sheet of music.

My BIL might be interested in this, assuming he is the same guy I've known for decades and not his evil twin from your reality obviously, since he does write sci fi, and from time to time we have fun with the theory of parallel universes. I think I found evidence. Who knew, it is though the internet.

There are days it is useful to laugh, and this is one of those days... and given Quantum Mechanics, you and I might be from two different realities, slightly similar, in yours apparently the Imperial Presidency started with FDR. I am shocked it did not start with his cousin though. Or for that matter Coolidge and his Nicaragua policies. Perhaps that is another closely related reality? Perhaps we will find that tomorrow on another version of DU.

This is why this place can be so damn informative.

[demtenjeep]

344. I know that Harry S Truman was FDR's VICE President in 41

and that most people though him to be not much better than Quayle


This Trumman I have never heard of.

[nadinbrzezinski]

347. Oh I am sorry

you got hung on my Iphone autocorrect

My apologies, it does that from time to time. Autocorrect sucks, at least where I live.

But you see, there is a reason why I do not get hung up on spellings that much, especially when you knew specifically who I was talking about. And if you did not, well that was cute... really cute.

Oh and thanks, we are not talking to each other though a wormhole apparently. PHEW!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

357. Oh and you mean Senator Truman was in the Senate in 1941

the mostly forgotten and none remembers Henry A Wallace was FDR's VEEP in 1941. Truman replaced him in the ticket for the 1944 election.

It would be this guy, the 33rd VP of the United States. Truman was the 34th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace#/media/File:Henry-A.-Wallace-Townsend.jpeg

See we all make mistakes.

[Octafish]

397. Elected veep in '44.

Veep from 1941 to 1945 was Henry Wallace.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. They both made the Greatest Page./NT

[geek tragedy]

36. as does a lot of garbage

bashing Obama and Clinton has always been a surefire way to make the greatest page unless it's done in incredibly oafish fashion

[DonCoquixote]

54. Sometimes BECAUSE it is in oafish fashion

and then the posters of a certain priviledge gender and skin complexion will attack anyone who questions it and say "YOO liberuls dont understand us oppressed workin' class white males!"

[BainsBane]

58. I don't get a working-class vibe from some of that crowd

Quite the opposite.

[DonCoquixote]

60. They will Calim they are

I.e. The sheep clothing the wolves wear, it is in high fashion in election cycles.

[BainsBane]

61. We probably are thinking of different people

[Surya Gayatri]

100. You said a bunch THERE! An OP has to be painfully obvious for

an Obama or Clinton bash not to make it to Greatest within 10 little minutes from posting.

[MADem]

97. A lot of utter shit makes the Greatest Page.

Some stuff just attracts the GREATEST number of contrarians, who think that the way to "Fight the Power" is to click the "rec" button at DU...! YEAH!!!! I showed 'em!!!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. So did the PoS Used Car Salesman piece ...

and just about every other thread that criticizes this President, and/or Democrats, in general.

But a thread pointing out some good? Or, seeking workable solutions to the problems facing America ... look out belowwww!

[pintobean]

119. Anger is a gift

[MADem]

214. When I see that phrase, I always read that GIFT word as German.....

http://translation.babylon.com/german/to-english/gift/


It works better in context, I'd say!

[pintobean]

219. Lol. Yup

I didn't know that. Thanks.

[Cha]

226. Of course they did.. the pitchforks were out and the torches lit.. didn't matter if it were true

NOT.

[seabeyond]

109. yes. nt

[Sheepshank]

7. So...my suspicions were confirmed.

ain't that speshul

[hrmjustin]

8. It was so clear he was a troll.

When he used the term Leninism to me yesterday it was even clearer.

Great Job skinner.

[2naSalit]

9. Glad that happened

I was suspicious of that one too but wasn't sure enough to make any valid claims... Thanks!

[FSogol]

15. Good riddance. Sadly, his trolling occasionally got 200 recs.

What were those folks thinking?

Anyway, many thanks admins.

[BainsBane]

17. ratfuckers are popular

because they exploit legitimate frustrations, only they do it for illegitimate purposes.

[FSogol]

20. LOL, one of his socks got banned too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=309533

[sufrommich]

27. "conspiracy kook" lol. nt

[geek tragedy]

38. that one was dumb enough to troll one of Skinner's threads. Oopsy daisy nt

[FSogol]

59. Yeah, that one despite being here for a year and a half only had 48 posts, but always managed to

show up and continue the trolling whenever WT got a hide.

So obvious.

[Cha]

225. That was WillTwain, too?! this is what he posted to me yesterday on Skinner's thread..

"Why do you always think you can read minds? How arrogant... Your insults are "tea baggerish" and reactionary...why?"

LOL.. hey Will, how's that pizza?

Thanks FSogol!

[FSogol]

248. He told me to "stop embarrassing the Democratic party by behaving the way you do" when

I promoted, not feeding the trolls.

[Cha]

249. He was a motor mouth.. reminded me of those sociopaths

running for president.. always projecting their failings on everyone else.

Rofl!

[FSogol]

252. A couple more went away today too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=320292
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=322469
and one other whose name I already forgot.

Kudos on the Spring cleaning, admins.

[JaneyVee]

73. Amazing how easily people here fall for the ratfucking..

Message to DU: Its election time again, be weary of any divide and conquer bullshit.

[workinclasszero]

118. Yeah get ready for the onslaught

If people are using articles and "facts" from well known right wing sites like The Blaze, etc I'd be especially suspicious.

[Cha]

237. All you have to do is make up a bunch of shit about Obama and see how many fall for it.. WT bragged

he got "100s of Recs.

[zappaman]

240. He certainly did.

Obvious to anyone with open eyes.

[Cha]

246. At least two of my friends got a hide because of that troll.. by speaking to truth to his

sneaky ratfucking self.

[Surya Gayatri]

144. Trained at the school of reverse agit-prop.

[Zorra]

148. I have a saved list of recs for one of PretzelWarrior's banned socks, but I'm not going to

post it here, unless this type of hypocrisy goes too far.

[FSogol]

150. So what? Broken clocks are correct once in a while. n/t

[Zorra]

151. Exactly my point. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. nt

[LanternWaste]

176. Be great if that troll were as bright as a broken clock... alas.

Be great if that troll were as bright as a broken clock... alas.

[Cha]

233. Yeah, poor WillTwain couldn't even make the Broken Clock Syndrome.

[Cha]

229. Oh, please do go through with your threat, Zorra.

[Zorra]

242. I'll PM it to you if you wish, and you can post it.

No editing!

[Cha]

247. No, you're the one who threatened.. We're enjoying Will Twain/ratfucker's demise.

[joshcryer]

372. I'll post it.

Just link the damn thread. It's not a big issue. Rec's are public for a reason.

I rec based on the story or substance of a post or a conversation it creates. I don't rec on personality.

(I may refuse to rec based on personality, however, even if it's a good story.)

[Bluenorthwest]

16. That's great, he's one of the fakes exploiting verbiage about Unions and labor to make

right wing points. Transparent as fuck, and he's not the only one.

[BainsBane]

18. Exactly, and for a union proponent to use Leninism

as an insult for censorship was a dead give away.

[workinclasszero]

126. Plus it feeds into the latest republican BS concern over the working class LOL

You can tell an election is coming soon when the working class hating rethug party gets all concerned about the plight of the worker

Herr Walker's latest talking point, gotta keep the dirty foreigners out because it hurts the poor american worker!

From the pig that loves to smash unions!

[BainsBane]

21. Remember his "women and minorities" lament

That Clinton's appeal to "women and minorities" would be the death nail of the middle-class. All his excuses about division was straight out of the GOP.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. It's always a red flag when people use Labor rhetoric and diss equality issues because Unions are

diverse as hell. You see people on DU who seem to think Union = White Guy With Lunch Pail. Well it does, but it also = Woman With Lunch Pail, Black Man with Ledger, Gay Man with an advanced degree and so forth. Equality is a labor issue.

[emulatorloo]

188. That clued me in damn quick that he was a fraud and a pot-stirrer

Hope this is a good lesson to DU. A fair amt of DU'ers are in denial about the fact that Conservatives/Republican operatives come here and pretend to be "Progressives". Divide and conquer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Bane, I agree Twain was a troll and provocateur.

But I can certainly see instances where using Leninism or Leninist as an epithet could raise flags but a lot of Lenin's ideas were antithetical to small d democracy.

[BainsBane]

25. He claimed to critique the party from the left

and I expect that if you were going to use a term for censorship, it wouldn't be Leninism. If you wanna go Soviet, why not Stalinism? Or why not go right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I think the larger issue is how popular he was here...

He certainly got a lot of hosannas and recommends. Folks here really need to be more vigilant. If you peruse right wing boards you can see them bragging about the socks they have here.

[hrmjustin]

29. I believe them when they say they have moles here.

[workinclasszero]

128. From what I've seen posted here lately

Lots and lots of moles!

[hrmjustin]

130. Yes indeed.

[BainsBane]

32. Absolutely. nt

[Old and In the Way]

340. Have to admit, I always thought you were a troll.

I could be wrong, though. . Here is my pro-tip reading and posting on this board for 13 or 14 years. The most left of your/my viewpoints that attack our candidates as not "progessive" enough....they are most likely full of shit. Lets see who disagrees.

[merrily]

384. I critique the party from the Party's left I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Leninist or a

Trotskyite or a Marxist. I am a traditional Democrat, nothing more or less.

[ucrdem]

24. He ratfucked poorly.

[Phentex]

204. I do miss the old tombstones...

[Zorra]

228. Here ya go

[Cha]

234. Big time ratfucker with "100s of Recs" as he liked to brag.

[Zorra]

26. Yep. When they try to troll from the left, they are out of their element.

It's why soldiers are taught to ask cultural questions to suspected infiltrators; no matter how much they are educated in the culture, there's nuances that only a native to the culture will understand.

[BainsBane]

31. That's hysterical!

[greatauntoftriplets]

30. Unfortunately, he'll be back.

Probably has a few socks waiting. Great nuke!

[William769]

33. I wonder where the pity party is being held?

[BainsBane]

37. Probably the Cave

[William769]

39. Not even close to where I was thinking.

[BainsBane]

43. :)

I was being diplomatic, but there might be direct line between bat caves.

[leftofcool]

49. I know what you are thinking!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!

[stevenleser]

131. Sounds like argumentum ad, ahem, populum...

I'll be here all night, be sure to tip your servers!

[KittyWampus]

147. STEVEN! Just for fun I looked up "agrumentum ad populum and it's an actual thing!

LOL!

Did you know that? If you did, you get a gold star. If you didn't, you STILL get a gold star!

And yes, I know what you were alluding to


In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people&quot is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number&quot , and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans&quot . It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

[stevenleser]

154. Oh yes, I knew. I relookup the logical fallacies every now and then to make sure I dont use

one accidentally and to identify when folks use them against me.

Never knew that one would prove useful as a play on words...

[sufrommich]

44. Probably Discussionist.

I took a look over there yesterday for the first time in a long time. It's boarded the crazy train and is going full speed ahead.

[emulatorloo]

189. Karl Rove's American Crossroads would be my guess

[zappaman]

34. Sad...he had a lot of fans here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. What's crazy is I see socks that are ten, eleven years old with only one hundred or so posts...

It's amazing the lengths they go to create a ruse.

[zappaman]

51. It's the long con.

[MADem]

213. Which sounds cooler than "They're losers who are STILL living in Mom's basement after all these

years!"

When a sock re-opens an account he made a decade ago, he's not having much luck on the social circuit, I'd say...!


Poor things...you've gotta pity 'em!

[BainsBane]

67. Remember they have several

They probably even forget about some of them. Then later they pick them up again.

[FSogol]

69. There are some with zero posts, who manage to rec certain types of threads daily.

Someone should give them my patented FSogol Sock Quiz:

Do you usually come in pairs?
Do you sometimes get lost in the dryer?
If you get a hole in you, does someone throw you away?
If you don't stay up, are you sometimes called a quitter?
Do you look silly if someone wears you with sandals?

[Cha]

324. I share your pain..

[NCTraveler]

40. Ratfucker had a fan club.

Good job taking out the trash.

[misterhighwasted]

53. Oh yes the fan club cheered him on, welcomed him in over & over.

A few more are suspect also.
They will slip up as they always do.

[misterhighwasted]

41. Catch-o-the-Day. Who's next?? Trolls do have a certain stink about them..

Good Call & good riddance.

[geek tragedy]

42. the ones pimping "Clinton Cash" are a good start nt

[BainsBane]

47. Even knowing Murdoch is behind it.

[workinclasszero]

135. "the ones pimping "Clinton Cash" are a good start"

Could not agree more!

[Gothmog]

166. I agree

That book is a joke. The author of that book is a joke and he is being funded by the crazy billionaire sugar daddy funding Carnival Cruz and Murdoch is the publisher

[Hekate]

198. Hell yes

[DonCoquixote]

48. I bet he is at that site

that rhymes with "disrputionist" getting a baby blankee from all those nurturing males while they stitch his sock puppet.

[stevenleser]

50. Would be nice to see mea culpas from those 200+ folks who would rec his OPs.

I can dream can't I?

[hrmjustin]

52. Don't hold your breath.

[William769]

63. Not from me. I would rather see them go the same way.

They don't belong here either.

[zappaman]

64. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. +2

[BlueCaliDem]

101. +3 eom

[JI7]

111. yes

[Jim Lane]

106. Offhand I don't recall whether I rec'd any...

but if I did, I'd want my rec to be judged in light of the actual post, not based on ad hominem arguments.

Someone may post legitimate information for illegitimate purposes (credit BainsBane in #17). We are, after all, the reality-based community. We pride ourselves on not living in a Fox-induced bubble. If many progressives are getting something wrong, and a post corrects the error, then DU is better for it, regardless of the poster's motives.

[stevenleser]

162. That is one interpretation. Another is, too many of a certain segment is all too happy to hear

criticisms of Democrats and reflexively recs them because they enjoy seeing those posts.

I think those folks should be embarrassed that they rec someone who was intentionally feeding them those kinds of posts as a wedge against Democrats.

[hrmjustin]

163. .

[DonCoquixote]

172. I believe the term is "useful idiot"

Half the people who recced his crap are the same he laughs at, probably while smoking a fat expensive cigar that he was able to buy thanks to whatever GOPig held his nose ring.

[stevenleser]

173. That did not occur to me but I think you are 100% right. nt

[Jim Lane]

183. On this board, criticisms of Democrats are often more valuable than criticisms of Republicans.

We've had debate back and forth about Obama's actions re TPP. We haven't had a lot of debates about Republican calls for abolishing the EPA. Why should we? We'd just be preaching to the choir and none of us would learn very much from it. It's worth noting the latest GOP lunacy, partly to stay informed and partly for the entertainment value, but dwelling on it too much is a waste of time.

That produces an imbalance. There is sometimes more criticisms of Democrats than of Republicans. I don't see that as a problem.

Your concluding paragraph reiterates the ad hominem argument, with which I disagree. If a post has worthwhile content, I won't be embarrassed about giving it a rec, regardless of what the poster's motives were.

[stevenleser]

184. I disagree with how you think DU should be used and what posts are more valuable here.

And since you have apparently deemed posts by a troll who sought to hurt Democrats by turning DUers against them with troll posts valuable, I have a feeling most folks agree with me.

[Jim Lane]

218. What's really bad for DU is when members put words in other members' mouths.

I expressly said that I didn't remember if I'd ever rec'd one of Will Twain's OP's. I don't know whether I'd deem any of them valuable. I was addressing the more general point of whether a rec of a post should be evaluated based on the content of the rec'd post or based on subsequent information as to the poster's motives. The latter is clearly the ad hominem fallacy.

An example: One of my Democratic Senators, Robert Menendez, is in the news because of accusations against him. A post containing accurate information about an important development in the case would be valuable, IMO. Your view seems to be that the post would be valuable if coming from a true progressive, but not if coming from someone who just enjoyed posting something negative about an elected Democrat. That's where we disagree. I see value in getting accurate information regardless of the source.

You may well be right that most DUers agree with you. Those folks should probably put me on Ignore.

[stevenleser]

295. I just used your own words. You find criticism of Democrats most useful here

I'm surprised to see that admission, but there it is.

[Jim Lane]

312. We're just not communicating here.

Here's what you wrote, about me, that I responded to: "you have apparently deemed posts by a troll who sought to hurt Democrats by turning DUers against them with troll posts valuable...."

In this context, you clearly meant (dropping all pronouns for clarity's sake): "Jim Lane has apparently deemed Will Twain's posts valuable." What I actually wrote was that I didn't even remember whether I'd rec'd any of his posts, so you have no basis for saying I deemed them valuable. I was, as I thought was clear, making a broader point, namely to disagree with a blanket rejection of criticisms of Democrats (see DemocratSinceBirth's post in #269 for an example of the view I disagree with).

In that context, what I actually wrote was, "On this board, criticisms of Democrats are often more valuable than criticisms of Republicans." Did you note the word "often"? I didn't say that every criticism of a Democrat is valuable. I've seen criticisms of Dems that I thought were not well founded, and I've sometimes taken the trouble to dispute them. The cases where they're valuable arise because I'm more likely to learn something from such threads, whether I agree or disagree with the original post. The current discussions about TPP and TPA are a good example. People have criticized Obama, Warren, Wyden, etc. Other people have disputed those criticisms. I would rather read such arguments (if both sides stick to facts and logic) than read yet another post telling me that Rand Paul is an opportunistic flip-flopper. I already know that Rand Paul is an opportunistic flip-flopper.

If you value DU more for the times when we all have a good laugh at the expense of the Conservative Idiot of the Week, well, you're entitled to your preference. DU does do a good job of providing such threads. I would never argue that you should be embarrassed for enjoying or reccing them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

269. I rather not crap on main stream Democrats

And if the board no longer considers Barack Obama a main stream Democrat God help us, God help us...

[stevenleser]

306. Yes, that this even needs to be voiced by someone makes me feel like we have entered

The twilight zone.

I'd rather we not crap on mainstream Democrats too. Why dafug does that need to be said here now?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

388. "Why dafug does that need to be said here now?"

Because

[NanceGreggs]

250. This all started with ...

... DU's change a few years ago from "constructive criticism of Dems allowed" to "any and all criticism of Dems allowed".

There was an influx of new posters who wasted no time in voicing their "criticism" of Dems in general, and Obama in particular.

Those here who were staunchly anti-Obama immediately embraced newbies who were also staunchly anti-Obama, based on that criteria alone - they accepted them as fellow "concerned Dems" without hesitation.

Once ensconced as comrades-in-arms, these newbies were often hailed as "progressive voices". And you'd Better Believe It. It took three-plus years and over 18,500 posts before THAT "progressive voice" was outed as just another RWer whose agenda had nothing to do with being a progressive - and had everything to do with bashing Obama & The D's.

"I think those folks should be embarrassed that they rec someone who was intentionally feeding them those kinds of posts as a wedge against Democrats."

Yeah, they should be - but they're not. Any more than the BBI "reccers" will ever admit to having been taken in by one of the most blatantly obvious RW trolls to ever post here.

And there are many more still here - and they continue to be hailed as True Progressives (TM) by those who still naively believe that anti-Dem rhetoric is what being progressive is all about.

[Octafish]

115. You know the worst kind of RATFUCKER?

The one who sounds like a Democrat, but acts like a Republican.

So, who's that sound like?

[stevenleser]

120. I have no idea. Are you describing yourself? You sound like a Democrat right?

None of us have any idea how any of us "acts" in person.

To jurors in case this is alerted: If that poster wants to play silly games to try to make me guess who he is talking about, someone who "Sounds like a Democrat" is a pretty obscure clue to give someone. It could be anyone.

[Octafish]

152. ''The one who sounds like a Democrat, but acts like a Republican.''

That's who. Reality is how it's measured. Do actions match the rhetoric?

BTFW: I don't appreciate what you posted above, that I, as one of the people who rec'd an OP by a now-banned DUer, are, by implication, somehow suspect.

[stevenleser]

158. Suddenly uncomfortable with transparency are we?

The recs are yours. You made them. It's not my fault you are uncomfortable with them now. If you have a perfectly good reason for reccing tons of posts by someone who was a troll who sought to turn people against Democrats, I think I can speak for many DUers when I say we are all happy to hear it.

P.S. See my #162 above for more

[Octafish]

197. LOL! Like I'm ashamed of Democrats and organized labor?

No wonder Roger Ailes invites you on FOX.

[stevenleser]

201. Nice attempt at a defensive straw man. It won't work.

And I am proud of appearing the same place that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Dennis Kucinich have appeared. I am sure you will level similar criticism at them, yes?

[Octafish]

221. Not my problem. You weren't proud enough to defend Democrats who were accused of corruption.

First the news reader goes over the arrests of four Democrats. Then she invites the conservative guy to rehash the points. Then it's your turn. Instead of saying anything liberal or democratic, like: "Let's hear their side first, before we condemn them," the first words out of your mouth were: "You know Martha, I will not defend any of these guys."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/03/28/screenplay-too-ridiculous-hollywood-4-dems-arrested-or-raided-fbi-recent-days

You did do a nice job explaining how the Obama FBI and Justice Department are impartial, then you made clear how sad corruption by an elected official of any part is. You just missed the main opportunity to actually be, you know, a liberal Democrat.

[hrmjustin]

227. Were they convicted?

[stevenleser]

273. You ought to check out the cases against those guys. Unlike Octafish, I do my homework

Before discussing something. The evidence against those guys is overwhelming and the crimes heinous, like covering up trafficking in arms for Chinese organized crime.

It would be funny to see Octafish raise that pathetic argument under intense opposition by pundits from the other side. They would carve him up like a Thanksgiving Turkey.

[hrmjustin]

275. Yeah i thought that was a dumb attack on you.

Seemed like a real reach on his part.

[Octafish]

394. I'll discuss anything with you or anyone, online or on-air.

Warning: If ad hominem is all you got, you're in store for a surprise.

[Octafish]

401. Look it up.

You got the time.

[stevenleser]

264. I'll discuss that, but first, back to your recs for a PPR'd troll...

What was your excuse for that again?

[reddread]

267. is that like a gray list?

too much pencil, not enough sharpie?
They disappear people for wrong recs in Russia, dont they?
thank God for freedom in America, where we can accidentally
invade a country that offered no threat before, during or after 9-11-01.
Im sure somebody said they were sorry, so lets leave it at that!

&feature=youtu.be&t=281

oh heck, maybe thats just an apology for leaving?

[stevenleser]

270. Interesting you brought up oppression in Russia because Octafish defends them

And thinks Putin is great.

But to answer your seeming implied question, I think it's fair to ask for a comment from folks joyfully taken in by a troll who sought to divide Democrats/Liberals and Progressives by exploiting wedge issues and criticizing Democrats.

And I find it amusing that this desire for a comment reminds you of dictatorial repression. I don't think you have a good grasp of what the latter is really like.

[reddread]

272. thats a lot of hot air.

Do they sell that smear at Uncle Harry's bagelry?

[stevenleser]

274. You've never seen his many defenses or appreciation posts about Putin?

Perhaps you should research before posting about it again.

[Octafish]

393. Show one.

Otherwise, it's just a smear, stevenleser.

[Octafish]

395. No excuse.

That's why I brought it up.

So why divert from the point: Which is shaming a DUer for reccing a post.

I've noticed you've nothing to add, besides the personal.

[stevenleser]

266. Admit it. You're just mad I didn't use it as an opportunity to criticize Obama

That's what's really going on here. When Greenwald went on Fox and criticized Obama, you loved it. When Hamsher went on Fox to criticize Obama, you loved that too.

[reddread]

271. is conflating Obama and foreign policy blunders a mistake or a strategy?

because Im pretty sure most concerned citizens are not obsessed with Obama.

[stevenleser]

276. You entered late into the conversation and clearly don't know what's being discussed. Nt

[reddread]

277. I have no problem following balls

no shortage in those claims.

[stevenleser]

279. Well, you mentioned foreign policy and the posts have nothing to do with that

... So to use your balls analogy, you're set up with a raquet to hit a tennis ball in the middle of Cowboys stadium with a football game going on.

[reddread]

280. even dodgeballs

[Octafish]

402. That's what you said, not me.

Why do you need to confuse the issue?

[brentspeak]

371. The difference between Sanders, Warren, Kucinich, and yourself is that

they are/were elected officials and you are essentially a nobody.

[treestar]

420. How does a nobody get invited onto a major news network?

[Logical]

391. Your alert failed nt

[hrmjustin]

202. That is low and rude. I respect your right to defend yourself but that is low.

[stevenleser]

203. In his defense, he is flailing in his attempt to explain his repeated rec's of a troll's posts. He

is making the mistaken assumption that his best defense to explain that is to attack other people.

[hrmjustin]

205. imo aside from my much good natured nudging of those who recced willtwains posts

it is not the end of the world but it is definitely worthy of criticism.

Too many reflexively rec posts like that guy posted. I just hope that some reflect on that practice in the future.


But what he said to you was out of line.

[reddread]

278. calling critical posters putinistas is ok?

what exactly does a rec win for anyone, anyway?
I mean besides a spot on someone's list?
I think the list of people that WILL NEVER rec truly important socially topical posts is
way more telling and troubling.

[stevenleser]

281. It's ok if the person in question is a Putinista, no? Nt

[reddread]

283. have you no shame, sir?

those were the days, my friend.

[stevenleser]

287. Why should I be ashamed to call a fan of Putin a fan of Putin? Do you think

Octafish objects to being called a Putin fan? I doubt it.

[reddread]

289. Im going back up for air

carry on down there.

[hrmjustin]

286. I nevered used that term

I do challenge those who defend Putin but I don't call them that.


The point about the recs are that people were willing to rec someones thread that was clearly trolling.

he made of point to disparrage the president at any chance and people recced it.

[reddread]

291. the horror

reminds me of a tune I heard

[reddread]

310. I never said you did

but you wont have to throw a rock far to find it in current use, do you?
People are keeping lists, I gather?
is there really something here worth protecting in that manner?
As I recall, the Troll hoards the bridge.
Just call me billy goat gruff.
God knows I smell like one.

[hrmjustin]

311. I don't have any lists.

I did have an ignore list that I cleared out yesterday but I think now I might repopulate it.

[reddread]

314. I never said you did

I think Im catching on here.
What is this game called?
duh.
straw man.
im slow, but someday I'll see the Wizard.

[hrmjustin]

317. You have a pleasant evening.

[reddread]

318. thanks, you too

[BainsBane]

325. "Truly important"

You mean the ones that focus on trashing Democratic politicians over issues? I fail to see how an obsession with individual politicians comprises "truly important socially topical posts." Here you two are happily defending a Republican troll and treating fellow Democrats with scorn. Is it all about who can muster the most contempt for the Democratic party, and it's all good, regardless of intent or political ideology?

Putinstas. I suggest if people don't want to be associated with autocrats, they not stump for his wars. Pretty simple. If people find an association with a position they've taken to be insulting, they must not be entirely comfortable with the position. Yet rather than thinking through it, they get pissed off at people who noticed. I can be pretty sure if there were people on this site who stumped for Bush's wars, they would be reminded of it frequently. And yet we're supposed to pretend Russian bombs and guns don't really kill to make people who work to justify that war feel better? My personal view is that warmongering needs to be called out, regardless of the side they stump for.

[Octafish]

224. I stand by what I wrote. If you think that's low, great.

Steven Leser writes I am guilty by association. It's not the first time he's made that allegation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026178887#post55

For some reason, he likes to cast doubts about my integrity. That bothers me.

[hrmjustin]

230. Well you should defend yourself but take the high road.

I don't think it is the end of the world that you recced his post but it is legitimate to ask why so many people here recced posts from a poster who was clearly trolling.

[zappaman]

236. The folks who recced seem very upset.

Can't blame them I suppose.
Sucks when someone pulls the wool over your eyes...

[hrmjustin]

238. Yeah. not the end of the world and I have been duped by trolls here.

[zappaman]

239. Some people NEVER admit when they are wrong.

Like my Republican dad...

[hrmjustin]

241. Well it is what it is.

[zappaman]

244. Hey, his response to you is really what finally pushed it over the edge.

That and the hide he got from the post I alerted on, so it's a win!

[hrmjustin]

245. I do love these drama threads though.

[stevenleser]

265. He reserves the high road and recs for those who criticize Democrats.

And heaps scorn on those who defend Democrats.

[hrmjustin]

268. I wonder how many who recced those threads are really green or third party voters.

[hrmjustin]

288. How dare you!

I never said anything of the sort!

That was a low blow to a legitimate comment!

[hrmjustin]

294. I see what you mean. that pissed me off big time.

[reddread]

293. putinista may never have passed your lips or fingers your words cluster with those who do

and that is low enough.

[hrmjustin]

296. I see what you are doing.

[stevenleser]

300. Yep, straw man + change the subject. That crowd uses those tactics all the time. Nt

[reddread]

303. those people are like that, arent they?

[stevenleser]

304. Wow, a straw man in response to being called out for using straw men. Impressive! Nt

[reddread]

305. "that crowd" does not equal "those people"?

are we on different dialects?

If I only had a brain.

[stevenleser]

307. No, it doesn't. "Those people" has a very specific connotation. But it's interestin that

This is the only time you've objected to me calling you out for using straw men. In other words you've quietly admitted to the other times.

[reddread]

313. I played a record the other day

Suzanne Ciani's Velocity of Love. It was a buck,
finally put it on and walked away.
About an hour and half later I realized the needle was still circling the label.
Would it occur it to you that you calling Straw Man means about as much to me
as the record I never actually heard?
Dont let your needle wear out.

[stevenleser]

290. And then you throw a straw man in for good measure. Because your nonsense in

This thread up until now wasn't enough.

[DonCoquixote]

190. "as one of the people who rec'd an OP by a now-banned DUer"

No, not quite suspect, but at the very least, those who recced said people should take some time to wonder how come they were so easily fooled.

If someone was slipping poison into your food, would you be angry at the person trying to poison you, or angry at the one who alerted you, because he or she was someone you did not like, and you found the food your "friend" prepped to be so tasty?

[Octafish]

400. Claro.

Gracias mil.

[BainsBane]

261. I would be surprised if Steve or anyone questioned your sincerity

I'm as suspicious as they come, and I have no doubt you're a true believer. I do wish, however, you would exercise better judgment rather than so eagerly accepting right-wingers who exploit discontent among Democrats.

[zappaman]

123. Don't know.

Please tell us.

[Octafish]

398. I did. Don't you read?

"The one who sounds like a Democrat, but acts like a Republican."

[zappaman]

407. Which one?

[hrmjustin]

136. Go on and tell us please.

[Octafish]

399. Didn't you read what I wrote?

"The one who sounds like a Democrat, but acts like a Republican."

[pintobean]

139. Does he

walk, fly, or swim?

[Octafish]

403. You make the most interesting observations, pintobean.

It's something even a half-wit like me can notice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026398318#post391

[BainsBane]

141. This one IS a Republican

Out to keep Republicans in office. Yet you have more problems with actual Democrats who disagree with you on some issues?

[Octafish]

404. Yeah.

Whether it's war or banking or fiscal policy, I refer to Democrats who say they're Democrats, yet side with Republicans.

[PowerToThePeople]

282. why?

So you are left with DINO underground?

I recd a couple of his OPs, but saw the bad ones too. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The 200+ rec op of his was right on the mark, even if his entended purpose was to gain cred in order to troll safely.

[stevenleser]

284. You mean besides being joyfully taken in by a troll whose M.O. was to use wedges to

Divide Democrats/Liberals/Progressives? Besides that you mean?

[PowerToThePeople]

297. those wedges are there anyway

Or else a troll could not use them as a tool to their benifit.

[stevenleser]

299. I guess the fact that many of you seemed to enjoy it so much was particularly

Unseemly.

[PowerToThePeople]

302. imo

Third way dems are just socially liberal republicans who lost their true party to teabaggers and religous nut jobs so jumped ship. I do not consider any third way dem a natural political ally.

[Marr]

359. Trolls come in lots of flavors. Some banned trolls have taken on a centrist sort of persona.

If we really want to play 'who has recc'ed posts by people who later turned out to be trolls', I think most people here will lose.

[Bobbie Jo]

301. "good faith"

Google it.

Seems you're unfamiliar with the concept.

[PowerToThePeople]

320. you would be incorrect.

It was in good faith that I recd the couple that I did, just like it is in good faith that I rec OPs from third way dems that I agree with.

We could look at the rec history of Pretzel_Warrior (another long term disruptor) and say the same, but his recs would be a whole other sect of DU, the same people gravedancing in this thread.

If WT was a sock troll, I say good riddance to them.

[Bobbie Jo]

326. Okay, I have to know

Just who are these "third way dems" you keep going on and on about here?

Is there a membership involved? An application process? Meetings? Self-identification? Or... is just another derisive throw away line to describe DU'ers who disagree with you?

What?

Who are these DU'ers, anyway? Spill it already.

[PowerToThePeople]

328. good one

[Bobbie Jo]

329. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Nothin.

"good faith." Google it.

[PowerToThePeople]

331. me.

Sorry for taking the cheese.

[Bobbie Jo]

333. Hey, you drug the cheese up in here

now back up your mouthing with some actuality.

If you're going to throw it around like you mean it, have the temerity to explain yourself. Otherwise, you're just trolling.

[PowerToThePeople]

335. i would claim

That you appear to be alert trolling.

We both know the rules here.

[Bobbie Jo]

337. Oh please

Either back it up, or can it.

[PowerToThePeople]

338. rude.

[Bobbie Jo]

346. LOL

You can castigate DU'ers with derisive nonsense and then refuse to explain what you mean when called on it.....and I'M rude?



You're outta gas here....

[BainsBane]

350. Considering you just called me a DINO

And then, demonstrating the courage of your convictions, deleted it. http://election.democraticunderground.com/10026552199#post12

I have a few questions. What precisely is your definition of DINO? Is it that I don't adore right wing rat fuckers working to see the GOP elected? Because I don't think Hillary Clinton is worse than Ted Cruz? Because I care about social justice rather than elevating the economic prosperity of all important middle- and upper-middle class white male above all else? Is it because I care about trivial stuff like human rights, gender equality and poverty rather than cabinet appointments and who is seen with whom? If I were a true Democrat, would I be devoting myself to see the GOP regain the presidency rather than looking to support Democratic electoral prospects? Do I need to pretend that I only just figured out that inequality exists during the recent stock market crash when I lost my hypothetical wealth, rather than knowing, as I do, that the nation was born from inequality? Would I need to pretend I know fuck all about US history and that before the mid-60s this country was a land of milk and honey, or at least for the people who really matter?

And just when do you plan on confronting the owner of this site about being a so-called DINO? He has publicly and actively come out in support of a candidate for president you insist doesn't constitute a real Democrat, a DINO. Yet here you are, posting on his site, contributing to his profits, insulting other members as DINOs, without the courage to confront the owner himself.

I think it's a pretty screwed up definition of DINO you have when you define a true Democrat as someone who opposes the party and a fake one as someone who supports it. Perhaps, just perhaps, there might be a slight problem with assuming you and only you have the right to determine who is fit to be considered a Democrat? Did you ever consider that your exclusionary attitude might actually run counter to any conceivable goals related to leftism that depend on the solidarity of the working-class and the poor? But then, that would require giving a shit about any of that, which your active dismissal of just about everyone except yourself and your little circle, suggests otherwise.

[PowerToThePeople]

355. so much false in your statement.

Not going to confront it now, but maybe another day in another thread.

350. Considering you just called me a DINO
And then, demonstrating the courage of your convictions, deleted it. http://election.democraticunderground.com/10026552199#post12

I have a few questions. What precisely is your definition of DINO? Is it that I don't adore right wing rat fuckers working to see the GOP elected? Because I don't think Hillary Clinton is worse than Ted Cruz? Because I care about social justice rather than elevating the economic prosperity of all important middle- and upper-middle class white male above all else? Is it because I care about trivial stuff like human rights, gender equality and poverty rather than cabinet appointments and who is seen with whom? If I were a true Democrat, would I be devoting myself to see the GOP regain the presidency rather than looking to support Democratic electoral prospects? Do I need to pretend that I only just figured out that inequality exists during the recent stock market crash when I lost my hypothetical wealth, rather than knowing, as I do, that the nation was born from inequality? Would I need to pretend I know fuck all about US history and that before the mid-60s this country was a land of milk and honey, or at least for the people who really matter?

And just when do you plan on confronting the owner of this site about being a so-called DINO? He has publicly and actively come out in support of a candidate for president you insist doesn't constitute a real Democrat, a DINO. Yet here you are, posting on his site, contributing to his profits, insulting other members as DINOs, without the courage to confront the owner himself.

I think it's a pretty screwed up definition of DINO you have when you define a true Democrat as someone who opposes the party and a fake one as someone who supports it. Perhaps, just perhaps, there might be a slight problem with assuming you and only you have the right to determine who is fit to be considered a Democrat? Did you ever consider that your exclusionary attitude might actually run counter to any conceivable goals related to leftism that depend on the solidarity of the working-class and the poor? But then, that would require giving a shit about any of that, which your active dismissal of just about everyone except yourself and your little circle, suggests otherwise.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. And a nasty little ratfucker he was...

If you're still creeping about, "Will," rank arrogance is a real turn-off, and it will bite you square in the ass every time.

Back to obscurity with you.

Good riddance...

[Cha]

235. Nasty is right, Bobby Jo.. this is what one of his sock puppets posted to me yesterday.. just bc he

could..

"Why do you always think you can read minds? How arrogant... Your insults are "tea baggerish" and reactionary...why?"

Project much!? LOL

[DonCoquixote]

426. is he already wearing a sock puppet

gee, some people work fast

[Hekate]

66. Buh-bye

[ProfessorGAC]

129. Beat Me To It

Really, that's all that twit deserves.

[treestar]

70. lol a jury hid the treestar remark

which even I admit is kind of funny, especially when he is really a right winger trying to sound like a left winger.

[hrmjustin]

71. Sorry you got that hide on his account.

[treestar]

345. aw thanks!

but see my post 373!

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. I wish Admin would reconsider that hide. You were right.

[FSogol]

85. I had a few hides back in the day for attacking BBI. I was proud of them and looked

at them from time to time and chuckled.
Nothing wrong with getting an occasional hide for a good purpose.

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. Lord knows I've had my share, I just feel bad for treestar who never gets hides.

[stevenleser]

169. Its a bad sign this far out of the primary and election. Its going to be rough.

[Tarheel_Dem]

186. That's for sure. I just hate it when long-time "good" DU'ers fall victim to troll a**holes. n/t

[treestar]

353. Aw thanks TD!

But look at my post 373!!

[Cha]

243. You're not the only one that got a HIDE bc of him, treestar.. I PMed someone Monday

and told them that was a Bad Hide.. he spoke the truth. Said there must have been a bunch of his fans on the jury.

You got a hide?!

[treestar]

343. No, my post 70 I put badly

I don't think I got a hide on account of him. I don't see one. He got one for:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=309567&sub=trans

treestar is an old Ojibwee word that translated means Cheney



Cha!

[Cha]

349. LOL.. you made him get a HIDE! What an idiotic thing to say. I wanted to get on that thread and say

"there's a bag of shit around here but it's not from Pres Obama.".. but, I thought better of it.

I should have done it!

[treestar]

351. Yep!!!!!

That was the true bag of shit!

[Cha]

373. I just saw on there.. where WillTwain called YOU a "conservative" and of course one of his fans

chimed in with.. "well you're acting like it " Just because you're not bowing at the altar of WT and his little minions.

[JaneyVee]

75. Check all the recs on his posts. Suckers got played!

[Bobbie Jo]

79. I guess you could say....

"played for fools."

[geek tragedy]

81. you Better Believe It nt

[Bobbie Jo]

84. Yep, that's the one. nt

[treestar]

348. Is that the one people think he is?

I'm a bad trollhunter, lol. I tend not to see these things. BBI used to post hit pieces from right wing sources with out many replies. WT did a lot of replies. But I believe you!

[Bobbie Jo]

356. No, not WT

someone else who has brought life to a sleeping account.

[Andy823]

192. Yep

As long as he was one of the "anti" Obama, anti Hillary, and anti democrat, he fit right in with their goals of bashing and trashing. Of course I will admit he was a pretty obvious basher, so yep, the suckers got played.

[William769]

78. Welcome to the front page!

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. You Better Believe It! It's amazing how so many can be so gullible. Let's hope his "friends" follow.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

83. "but when I saw him use Leninist as an insult, that really raised a red flag."

Okay,....that made me snicker.

[BainsBane]

87. Intentional pun

[salin]

86. huh. Never noticed the poster

but do appreciate the discussion per the methods used to sow division (and how the mask was seen through.)

[MADem]

89. Hmmm. Looks like he fired up an account and didn't use it much, until he broke it open.

Account status: Posting privileges revoked
Member since: Wed Nov 13, 2013, 03:49 PM
Number of posts: 1,489
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1159

I think the admins ought to think about suspending "unused" accounts, and force people to send them an email or something to reactivate these dormant accounts. That would make it easier to trace people who have created a bunch of socks.

Something needs to be done--it's absurd how many of these trolls are coming out of the woodwork of late. It needs to be made harder to get away with this sockpuppetry than it is right now.

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. +1

[zappaman]

125. That's an excellent idea!

[Hekate]

207. Good idea. Sometimes I look up posters with very low posts and find they joined years ago...

When they suddenly run up 42 posts that are really obnoxious it makes me wonder. I've gotten pretty wary of "Oh, I've been lurking for years and years and just now was inspired to post. I love you all."

[MADem]

210. Yep--doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing with some of 'em! nt

[NanceGreggs]

383. Now that is a very practical idea.

"I think the admins ought to think about suspending "unused" accounts."

I checked the profile of a suspect poster a few months ago - joined in 2003, number of posts 480 - 478 of which had been posted in the last ninety days.

How more obvious does it get that a sock puppet account had been left dormant for years, only to be re-activated after the same poster had been PPR'd?

[MADem]

390. I think it would cut down on a lot of the bullshit. And we are seeing a lot of bullshit of late.

I can't imagine what MIRT is going through--we only see the tip of the iceberg. But the tip of the iceberg I'm seeing around here lately could sink a couple of Titanics. It's really eroding the DU sense of community, I think--and of course, that's their disruptive, shitty, childish little goal. I can't fathom how INADEQUATE a person must be--not feel, BE--to run around trolling a little website on the internet for fucking years on end, over a doggone DECADE! I mean, talk about a "life's work." Pffft! More like a complete and total waste of life and time--so ... humiliating, to have that as one's "legacy."

There was a troll who was outed on Reddit a while back--he was a really dispicable guy, who used to post sexist, just-shy-of-porn, "barely legal" type pics. He used to be a real asshole about it and wouldn't respond to any calls or efforts to encourage him to do the decent thing. Once his face and name hit the "real world" his life was never the same--and not in a good way, either. You'd think these idiots would start to figure out that the net is becoming more like the food court at the mall...people might not know who YOU are, particularly, but your anonymity is never assured--you could run into an old high school friend while waiting in line at Panda Express who bellows your name to all assembled.

I think people would do well to just treat people as if they're looking them in the face. I have no problem with strong political or even social differences, so long as they aren't vicious or troll-y and don't violate the TOS. I mean, why are people here if they don't want to abide by the "club" bylaws? Can their lives be THAT empty and desperate? It's just a puzzlement to me!

[obnoxiousdrunk]

90. Some treated him like he was Mark Twain ....

[MissDeeds]

92. Wow! He got three posts hidden

in five days? Is that a record?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

108. Nope, it sure isn't!

Once, I saw a poster get FOUR posts hidden in one thread, all on the same day.

[MissDeeds]

114. OMG!

I would have loved to see that!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

117. Actually, it was pretty ugly.

The poster was running around, making crazy statements.....all of them untrue.

The poster got a time-out for them.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

260. Not even close

When someone is in meltdown mode, it pours.

[aikoaiko]

94. I understand the desire to gravedance on tombstoned trolls, but

I suspect these threads are very reinforcing to trolls like Will Twain.

The worst thing for a troll is to be ignored or whose absence is not noticed.

[BainsBane]

95. I posted it because

I think the people who buy into that stuff need to see what the real situation with them is.

[H2O Man]

96. Valid point.

[aikoaiko]

156. I get that.

[Cha]

322. I'm glad you did.. thank you!

[FSogol]

98. He'll be forgotten by tomorrow. n/t

[hrmjustin]

99. This one is different.

So many recced his ops and I thing0k this needs to be pointed out.

[Cha]

319. Oh, I hope he's reading this thread where's he's called out as a liar.

[MineralMan]

103. Well, campaign season is beginning, so we're going to see a lot

of barely-concealed right-wing-based attacks on leading Democratic candidates. All too often, they'll get 3-digit recommendation lists, too. At times, it's difficult to tell who is legitimately criticizing and who is just feeding the frenzy.

Sadly, the admins will be busy with clean-up duties, I'm afraid.

[notadmblnd]

104. don't ya just hate when a wackjob from Discussionists wanders over here?

I kinda feel sorry for them. Sometimes, they're just too clever for their own good.

[BainsBane]

113. I didn't find this one clever at all

[notadmblnd]

122. I agree. However, we don't have a smilie for expressing something facetiously.

Which is what I was attempting to do.

[pintobean]

124. He joined DU 6 months before DI went online. /nt

[notadmblnd]

127. well I guess I stand corrected

I didn't feel it worth botheriing with- to check their membership.

[pintobean]

132. My point is

they've been trolling DU from the beginning. DI has nothing to do with it. The same people would be trolling here if DI never existed.

[notadmblnd]

133. I know, thanks again for pointing out my error

[pintobean]

134. You're welcome.

[Gothmog]

168. The whack jobs on DI are fun to play with

[cherokeeprogressive]

107. One, two... cha cha cha.

Is there a list of people who rec'd his posts?

I'd be shocked if there wasn't.

[BainsBane]

110. You'd have to look at the threads themselves

They got hundreds of recs

[blackspade]

116. There are several other 'red baiters' here that need the same treatment....

[BainsBane]

121. He wasn't a red baiter

That was a slip. He pretended to attack the party from the left, but in reality he was a RW troll.

[TBF]

159. Good catch -

I missed the Lenin comment.

[zappaman]

137. Now he has more time to spend at MENSA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6545634

[hrmjustin]

138. I took that as a dig at me and I love it.

[BainsBane]

140. ---

[NanceGreggs]

143. Got a hide for calling him a liar ...

... when he attributed statements to me that I'd never made. I asked for links - he kept refusing to post them.

After the hide, when he knew I couldn't respond, he posted a statement, in quotes, and insisted it was a copy-and-paste from one of my posts. It wasn't even close to anything I'd ever said.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[BainsBane]

146. That is really shitty

[Andy823]

196. What is shitty

is that the same people who voted to hide that post are still here and will continue to hide post that disagree with their constant anti everything agenda.

[Cha]

256. Oh yeah.. and they knee jerk alert.

Andy

[Cha]

254. And, this is why I love this ratfucker's inglorious exit so much.. you're the 3rd friend that

got a hide because of his ratfucking that he bragged got "100s of recs".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6530275

Will Twain is a Liar.. This is what one of his sock puppets posted to me.. in replying to this..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6541676

"Why do you always think you can read minds? How arrogant... Your insults are "tea baggerish" and reactionary...why?"

Yes I'm glad he got busted!

[NanceGreggs]

263. I was not the only poster ...

... he attributed "quotes" to - and then refused to post links to their actual words.

He did the same with politicians and union spokespeople - posted statements in "quotes" and swore they were verbatim. And yet a quick Google search revealed that said "quotes" were never uttered.

I'm glad he finally got busted, too. But it's telling how many DUers got sucked into his RW propaganda and insisted his was yet another "progressive voice" that was being silenced by those who challenged him.

Just another case of "Better-Believe-It Derangement Syndrome", where anyone who posts anti-Dem/anti-Obama/anti-HRC talking points is immediately embraced as a True Progressive (TM) by the self-styled True Progressives (TM).

You'd think they'd be more cautious in their quickness to accept anyone as "one of their own" after the BBI debacle - but apparently, they're not.

I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more "outings" of RW trolls in the coming months - and those who defended them as comrades-in-arms will deny ever having noticed them in the first place, despite having "rec'd" their every OP.

I remember challenging BBI on a particular post, and being vehemently admonished by a DUer for trying to silence a "well respected poster" who represented all that was important about the progressive movement. BBI was tomb-stoned a few days later - and when I mentioned his name to said poster who'd defended him, their response was that they "didn't even remember a poster by that name".

And so it goes.

[Cha]

298. It was unreal the way he jumped around his threads spreading misinformation like a frog on

steroids!

Those who agreed with him were so special! But, if you called him out on his lies you got a hide or hounded by his insults.

And, of course, the next willtwain who comes along will get the same welcoming by the same crowd that willingly gave him his "100s of Recs". Not sure they care where the Obama hate comes from.

I came back to DU in 2012 after being gone for 2 years.. was gratified that ol you Better Believe It, "well respected poster".. was Done.

Exactly.. And so it goes.

[Bobbie Jo]

308. This place has become

a veritable troll incubator.

[Cha]

309. A petrie dish.. and only going to get more so as we inch towards 2016!

[Bobbie Jo]

315. Honestly,

I don't think we're quite rid of BBI.

Im convinced that this one had a sock stashed away for a rainy day.

[NanceGreggs]

327. "The next willtwain who comes along will get the same welcoming by the same crowd."

Yes, he/she certainly will.

Until the next willtwain is outed as a RWer - at which point certain DUers will deny any knowledge of them - and will vociferously support the next willtwain that shows up.

And so it goes ...

[treestar]

352. Indeed. That was a rotten thing of him to do. nt

[NanceGreggs]

358. But as DU rolls these days ...

... I got the "hide" for asking for a link to back-up his assertions - and he got the "recs" for continually attributing "quotes" to people who never said them.

It is what it is.

[malaise]

145. Been watching this one for a while

Good riddance

[Nuclear Unicorn]

153. "use Leninist as an insult, that really raised a red flag."

[Warpy]

157. Finally

He always had this "DO NOT ENGAGE" sign on for me.

I'm delighted when they go. I hate it when they're smart enough to last a while.

[TacoD]

161. Sic semper ratfuckus? (nt)

[stevenleser]

165. ;-)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

167. I missed the festivities...

WillTwain...that's a pretty self-congratulatory name.
Don't think I ever engaged with *this* Will.

Are people making allusions to another one? I'm thinking it, but I feel hesitant to make that leap....

[DemocraticWing]

171. The Republicans known what divisions we have.

This troll definitely wanted to amplify those divisions. Although the "union members vs. social liberal" schtick was a bit played out...there are people in this party who still fight on those terms, but there are few disagreements between Labor Democrats and Non-Labor Democrats on social issues nowadays.

[stevenleser]

187. Which is what is so disappointing about those who buy into those memes here.

Don't they know that? Shouldn't they be on guard for it?

[DonCoquixote]

193. nope

Because they hope that they can use what the rafucker does in order to further their agenda. Only a human will swallow poison food if they think it can make an enemy sick.

[stevenleser]

194. That poison analogy may be the best way of putting it that I have ever seen. nt

[DonCoquixote]

199. Thank you

Feel free to ise it, especially as I am sure there are many people out there that have drunk the poltical equivalent of laced Kool-Aid.

[PowerToThePeople]

342. I agree with this post.

[Starry Messenger]

179. I missed the Leninist comment.

What a dick. He was no lefty. I wonder what his previous incarnation was? I usually have a good memory for labor fakers.

[GP6971]

200. Good Riddance

[Rex]

208. He made it pretty obvious imo.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6519847

[MADem]

217. He always rec'd his own threads, it appears. Hmmm! Talk about hubris! nt

[Andy823]

220. Yes and

It was always pretty much the same people who rec'd his threads.

[madokie]

211. Does the heart good

to look and sure enough I had him/her on ignore. I check my list and found several more who have had their posting privileges revoked.
I'm too old to put up with bullshit so when I smell some I no longer allow it to be on my computer. Thats what the ignore list is for, Right?

[geek tragedy]

212. Bad Will Trolling nt

[krawhitham]

223. His posts bashing Obama always seemed to get a lot of RECs

I guess a lot of users agreed with a ratfucker

[Andy823]

258. Any post bashing Obama gets lots of rec's

Amazingly those who rec them are the same ones that rec up any anti Obama thread.

Some here live for the number of rec's they get, and all one has to do is bash the president, Clinton, or the democratic party as a whole and presto, hundreds of rec's. It's like a contest sometimes to see who can get the best bashing thread going, and receive the most rec's.

[sheshe2]

382. You summed it up nicely.

There was thread lock on another trash Obama thread tonight. It luckily never got off the ground.

[Scootaloo]

232. Good rule of thumb?

People who use their identity to make their arguments are often trolls. The right believes that they can come to liberal message boards and say "I'm a gay black Jewish parapeligic woman!" and any argument htey make is rendered sacrosanct.

Same reason I have no trust for people who cram their username full of "democrat stuff." You came to DU and are going to name yourself "CaliBlueLibDem4Obama"? really? Yeah that'll fool everyone.

[BainsBane]

257. Sound point

That repeat troll is always claiming to be black or gay. He doesn't even try to last long though. Still, when I was on MIRT, we looked for exactly what you describe.

[Rex]

316. Well also it is hard to trust someone caught red handed with a alt account.

Yet they get a stay here on DU.

[Jesus Malverde]

364. That's one strong argument man.

[Capt. Obvious]

396. ICWYDT

[Andy823]

259. Funny thing is

Where are all those who "rec'd" his post up day after day while he was "bashing" Obama, Hillary, and the party as a whole? He was their hero, not they seem to have disowned him, at leaf till he comes back with a new posting name.

[BainsBane]

262. One has

but just one. The rest seem to be pretending it never happened.

[shenmue]

332. Whew

Glad he's out of here.

[GP6971]

354. Wow.....with so many replies, should we send flowers?

Nah....let's light off fireworks!

[JI7]

360. he was a repulsive piece of shit but there are many who could relate to him

on here . and i'm sure they are upset with him being gone just as they still are over bbi .

referring to obama with a term regularly used by right wingers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026000023#post145

[hrmjustin]

361. Look at this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6519847

[JI7]

362. really, many of these things should have got them banned right away

they don't even have to hide it anymore. even now he was banned for being a returning troll . but otherwise a new member would have been allowed to say those type of things and stay on here.

[hrmjustin]

363. Yeah don't know how he lasted so long.

It was very clear early on he was trolling.

[hrmjustin]

381. That hide was Christmas Eve in the evening.

Must have gotten overlooked.

[Cha]

380. Yeah, he didn't get a HIDE.. bc well.. his lookalikes.. this is my reply to him.. thanks JI7..

Wed Dec 24, 2014, 01:58 PM

Star Member Cha (160,425 posts)

146. "O'Bummer".. that's some rw shite.. and you think you're hot shit calling him that on DU?

Amazing I didn't get a hide to protect poor little WillTwit.

[DonCoquixote]

428. with all due respect

Shit can be used to make soil fertile and grow crops. To call people like Will shit is an insult to good hardworking turds doing their part to grow crops.

And if Will is reading, enjoy your pity party over at the he man woman haters club aka that site that rhymes with reprecussionist.

[William769]

409. BainsBane Know that we still love you and what you stand for and that was a ridiculous hide.

Good on you for being you.

[DonCoquixote]

414. Gee not that the powers that be

could review hides being done in threads from a troll that snuck past them and absolve thos ehides...Newp...they willr emain, just in time for the new armor proof sock puppet, stitched by those fine upstanding men at Discussionist.

and please do not hand me the line that money spent at DU does not help discussionist, it only hide the fact that many of us are tired of seeing DI beign used against us here.

[pintobean]

417. You're obsessed with Discussionist

and that's a very strange theory. This kind of shit has been happening at DU since I've been here. That's 11 years, Discussionist isn't even a year old.

[Rex]

419. If only we could get rid of the main ratfuckers on this forum.

Sadly I don't think it will happen.

[Number23]

421. K&R Don't know how I missed this!

Hopefully his admirers will be following him straight out the door. This thread has one in particular that should have seen the door a long time ago http://election.democraticunderground.com/10026517210

[FSogol]

422. LoL, I was just about to post the link to this one for you. n/t

[Number23]

423. I am sooooo late to this party! I suppose you guys already know that ND-Dem also got the boot??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=320128&sub=trans

[FSogol]

424. Yup and a whole slew of forgettable sock puppets too.

My jury blacklist is clearing itself out.

[hrmjustin]

427. Thanks. i did not know.

[Buzz Clik]

425. I've known a few ratfuckers in my day.

They would be offended by this comparison.