Wanna know how to turn a soft supporter of your opposing candaidates? Lie to them!

[rinsd]

Misrepresent their record.

Repeat MSM or right wing myths about them.

Its really easy apparently.

[TwilightZone]

1. Hey, lying is easier than the alternative.

Factual assertions are a lot of work, ya know? It's work. Hard work. We work hard!

[jgraz]

2. Wanna know how to look like you won an argument? Post a follow-on thread!

Too bad you feel your arguments are too weak to respond to the OP directly. :shrug:

[Dawgs]

28. Exactly. I am so sick of Hillary supporters responding like 12 year olds. "Bush-Lite" maybe?

[PurityOfEssence]

Wanna know how to seem like an arrogant popinjay who brooks no dissent?

Start a half-dozen or so threads a day damning anyone to perdition for not salaaming to the heir-presumptive and dismiss any distasteful facts as lies.

Hey, it's a pluralist society, one has the right--nay, the DUTY--to harass and insult anyone who doesn't agree with the consensus figurehead.

[rinsd]

4. Yes, being called out for outright lying is tantamount to censorship!

And just to bug you

Here's how Hillary is doing in national heats

FOX News 10/09 - 10/10 377 LV 50 18 11 4 Clinton +32.0
Rasmussen 10/07 - 10/10 750 LV 45 24 12 3 Clinton +21.0
Gallup 10/04 - 10/07 488 A 47 26 11 4 Clinton +21.0
AP-Ipsos 10/01 - 10/03 482 A 46 25 11 3 Clinton +21.0
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/30 592 A 53 20 13 3 Clinton +33.0

Here's how Hillary is doing in Iowa

Des Moines Register 10/01 - 10/03 399 LV 29 22 23 8 Clinton +6.0
American Res. Group 09/26 - 09/29 600 LV 30 24 19 10 Clinton +6.0
Newsweek 09/26 - 09/27 LV 24 28 22 10 Obama +4.0
Strategic Vision (R) 09/21 - 09/23 LV 24 21 22 13 Clinton +2.0
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 462 LV 28 19 23 10 Clinton +5.0

Here's how Hillary is doing in New Hampshire

American Res. Group 09/26 - 09/29 600 LV 41 22 10 8 Clinton +19.0
Zogby 09/26 - 09/28 505 LV 38 23 12 8 Clinton +15.0
CNN/WMUR 09/17 - 09/24 307 A 43 20 12 6 Clinton +23.0
Rasmussen 09/16 - 09/16 500 LV 40 17 14 11 Clinton +23.0
Franklin Pierce 09/11 - 09/14 403 LV 39 19 12 11 Clinton +20.0
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 618 LV 35 16 16 8 Clinton +19.0

Here's how Hillary is doing in South Carolina

American Res. Group 09/26 - 09/29 600 LV 41 30 7 5 Clinton +11.0
Rasmussen 09/26 - 09/27 567 LV 43 30 10 2 Clinton +13.0
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 313 LV 45 27 7 1 Clinton +18.0
Clemson 08/20 - 08/29 400 LV 26 16 10 2 Clinton +10.0

Here's how Hillary fares against Giuliani in nationals heats

Rasmussen 10/08 - 10/09 800 LV 41 48 11 Clinton +7.0
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/30 1114 A 43 51 -- Clinton +8.0
FOX News 09/25 - 09/26 900 RV 39 46 15 Clinton +7.0
Cook/RT Strategies 09/13 - 09/15 855 RV 43 45 11 Clinton +2.0
NBC/WSJ 09/07 - 09/10 1002 A 42 49 4 Clinton +7.0
CNN 09/07 - 09/09 1017 A 46 50 1 Clinton +4.0

Here's how Hillary fares against Thomson in national heats

FOX News 10/09 - 10/10 377 LV 50 18 11 4 Clinton +32.0
Rasmussen 10/07 - 10/10 750 LV 45 24 12 3 Clinton +21.0
Gallup 10/04 - 10/07 488 A 47 26 11 4 Clinton +21.0
AP-Ipsos 10/01 - 10/03 482 A 46 25 11 3 Clinton +21.0
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/30 592 A 53 20 13 3 Clinton +33.0

Here's Hillary approval rating amongst Democrats Favorable - 81%, unfavorable - 14%

These numbers can certainly change but right now Hillary is in an exceptional position to take the nomination.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. So you revel in performing the act of censorship. Hmmm...

You're the one accusing others of lying. This is also an oblique jab at the originator of another thread. What lies did that person engage in? After all, you started it with the accusation, so it's quite peevish to sling unspecified accusations and then bleat with victimhood when confronted. What are these lies to which you refer regarding that other thread?

The giddy triumphalism of her polling doesn't prove her virtue or that of her supporters. History is rife with seemingly everyone doing or believing the wrong thing. Jesus was killed because of a voice vote of the mob, lest we forget. (Then again, he'd have probably lived to a ripe old age if he hadn't taken on Religion Incorporated by messin' with the moneychangers; Senator Clinton doesn't have to worry about that, they're just another powerful bloc she'll help sustain.)

It's rather uncivilized to sling unspecified accusations and then feign innocent persecution for being called to account for them. It's a form of self-granted privilege.

[rinsd]

9. What act of censorship?

An Obama supporter admitted he lied about Hillary's record to his friend who was a soft Clinton supporter. Feel free to read the thread.

"The giddy triumphalism of her polling doesn't prove her virtue or that of her supporters"

No it was just giddy triumphalism knowing full well that it would irk you, no virtue implied. Normally I avoid such behavior but what can I say you draw it out of me.

"It's rather uncivilized to sling unspecified accusations and then feign innocent persecution for being called to account for them"

Yes it is. You can stop anytime.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Every party needs a whip, so flog on.

Herding Democrats isn't easy.

Where was that post? Sounds like interesting reading.

You called someone out for lying and you say that calling someone out for lying is effectively censorship, so you're enjoying being a censor. There's no leap of logic there; in fact, there's no logic to be leapt at all: you've defined your own transgression. I was wrong: this isn't hypocrisy. That depends on a certain amount of awareness of a double standard and a willingness to grant oneself privilege; this is simple superiority.

Just stop short of keel-hauling, and don't expect to find us when the press gang comes around.

[rinsd]

20. Umm its called sarcasm.

I had no idea you always needed the tag to convey that.

[karynnj]

11. What I don't get is why given this phenomenal lead the Hillary people are so angry

at all of us, who for whatever reason aren't charmed. Nobody EVER had 100% of the party behind them. Do you want us all to become like the lock step Republicans before a candidate is even decided.

Also when did this stunning need for allegiance to the nominee start. The Clinton people, including Carville, certainly didn't express it in 2004 - even after the convention. After the nomination was mathematically cinched, Carville once expressed some hope that the delegates would chose to go with someone other than the nominee. If public figures allied with Clinton were like that in 2004 why the need to try to ram her down the throats of those of us who don't want her.

[rinsd]

12. "Nobody EVER had 100% of the party behind them. "

Of course not.

But wouldn't you be angry if a DUer posted a thread bragging about how they shifted someone away from your candidate by deliberately misleading them?

[karynnj]

23. I would counter it with a counter example

but one that used pristine 100% pure truth on some other issue. Given the garbage on Kerry, who I was supporting, that would be mild compared to what we saw nearly every day.

In fairness to you, I was responding to the many many threads from Clinton people which have demanded that everyone surrender and become loyal followers. I should have placed the comment on one that was more insistent.

Believe me that I know that it hurts when their are lies against the candidate you like best. I'm still someone who is primarily concerned with issues and do not have a candidate for 2008 - and suspect I really won't. I'll vote in the primary, but I am not excited by any of the candidates. I still intend to back Kerry as a Senator who is trying to pass legislation that I almost always agree with. Compared to what Kerry gets here, Clinton gets off easy, though in volume there is more on Clinton. At least the really nasty Clinton threads get locked quickly.

I do apologize if I offended you with what was an exasperated rant.

[elizm]

39. Sounds like you are starting to see the light. nt

[jgraz]

15. "arrogant popinjay"

I'm soooo gonna steal that one. :rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

3. Wanna know how to seem like an arrogant popinjay who brooks no dissent?

Start a half-dozen or so threads a day damning anyone to perdition for not salaaming to the heir-presumptive and dismiss any distasteful facts as lies.

Hey, it's a pluralist society, one has the right--nay, the DUTY--to harass and insult anyone who doesn't agree with the consensus figurehead.

[BootinUp]

19. It appears this thread is about

using facts instead of baseless far left wing or right wing smears. And it appears to me that you are arguing against that sentiment.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Appearances can be misleading

and in this case, are. Then again, miscommunication tends to be the fault of the communicator more than the communicatee, so I'll clarify my point.

(Odd how this response got posted twice, isn't it? You'll notice more of a threadlet from its dopple above.)

The thread-starter here is lashing out at another thread by intimating that the person who started it was lying. By inference, it's another of the screeds of this person against anyone who'd deign to dislike Senator Clinton or try to dissuade others from voting for her. The gist is this: those opposing his/her candidate will resort to anything and thus are morally inferior.

Using a riff on the title of the other thread, it's an obvious dig at that thread and the originator of it.

Having tussled with me quite a few times before and not being imperceptive, you should notice that, for all my many, many faults, I literally worship one's word as the sacred glue of society. This tracks to the extent that I make a point of acknowledging deserved hits politicians I support get and not trying to gloss them over, equivocate or change the subject. It's also one of the many reasons I have so much trouble with both Bill and Hillary: they lie with regularity.

We're in a classic spiral of retaliation here with the pro- and anti-Clinton folks, and we all look at the same glass and see different levels of liquid or emptiness. Sadly, I look at this as a microcosm of the seething vengeance against the reactionaries that fuels so many people to want to rub their noses in having another Clinton succeed. Others see it differently.

Regardless, my point was that this thread-starter DEMANDS a bigger microphone than anyone else and preaches from an unfounded presumption of privilege; when a contrary thread gets started that his/her muscle can't sway, another thread is the answer, one that tars the other poster as a liar. Opponents mustn't be just parried and outfenced, they must be dismissed as unprincipled scum and eradicated. Pluralism just sucks.

The original poster didn't start this thread to say that facts are better than lies, this thread was started to say that his/her opponents have no compunction about stooping to the grubbiest sort of distortion: a direct lie. It was this characterization I addressed because it was meant to dismiss an opponent, and by implication ALL opponents, as despicable curs.

Your post can be summarized as this: "it seems you're in favor of baseless lying"; do you seriously think that? I don't think so, I think it's very similar to the original poster's tactic: dismissing opposition as morally unfit and not deserving to be a part of your polite society. It's bullshit and it's obvious.

[rinsd]

22. Oh look PoE realizes what a fool he made of himself...best to try and save it.

"Regardless, my point was that this thread-starter DEMANDS a bigger microphone than anyone else and preaches from an unfounded presumption of privilege;"

Oh because I posted an OP that is a demand for a bigger microphone...I get it.

"when a contrary thread gets started that his/her muscle can't sway, another thread is the answer, one that tars the other poster as a liar."

Umm the poster did lie and admitted as much.

"Opponents mustn't be just parried and outfenced, they must be dismissed as unprincipled scum and eradicated."

Yeah I must miss you on all the threads screaming about Hillary supporters.

Could you be anymore of a hypocrite?

[PurityOfEssence]

26. As far as I can tell, this poster did not lie. This poster also did not admit lying.

Where do you get this? Where in any of the exchange you have with zulchzulu does that person lie or admit telling a lie? You jump up and down with a gotcha, but when confronted to cite the example, as I did, you don't point anything out. There's nothing in the exchange to be seen.

Point it out and be specific. It is not evident.

Just saying so doesn't make it so. State your case, don't just jump up and down declaring yourself the winner; it smacks of Napoleon crowning himself.

Where is the lie? Where is the admission? You answer the poster in that thread with an example that doesn't rise to proof and you didn't answer me at all, you just repeat the same unsubstantiated pronouncement.

As far as I can divine, you think this poster was aware of Clinton's work on health care but deliberately distorted it. The line was "she failed at health care reform in 1993 and then did nothing after that and health care costs skyrocketed after that." That doesn't say she's never done anything since, that says that she lost, gave up and things went to hell, which is a pretty good characterization. That's not a lie. Nowhere is it said that since costs skyrocketed unchecked for a long time she's done nothing. It's OBVIOUS that she's doing or seeming to do something NOW. That goes without saying, she's even finally trotted out a plan. The issue was how she failed and did nothing for many, many years as things got out of control. Where's the lie? Can you even grasp this?

Where's the admission? It's not enough for you to rave about the person having "lied", you have to say that the person admitted it, when the person repeatedly asks what the hell you're talking about.

If using loaded words and scathing characterizations constitutes lying, then go get your nose trimmed.

So there: no lies that are readily evident and no admission of lying.

[rinsd]

36. Here's the admission.

He moves the goalposts but its an admission all the same

I understand her healthcare record since Senator. It's good, but so is Obama's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3602762#3603149

[BootinUp]

27. As usual, you go a wee bit overboard in your defense

>>Having tussled with me quite a few times before and not being imperceptive, you should notice that, for all my many, many faults, I >>literally worship one's word as the sacred glue of society. This tracks to the extent that I make a point of acknowledging deserved >>hits politicians I support get and not trying to gloss them over, equivocate or change the subject. It's also one of the many reasons >>I have so much trouble with both Bill and Hillary: they lie with regularity.

A case can always be made that a politican "lied", its often hard to pin down. The way you threw that last little bit on there with no specifics at all makes me question your worship of one's word.


>>Your post can be summarized as this: "it seems you're in favor of baseless lying"; do you seriously think that? I don't think so, I >>think it's very similar to the original poster's tactic: dismissing opposition as morally unfit and not deserving to be a part of your >>polite society.

I made no effort to smear your place in society, lol. Merely looking to calm your passion in this thread. However, I tend to agree on further review that a charge of lying made in the OP is stretching it. Were distortions made, sure. Laying the blame all on Hillary for no healthcare plan in 93 and also for the loss of Congress in 94 is quite a distortion. She was certainly not the only person working on the proposal. Nor was she directly involved in other factors that caused the Dems to lose control of the House. Laying the blame all on Hillary for increasing Health care costs post 93, is a bit much too don't you think? Is it a lie though? Well lets just say if the person making the claim is educated about politics it is a baseless charge. Its politics though. And I have already said I think calling it a lie is stretching it.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Gosh, that never happens...

Yeah, I'll take a hit for that one. Shrill hyperbole drives me to rather indecorous rejoinders, and this particular thread starter tends to get my goat. It's such a nice little goat, too, so I'm very protective of it.

Once again, it's portrayed as a black and white issue when it isn't. Had Hillary not made such a ballyhoo about her spearheading this initiative at the time, so much of the taint wouldn't have stuck to her.

In overview, Zulchzulu's sales pitch to the woman in question was rather simplistic, but a damned fair characterization. What bugged me was the willingness of this thread-starter to waste all of our time and space starting a thread because he/she couldn't control one that was offensive. The idea of calling someone an admitted liar is a door-slammer of the first order: it's designed to nuke the person to such a degree that there's nothing left but smoking sneakers on the playground, and that's not the kind of discourse I like to see.

It goes back to the Clinton bandwagon: many of us here are basically contrarians with a wariness of "the man". The imposing Death Star of invincibility stirs some emotions of rebellion, and to hear the triumphal sneerings and witness the scorched-earth tactics of some gets many of us riled up. Hey, I'm no shrinking violet here, and I know I fan the flames too, but I still try to maintain some kind of detachment.

There are a few Clinton posters who seriously fan the flames themselves, and it's nothing short of causality. We should also take note of the following: nobody on either side brings up as much rancor and frenzy, yet there are quite a few who engender as much joy and enthusiasm and some who bring forth more. She deserves the hits she gets for being calculated, evasive, duplicitous and dishonest, even if she and her supporters characterize these as being meticulous, cautious, bi-partisan and nuanced. We can do better, and there are two very viable alternatives standing right there, the most liberal of whom also tends to do considerably better than the Republicans in polls than she does.

My problems with the thread starter are best exemplified by a quote from the movie "Patton": "Hell, Brad, I know I'm a prima donna; the thing I hate about Montgomery is he won't ADMIT it." It goes a bit further than that: I don't try to personally vilify my opponents to such a degree that they're to be driven from the public forum, and this person does on a regular basis, often based on extreme distortion. That's dirty pool.

Personally, I'm rather comfortable living amid contention; I work in a world that's filled with emotional crap, and, although these things matter a great deal to me, I say my piece, acknowledge my missteps and move on. Much as we've tangled a bit, you seem to be able to do so better than most yourself, so that's why I'm taking the time here.

Thanks for the post.

[cuke]

38. So, what he said was inaccurate, but "a damned fair characterization"?

Can you explain how it can wrong AND fair?

[mod mom]

5. I PREFER THE FACTS. I FOUND THEM TO WORK QUITE WELL. I leave the lying to the

other side.

[rucky]

6. Starting a thread to continue a flamewar.

Again?!

Why don't you just respond downthread like everyone else?

[rinsd]

10. Feel free to alert the mods.

[rucky]

14. We have mods? n/t

[William769]

17. Yes we do. and they have been doing a great job!

They give us just enough time to refute the bullshit, then it's locked, or better yet some even disappear like they were never here. :)

[redqueen]

18. ...

:rofl:

They locked that "hillary is a republican" thread!

[jgraz]

13. "Why don't you just respond downthread like everyone else?"

Um...the word "coward" comes to mind...

[paulk]

24. and here I always thought a coward

was someone who didn't have it in them to call someone else a coward to their face.

[Forkboy]

29. Pretty tough to do on the internet, no?

[paulk]

31. you know what I'm saying

this practice of carrying on 3rd party conversations behind another's back as a way of insulting them ... something our parrot friend does as a matter of course... is chickenshit.


p------------------------s

thanks for recommending a reread of "the years of rice and salt". I just finished it, and you were right - I got even more out of it the 2nd time.

[Forkboy]

32. I'm psyched you read it again.

I'm gearing up for my third time through it before the end of the year.I love the ending line, and how it brought everything full circle once more.And the segment on the Four Great Inequalities should be better known than the Ten Commandments.I love all his books, but I got so much out of this one.I can't recommend it enough to people.

[Forkboy]

7. Why not? The politicians are doing it to you and me to get our votes.

And if you think they aren't I have some awesome beach front property in Ohio to sell you. :)

[illinoisprogressive]

25. I cannot help if you don't like the facts you get. But, saying they are lies

isn't going to magically make them so.

[maximusveritas]

30. I see. So you're saying you're really a double agent for Obama and Edwards?

I had you wrong all along. Keep up the strong work.

[knight_of_the_star]

34. And the lies were...

Go ahead, I read the thread you're addressing, where's the lies you claim were in there? And please PROVE with things like links if you REALLY believe that what was said in there are outright lies.

If you can't then just please shut up and stop trying to poison the well.

[rinsd]

35. Yes telling people to tell the truth about our Democrat candiates is poisoning the well

Zuluzulch stated Clinton had done nothing about healthcare since she failed in 93 therefore not telling the entire story of the fall of "HillayrCare" and deliberately ignoring the work she did with SCHIP as 1st lady and her work in healthcare as a Senator.

Then when he got called on it he told various posters to go ahead and turn an Obama supporter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3602762#3603024

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3602762#3603123

[cuke]

37. Hillary has also fought for health care

for the first responders on 9/11. She has fought to have the health of returning Iraqi War vets to avoid a fiasco like the one we had with Gulf War Syndrome. She has fought for stem cell research and breast cancer. She forced * to increase funding for the Ryan White Care Act.