What's the difference between Hillary Haters and Hillarys Haters?

[Renew Deal]

It's quite simple.

Hillary Haters: These people are alleged to "hate Hillary" so much that she get's no leeway with them.

Hillarys Haters: These people are pro-Hillary Clinton zealots. Their modus operandi is to attack, attack, attack, anyone that says anything remotely critical about Hillary AND/OR anyone that says something nice about any other candidates. They tend to harbor irrational rage that the establishment candidate they support isn't widely praised for everything including getting up in the morning.

Observe DU long enough and you'll see some of both.

[Tarc]

1. Substitute "Hillary" with "Obama" or "Edwards" or "Biden"

etc...and we arrive at the same place. Singling out one candidate's supporters/detractors is a bit disingenuous.

[Renew Deal]

2. Not at all

One candidates supporters are light years ahead when it comes to irrational attacks. They attack anyone for no reason other than not obviously supporting Hillary.

[pnwmom]

32. I like all the top three and I think you're wrong. There are virulent supporters

of each of them, as well as of Kucinich -- people who think they're helping their candidate by viciously attacking HRC.

But it tends to backfire with me.

[Cha]

81. I know when people point

out hillary's policies and record it is awfully vicious.

[pnwmom]

105. When people call her names it can be quite vicious.

And distorting her record and calling her a DINO is unfair.

But I have no problem with people taking issue with various points in her record and/or policies. I do that, too -- as well as with all the other candidates. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate out there.

[Tarc]

44. `Fraid so

Your own personal bias simply gets in the way of you seeing it clearly.

[adapa]

4. Not so much with the Biden supporters

[pnwmom]

35. I think you're right about that.

Biden's people seem pretty positive, in general.

Welcome to DU, adapa!

[faithfulcitizen]

86. ooh, Biden was included...Awesome!!

:)

[IronLionZion]

101. Who are Biden's haters?

I want names and links to specific posts.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. What about the HillaryHaterHaters?

You know, the DU members who are disgusted by what the HillaryHaters have done to DU.

[Donnachaidh]

9. mr pot, mr kettle is on line 2

:rofl:

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Hate on Hillary all you want, Donna.

It's DU, you'll have lots of company.

[Cha]

83. You're one of hillary's haters.

mp.

[MethuenProgressive]

110. If anything, I'm a HillaryHaterHater, zi

What you people have done to DU is disgusting.

[ronnykmarshall]

115. Sign me up to the group.

This place is a fucking cesspool.

[mtnsnake]

118. Save room for me

I agree about the cesspool. There's more shit here than on all of rightwing hate radio.

[Armstead]

5. A lot of us are Hillary critics...Not the same as "haters"

I don't "hate" Hillary. I'd like her if she were to simply focus on her Senate responsibilities.

But as a candidate and the tone-setter for the Democratic party, I honestly believe she is the absolutely wrong choice at this juncture in history. Not because of herself as a person, but of who and what she represents and is aligned with.

To me, Hillary represents the stranglehold of Wall St. Corporate Conservatism and Democratic Sell-Outism that has been as much of the reason for our problems as the GOP. She and the DLC/Centrists have diluted and diffused the idea of a liberal/progressive balance, and thus enabled the Elite to gain a disproportionate share of the wealth and power in this country.

The Democratic Party needs to shake off this, and chart a new direction that actually reflects the concenrs and interests of the majority.....Hillary represents the forces that are the opposite of this.

[yurbud]

8. this ''hater'' crap is a page from Bush playbook to avoid substantive criticism & debate

[itsrobert]

11. Exactly

I'm a Bush Hater and Hillary Hater. I hate corporate candidates.

[cali]

15. what nonsense. It has nothing to do with the "bush playbook"

i criticize Clinton regularly. I also criticize Clinton hate and a lot of the dishonest bullshit thrown at her. Wrap your black and white simplistic thinking around that concept. There are quite a few of us that don't want Clinton as the nominee, but don't like the Clinton hate that some of you refuse to see exists.

[Cha]

84. Precisely and where

did the bushites get their playbook from?

[SOS]

111. It sure is

The right assigned "Bush hater" to all Bush critics, starting with the freakish Charles Krauthammer in Time way back in 2003.
The goal was to portray anyone who disagreed with Shrub as mentally unbalanced.
The "hater" moniker is pure right-wing bullsh!t.

What Makes the Bush-Haters So Mad?
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,487932,00.html

Loving the Bush Haters
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/345dcbff.asp

Big loss for the Bush haters
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/04/big_loss_for_the_bush_haters/

Bush Haters Losing Ground by Latest News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312379,00.html

Why they hate Bush so.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wolfson200312010913.asp

[Clintonista2]

12. There is a difference between Hillary CRITICS and Hillary HATERS

"Hillary haters" are people who post photoshopped pictures of Hillary making her look ugly. "Hillary haters" are people who create threads about how she has a deal with satan, or how her and the wicked witch in "the wizard of oz" are long-lost sisters. Those are HATERS, and for every Obama/Edwards/Biden/Dodd/Kucinich/Richardson/Gravel hater, there are 10 Hillary haters on DU.

[Armstead]

14. I posted the deal with Satan thread

It was a joke. Making fun of the excesses of DU on a day when things were getting especially heated and petty.

It was aimed at all of us, -- and myself as much as anyone.

[Clintonista2]

17. Also, would you consider this "criticism"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3762354#3762512

Certainly it's not hatred, right?

[Armstead]

22. It's a cheap shot, but no worse than otehrs I've seen towards other candidates

[Clintonista2]

23. Show me a "Hillary's hater" posting pictures of other candidates like that...

Just 1 single example. Thanks.

[Armstead]

30. I haven't the time to comb through threads

Already spending too much time on DU today to the detrement of my job.

But there are many examples of the verbal equivalents of that photo directed to other candidates and their supporters.

P.S. I reiterate, my Satan thread was a joke.

[cuke]

39. You have demonstrated a Hillary obsession

At the least, 90% of the threads you've started have been about Hillary. All your talk about not having any special animosity is betrayed by all of the threads you've started about her.

[Armstead]

42. Fer Crikey sake, cuke, I've been at DU since early 02...

Of the thousands of posts I've made over that time, probably less than 10 percent have had anything to do with Hillary....Probably less than 5 percent.

Lately the ratio has been higher, but there's an obvious reason for that. It's the nomination season.

[cuke]

46. I said threads

I stand by my statements. You are trying hard to appear fair and reasonable, but your record is pretty clear.

[Armstead]

47. I don't believe she should be the nominee.

I don't agree with what she represents, for many reasons.

That's my bias. I have never pretended otherwise.

Clear enough for you?

[cuke]

49. And you'll say anything as a result, without regard to the facts

THAT'S what your bias is. Bias results in one's being unable to accurately assess the FACTS. That's nearly the definition of bias.

You want to admit to bias, but you don't want to admit that your ability to assess the facts has not been affected.

That's why you ignore when Clinton has spoken out about issues and when the others attack her over petty things, and only focus on when Clinton defends herself so that you can criticize her for being petty. It's because of your bias. You are unable to assess the facts accurately.

That's why, when presented with numerous examples of DUers posting petty attacks on Clinton, all you have to say is "It's a cheap shot" and defend if with a "but no worse than otehrs I've seen towards other candidates" (which I call bullshit on. Please link to something similar posted by a Clinton supporter) Your bias REQUIRES you to minimize the pettiness of Hillary-Haters, but when Hillary does something you think is petty, you don't just say "It's a cheap shot". You start a thread about it.

And when that's pointed out to you, you go into your talk about how you don't think she shouldnt be the nominee because of what she "represents". That's your bias talking. Your bias leads you to the inaccurate conclusison that it's OK to criticize Clinton, even when it's not true, because "she shouldnt be the nominee...". Anything goes, because "she shouldn't be the nominee..."

That's what bias is.

[Armstead]

54. And you don't have any biases?

Or do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing?

[Clintonista2]

55. Once again, you're unable to make basic distinctions

Of course Cuke is biased. That doesn't mean his bias manifests itself through hatred. Have you ever seen Cuke post a "Hillary and Satan have a pact" OP?

[cuke]

56. Thank you

I have biases, but unlike Armstead, I am able to recognize how they can distort my perceptions of the facts, and so I do not discuss those issues. I recognize that my opinions on those issues are not based on the facts. I don't pretend to be reasonable or fair about those things.

Armstead, not so much

[Armstead]

60. Perhaps you should argue your biases

There is not a person alive who does not see the world through the filter of their own biases.

At some point you gotta take stands. Being reluctant to defend your biases is a sign of intellectual paralysis.

My OPINION based on objective observation filtered through my own beliefs is that Bill Clinton's presidency was 1,000 times better than Bush's. Hillary did a lot of good things as First Lady. I've never said otherwise.

But that doesn't mean I approve of all that he did. I believe in a larger context the politics that the Clinton's represent have done a lot of harm, and that they are not suited to the times we are in now.

That's my opinion. What's yours? (You do have a positive and pro-active opinion about something, don't you?)

[cuke]

64. I take stands when the facts support doing so

"My OPINION based on objective observation filtered through my own beliefs "

No, your obvious bias make you unable to observe objectively. That's why you engage in the circular logic that "Hillary is bad - Bad things said about her are true - Hillary is bad" while ignoring or dismissing the facts.

And again you do it by justifying your words because "the politics that the Clinton's represent have done a lot of harm". I'm sorry, but your opinion doesn't entitle you to ignore the facts. Your opinion is based on nothing more than your opinion. That's what bias does to a person.

[Armstead]

70. You're ducking the question

Who do you support, if anyone? If so, why? If not, why not?

It's one thing to just snipe for the sake of sniping. I very seldom see you post anything that advocates or praises. Just sniping at others when you perceive some sort of violation of some internal rules you seem to have.

Over the years here I have engaged in amny substantial discussion threads about issues and politics, and have often acknowledged the merits of opinions I disagree with.

Hell, I could even tell you the things I admire or agree with Hillary about.

But with you, any real discussion seems to be impossible, because you are more concerned with form than content.

P.S. If I have missed any of your posts that do actually delve into content in a pro-active way, I apologize. I'm just saying I haven't seen any.

[cuke]

72. Sorry, I thought that was obvious and known to you

I support Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons. She is most likely to get a universal health care plan passed. She has a lifelong record of fighting for the poor, for women, for children, for the poor, for the sick and for other oppressed and disadvantaged people.

And wrt what you see, there's a lot you don't see. You don't see any of the petty attacks that are aimed at Clinton on a daily basis, and you don't see the many substantive policy proposals she has made, so it's no wonder you haven't seen my substantive posts. With you, any real discussion is impossible, because you are more concerned with feelings than facts

Here's something about Hillary:

Forced * to increase funding for the Ryan White Care Act which helps people with AIDS

helped secure the $20billion to rebuild after 9/11,

fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit small businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero.

She also passed legislation to track the health status of our troops so that conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed.

She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves,

introduced legislation to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage,

She worked to strengthen the Children's Health Insurance Program, which increased coverage for children in low income and working families.

She authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs,

she worked to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act

her legislation to help schools address environmental hazards.

proposed expanding access to child care.

passed legislation that will bring more qualified teachers into classrooms and more outstanding principals to lead our schools.

one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning.

Her fight with the Bush Administration ensured that Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, will be available to millions of American women and will reduce the need for abortions.

[Armstead]

74. Now that's a worthwhile post, with one exception

The "confusing feelings with facts" is the kind of non-sequitor that is a needless slam.

While everyone ultimately uses some combination of facts and feelings to form their opinions, no one has a monopoly on reason.

Other than that, however, it is more worthwhile to see actual reasons for your support for a candidate, rather than simply criticizing the discussion style of people who hold differing views.

[cuke]

76. I'm not criticizing your style. I'm criticizing your objectivity and grasp of the facts

Since when has it been inappropriate on DU to point out that a poster is wrong?

[Armstead]

79. deleted -- duplicate

[cuke]

82. You should listen to yourself sometimes

"I'm not objective. But I do have the ability to see objectively."

If you're not objective, that you don't have the ability to "see objectively". Subjectivity is all about how bias affects one's PERCEPTIONS, so by definition, you are wrong.

And you do ignore or dismiss many facts. I've pointed out several of them in previous posts. That's why you think the bad outweighs the bad. And because of your bias, the justification for ignoring the facts comes down to your opinion "I think putting her team in...would be a mistake" In your mind, that justifies anything

[Armstead]

87. I suspect if I supported Hillary and had the same style, it'd be fine with you

If my bias were, "Hillary is the best qualified person to be president, and I totally support her positions" would you be as hung up on this alleged lack of objectivity?

Your claim shows how wrongheaded it is to assume you know someone from the very limited exposure of some threads at DU.

In the "real world" I am continually required in my profession to analyze and explain situations objectively and factually. And they often are based in matters that have everything to do with the issues of politics. And I generally get extremely high marks from otehrs about my ability to see and present all sides.

This is a discussion board, so it is a chance to let my hair down a bit. So friggin what? My "feelings" are based on solid observations and factual analysis. I'm not going to change my style just because I don't adhere to your imaginary Marquis of Queensberry protocol for the appropriate way to express myself on a discussion board.

[cuke]

97. You would be very wrong

There is a Clinton supporter I have criticized on a number of occassions. If you want, I'll PM you the name

And there's nothing wrong with discussing your feelings about an issue. You just shouldnt speak as though that was objective or reasonable. Feelings are not always objective or reasonable. Oftentimes, they're the opposite.

And when you discuss those feelings on a discussion board, don't be surprised if people who disagree with you join the discussion

I haven't called you any names. I haven't said you are dumb or anything personal aside from addressing your bias, which you agree exists. My behavior is reasonable

[Armstead]

80. I don;t claim to be objective

But I do have the ability to see objectively.

I also do grasp facts. Believe me, it would be a lot easier to ignore the facts and just "go with the flow" and accept the socially liberal side of Hillary while ignoring such facts as her tight ties with Wall St., her enabling of Bush's totally stupid policies towards Iraq (and now Iran), the people behind her campaign, the support of the Clintons for Alan Greenspan's destructive economic policies..etc. etc.etc.

But such facts outweigh the good things she has done, and -- on a systemic rather than a personal basis -- I think putting her and her team into the White House would be a mistake at this juncture of history.

[asdjrocky]

106. Bingo.

[Armstead]

57. Once again, you show a distinct lack of proportion or humor

It may not have been successful as humor.

However, if you honestly believe that "Breaking News: Hillary Clinton's secret pact with Satan Exposed" was meant to be taken seriously, I'd suggest that you somehow find a way to acquire a basic sense of humor.

[cuke]

59. And again, you miss/ignore the point

The point isn't one thread. The point is your Clinton bias and how it has blinded you to the facts and rendered you unable to think reasonably about her.

I have biases too, but I don't publicize them regularly and pretend I'm being reasonable about the issue

[Armstead]

61. see my response above

[asdjrocky]

107. Bingo. Again.

[Cha]

89. Tough shite cuke..

You don't Armstead's posts..I do.

[dionysus]

93. and you post threads blasting obama all the damned time...

hypocrisy thy name is cuke

[dionysus]

94. tremble in fear Armstead!

the n00b thinks he's a smart 'un...

[ronnykmarshall]

116. Charming

[truedelphi]

102. Well why do you need to hate my candidate??

He's about the only one making any sense

"in 2008 - I'm voting for Satan! - the country has already gone to hell!"

[Renew Deal]

19. That's not the criteria most people use.

I have never seen anyone do what you're saying, but I've seen a lot of people here get called "hillary haters."

[Clintonista2]

24. Here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3762354#3762512

Check both the title of the OP and the picture I linked to. Now, would you consider that to be "Hillary hatred"?

[Renew Deal]

27. 2 for 1

The OP isn't. That's obviously a joke. The picture one probably is.

[Clintonista2]

29. Oh, it's a "joke."

How did I know you were gonna say that? :eyes:

[Renew Deal]

33. Armstead is cool.

He has an evil grin on the post and he even said it was meant to poke fun at DU and himself.

[Cameron27]

52. Using that picture stinks,

and tells me all I need to know about that poster. I've never seen a photoshopped pic of Obama or Edwards, strange isn't it? (Oh yes, someone mistakenly posted a pic with Obama smoking not knowing it had been altered)

[Kucinich4America]

95. I doubt that Obama picture was a mistake.

I seem to remember the person responsible for that "protesting too much" when they were called on it.

[Kucinich4America]

37. The picture is real. Perhaps Hillary should be more careful of the faces she makes in public.

Like Dukakis riding in the tank, or Kerry wearing whatever this was....



If you're a candidate, and the media can find a ridiculous visual of you, they're gonna use it.

[Clintonista2]

38. That wasn't the photoshopped picture I was referring to

It was a few weeks back, they were posting a bunch of obviously photoshopped pictures of her in a thread.

[Cameron27]

67. You know,

they all get caught in the middle of lousy expression, the news media eats it up, but I don't expect to see those pics used against them here.

[martymar64]

103. I love that pic!

He looks like he should have rabbit ears.
What's up, doc?

[MethuenProgressive]

45. It's 'lowness' of the hate that sets them apart

Posting about her underwear, her 'cat killing', her weight/clothes/hair/wrinkles, her 'membership in a secret world wide plot to take over and rule as an Ultra-Fundi-Xian', her sex life, regurgitating all that RW crap from the 90s about her 'hit list' and on and on... to cheers, applause, and multiple cloned threads - all by the same posters, and all 43 recs each.
If only DU's HillHate cult could get together and pick a candidate to love instead of hate...

[bvar22]

51. That should tell you something about Hillary.

Hillary Nomination = Most Electoral Risk for Least Democratic Gain.

[Beacool]

71. Hear, hear!!!

You're right, for every "hater" of another candidate there's 10 more who dislike Hillary just as intensely. Damn shame, since I still think that she's the only one who might win us back the presidency next year.

[YOY]

20. Absolutely spot on.

And apparently the "Hillary Haterhaters" can't or won't discern that.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. lol

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you exhibit Number 1:

"These people are pro-Hillary Clinton zealots. Their modus operandi is to attack, attack, attack, anyone that says anything remotely critical about Hillary AND/OR anyone that says something nice about any other candidates. They tend to harbor irrational rage that the establishment candidate they support isn't widely praised for everything including getting up in the morning."

"They" in the DU world of us-versus-them "they" are given all sorts of negative characteristics. There is nothing good about them, all evil all time. But, not just evil...

"zealots" a loaded term, not positive, designed to insinuate that Clinton supporters are have crazed. Evil, half crazed...but wait...

"attack attack attack:" again suggesting that "they" are out to get "us" with negative attacks. Evil, have crazed and viciously attacking (not once but thrice)...

"irrational rage:" not simply frustration at the known, obvious, tone of DU, but "irrational" "rage"


So, in conclusion the difference between Hillary Haters and Hillary's haters are:
Hillary's haters are: Evil Half crazed, Irrational, Vicious Rage-filled Haters.

Thanks for clearing that up Bleachers7.

[Renew Deal]

7. lol

OK, that was funny. ;)

[quickesst]

13. Your op....

is the definitive answer you seek. Hillary haters are "alleged" Hillary haters, while Hillary hater haters are "attack zealots", full of "irrational rage". Nuff said if you can think for yourself. Thanks.
quickesst

[Renew Deal]

18. Hillarys Haters is an original term

That has not been used before. That's why it hasn't been "alleged." I am doing the alleging.

[Kolesar]

25. Hillary's Haters, possessive case, not plural

Now, back to the :nuke:
:hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide:

[yurbud]

16. Hillary's backers mostly use the GOP/DLC MO: vapid cheerleading, demand uncritical support, and tell

people to simply vote for their candidate and be happy that the Dem ''team'' beat the GOP team, like it's a fucking football game.

They also are incensed when we demand to be heard by our elected representatives once we elect them.


What the candidates have done in the past, said they are going to do in the future, and are actually likely to do in the future actually affects our lives.

I admired Hillary as first lady, but as a senator, she has veered too far to the right on central issues of war and trade and generally been too accommodating of corporate interests for her to be my first choice as Democratic nominee.

[mtnsnake]

21. That's precious, coming from someone who sounds like a rightwing neocon cheerleader like you do. nt

[kenfrequed]

31. uhm

Yeah...

I'm going to ask you to qualify what makes him sound like a neo-con right wing cheerleader. Or else this should just be chalked up as one of those insult thingees.

[cuke]

48. Let us count the ways

the abundance of name-calling

a corresponding lack of evidence to back it up (funny how you didn't ask the HillaryHater to justify it's "insult thingees")

The demands that politicians do certain things

All wrapped in a broad brush "Hillary's backers mostly..."

[mtnsnake]

50. thank you. I couldn't have summarized it any better myself

:thumbsup:

[kenfrequed]

62. You claimed-

That he sounded like a Neo-con right wing cheerleader.

I think that making generalizations about groups of backers, while logically questionable, is a different sort of concern than making a direct characterization against an individual.

No one has claiming the some-all line of reasoning. That all hillary backers are some how "Hillary's Haters." But I woould find equal difficulty with someone saying that none of Hillary's backers call anyone a "Hillary Hater"

Now back to asking for proof fo charaterization:
-not backing a statement up with evidence does not make you a right wing Neo Con.

-"demands that politicians do certain things"-Well this one is kind of odd since most of us should demand things of elected officials. Honestly though the right wing-neocons really were backwards about that since they were about as anti-populist as you get. Moreover the NeoCon/Rightwing ideology almost demands that you believe (like any good scumbag follower of Strauss would) that the people msut be directed to war and must be convinced of it despite the fact that they might not agree with it. It is a top-down ideology.

-The broad brush-What can I say. It is a standard propaganda technique. Many people here use it of all political stripes. It is unfortunate but very very common. Hell I think I have probably made at least three generalizations today already.


I think you have to both push a conservative social and economic agenda while believing in the effaciacy of empire building masquerading as pre-emptive defence to actual "Sound like a Right Wing Neo con"

[cuke]

65. Actually, someone else "claimed". I merely agreed

I think that making generalizations about groups of backers, while logically questionable, is a different sort of concern than making a direct characterization against an individual.

I think that "making generalization about groups" is a very neo-con right wing thing to do.

Now back to asking for proof fo charaterization:
-not backing a statement up with evidence does not make you a right wing Neo Con.

It sure doesn't prove that you aren't. It's evidence

-"demands that politicians do certain things"-Well this one is kind of odd since most of us should demand things of elected officials.

Umm, no. It's a democracy. We vote and we petition. No person has the power to demand anything.

-The broad brush-What can I say. It is a standard propaganda technique. Many people here use it of all political stripes. It is unfortunate but very very common. Hell I think I have probably made at least three generalizations today already.

And it's typical behavior for a neocon rightwinger, but it's not typical of most DUers. Basically, if it looks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, it's a duck

[kenfrequed]

96. Oh well

ME-------------not backing a statement up with evidence does not make you a right wing Neo Con.

YOU------------It sure doesn't prove that you aren't. It's evidence

Fine, prove you aren't a communist. I am sorry but the weight of evidence always falls on the proposer. If you didn't propose it then I suppose you are off the hook. If you did it falls to you to provide some kind of evidence. By your own tortured logic and the apparant evidence of your admission you are also a NeoCon.


ME---------"demands that politicians do certain things"-Well this one is kind of odd since most of us should demand things of elected officials.

YOU--------Umm, no. It's a democracy. We vote and we petition. No person has the power to demand anything.


Semantical rubbish.
I suppose that people don't protest, march, write letters, call our congress-critters, hold rallies and exercise our beloved 1st amendment rights in pursuit of this? I suppose the civil rights marches of the 50's weren't "demanding" anything? The Antiwar protests don't "Demand" anything? The labor marches during the 1912 Lawrence textile strike? The marches for sufferage?

I believe a wise man once said that "power concedes nothing..."


ME---------------The broad brush-What can I say. It is a standard propaganda technique. Many people here use it of all political stripes. It is unfortunate but very very common. Hell I think I have probably made at least three generalizations today already.

YOU----------------And it's typical behavior for a neocon rightwinger, but it's not typical of most DUers. Basically, if it looks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, it's a duck


Riiight... so no one but right wingers use the broad brush? Isn't suggesting that argument using the broad brush as well? And for that matter am I now mandated, with your absolute approval, to call anyone that uses the broad brush argument a Neocon? Without regard at all to what their actual political policy choices might be?
Only A's do B
C does B
Therefore C =A?

Is that the syllogism you are pursuing?

[cuke]

98. Oh well is right

1) I did back up my statements with some evidence. The other poster did not. You're way off base here

2) Some of those demanded and some did not. None of them got what they want because they demanded it. They got what they wanted because they forced the govt to do so. Power concedes nothing and it concedes nothing to demands. It concedes only to a greater power.

3) No, not only right wingers, but it is evidence that the post deserved the description.

As I said, "if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, then it's a a duck". The meaning of the this is that one need not always need absolute proof to identify something; If it shares enough qualities with something, then it's not unreasonable to consider it one of them.

if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, then it's a a duck

[kenfrequed]

100. Rubbish

1. You pretended to by going along with the "where do I begin." You merely added additional accusations (easily refutable accusations) and pretended like piling this one was the equal of evidence.

2. More semantical meandering.

3. Illogical and unsupportable

Folk wisdom phrases do not equal evidence, and in this case you still have to prove he is walking and talking like a duck.

[Clintonista2]

34. No kidding. n/t.

[cuke]

43. Here's a few examples

All of the following threads use rightwing sources

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3630080

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3578604&mesg_id=3578604

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3636053#3636225

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3419554&mesg_id=3419554

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3653225

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2139661&mesg_id=2139661

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3651120

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3655657

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3642265

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3659617

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3664551

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3685535

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3703253

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3667194

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3694048

All of them posted by the supporters of a certain candidate

[Cha]

88. "Vapid Cheerleading"

Rah, Rah, RAH..hillary!

[cuke]

26. These people are alleged to "hate Hillary" so much that she get's no leeway with them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3799735

"Alleged" my ass

[Clintonista2]

28. Hey Cuke, that's just "legitimate criticism!!!!"

So is this, apparently: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3762354#3762512

[kenfrequed]

41. A useless thread

It had nothing to do with issues.

The profusion of posters and responders seems fairly useless.

[Clintonista2]

36. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "HILLARY HATERS"!

...Other than the 34% of DUers who HATE Hillary Clinton:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3730376

[MethuenProgressive]

66. It's sad that so many admit it - anonymously, of course.

Ask them straight out, and they deny it.

[cuke]

77. At least one publicly admits it, and the publicly denies it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3798178#3800746

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3800885

[CoffeeCat]

40. I am a Democrat who is for peace....

...civil rights, democracy , the end of torture and stopping these thug neocons
who have hijacked our country and are attempting to widen their lie-based war debacle.

Our country is facing a Constitutional crisis.

I am strongly opposed to any candidate who says next to nothing about our Constitution
being dismantled, as our democracy and civil rights unravel before our very eyes.

I'm strongly opposed to any candidate who votes in ways that perpetuate the neocon agenda.
The neocon agenda needs to be squashed. It is a cancer. You don't allow a little cancer
into your body. You eradicate it completely. Any candidate who votes for a bill that
widens the war, enables BushCo to sell more war or helps the neocons expand their grand plan
is an enemy of democracy in my opinion.

You bet I "hate" what is happening in this country. You'd have to be dead, not to be disgusted
and outraged. Why is it so bad, to be angry and to "hate" it when you watch Democratic-party
members vote in line with the neocons and evolve into willing neocon accomplices?

Politics is not personal. Screaming, "You hate Hillary!" is a red herring, because
this argument is not about hating a person--but hating their politics. I proudly hate
her politics and votes, in the same way that I hate the politics and votes of Joe
Lieberman, Diane Feinstein, and others.

[itsrobert]

53. Good job

We don't need politicians that sit silently by while the GOP takes craps on our constitution.

[Cameron27]

58. All our candidates are for peace,

restoring the constitution and getting this country back together. Not one of them is the new Joshua or the second coming. I'm voting for who I think can actually get the job done, and that's Hillary Clinton.

[Cha]

91. Total Red Herring..

Strawmen, Distraction, and Copious Amounts of Whining.

[asdjrocky]

63. What the hell, thought I'd throw in my my two cents worth-

First, I don't much like the word hate. I'd have to sit for a long time to think of someone who is worthy of hate. Epically, if it's someone I don't even know personally. I'll tell ya this, I don't like the politics and policies of the Clinton Clan and the DLC. The DLC and the Clintons are Centrist, and I am a Progressive, and I believe government is here to help the least of us, not the people that are already doing just fine. My other problem with HRC? The people she associates with, meaning Mark Penn, and his group.

That being said, I think in the couple of the months I've been here, I've posted one negative post about Hillary, and that was concerning Mark Penn. I don't post one or two line hit pieces on her, that's lazy, pedestrian, and just too easy and I don't go into positive threads on Halli ry, and throw myself into the mix. But I see that happen all the time to my positive posts on my candidate. And to others when they post on their candidate. I guess I just believe in fair play.

Second- there is undoubtedly a group of people here who seem to be in constant attack mode, and I think the name you coined for them is perfect, "Hillary's Haters." I've learned to laugh at them. Their candidate doesn't have much of a record to run on, she has zero Progressive credentials, and I'm still waiting to hear her vision for our great country. So they have little choice but to be on the attack, since there is no way to defend what this woman has done, or what she is saying.

That's my take, and thanks for the post.

My pick-

Working for America

[cuke]

69. Don't deny the obvious. You hate Hillary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3798178#3800746

[Imagevision]

99. cuke is a bot

[sniffa]

68. i don't know who i hate more, Hillary or her supporters

embrace the term - they've both earned it.

k&r

[cuke]

73. Sounds like a lot of hate

There's a cure for that, you know

[Cha]

90. It's a twofer

It's their job.

[Catherine Vincent]

75. The only difference is the ones that will admit they hate her as to the ones that won't admi it. nt

[Prophet 451]

78. My Tuppence

Watching Hillary, she seems to divide opinion far more sharply than GW did during his campaign. Of course, that may be because we know what to expect with Hillary whereas GW was largely an unknown quantity.

This is all from personal observation so your mileage may vary.

I've noticed that anti-Hillary threads on DU come in two flavours. The majority are reasonable enough, they attack Hillary on her record, policies, stated opinions or campaigning. That's a perfectly acceptable and throughly normal approach in politics and one most of the candidates are subject to (to varying degrees). Then there is a fairly small number of posts which attack Hillary in ways and for reasons that should be considered out of bounds. Calling her a "whore" should be out of bounds as should comments on her physical appearence (although I'd be grateful if I never saw that pink jacket again) or her gender. That should be off-limits for the same reasons as attacking Obama for his ethnicity as should the occasional attack on Hillary which is rampantly sexist.

What I've noticed about Hillary supporters (hereafter "Hillarites" until someone invents a better term) is that they often don't distinguish between the two approaches, they tend to assume that any attack is personal and should therefore be off-limits and they often use the accusation of Hillary-hatred as a way of ignoring or sidelining real questions. Their counter-attack is often wildly disproportionate to the actual criticism Hillary has received and I have yet to see a Hillarite make a case for any of HRC's proposals. That's not to say it can't be done, I'd be interested to hear it but from observation (which, I accept, is limited) I've never seen a Hillarite try. They seem to believe she should be nominated purely on that air of inevitability. It reminds me quite strongly of the "Bush Derangment Syndrome" which the Repubs were pushing for much of Chimpy's first term, the assumption that if you didn't think everything was wonderful, there must be something wrong with you.

Let me state here that while Hillary wouldn't be my preferred candidate, nor do I think she'd be a disaster. I'm sure she'd make a decent president, albeit not an outstanding one and I certainly think she'd be miles better than the current Chimp-in-Chief. However, she sometimes seems to expect the nomination as hers by right, something many people (including myself) resent and her supporters are really starting to piss me off.

[martymar64]

104. Agreed

If she's really that inevitable, then the primaries will show that. If she's isn't then that will show as well.

[redqueen]

85. Observe DU long enough? Hah... takes all of about two minutes.

:rofl:

[Cha]

92. You're

quick!

[AntiFascist]

108. If someone opposes Hillary's candidacy, why are they branded a "hater"?

I understand that there is true hatred coming from the religious right, but those who oppose Hillary amongst the Democrats are often on the far left. Lumping us together with "the haters" is not only anti-democratic but it is anti-Democratic. Are we all supposed to join together and support the centrist candidate favored by the corporate world just because the privleged few of the Democratic Leadership (Council) tells us to? I don't think so!

[Perry Logan]

109. Because they say things like "Hillary is an insult to my dead mother."

And "Hillary is a scheming, duplicitous sociopath," and "I'll THROW UP if Hillary gets the nomination."

Don't kid yourselves. Everyone knows the anti-Hillary people set the standard for sleaze here at DU. Threads of incontinent slander are always showing up on "the Greatest" list, to the eternal shame of DU.

[Dr Fate]

114. I never said those things- yet conservatives call me "Bush hater" as well as a "Hillary hater"

Not b/c I actually hate either one of them, but apparently for having some strong disagreements with them and having the gall to say so.

[AntiFascist]

117. I never say those things either...

but it always seems that those who express strong opposition are grouped together with the extremists. This seems to be the main tactic when trying to marginalize the opposition to Hillary.

[Dr Fate]

119. The conservatives saw that tactic work for Bush, so now they are using it for Hillary.

According to a conservative Republican, anyone who disagrees with Bush is a "Bush hater"

According to conservat...er...I mean "centrist" DLCers/Lieberman 3rd Party sympathizers, anyone who disagrees with Hillary is a "Hillary Hater."

It's an identical conservative tactic.

[Dr Fate]

113. Remember when conservatives called us "Bush haters" for opposing his candidacy as well?

I do. It's the exact same tactic used by similar people.

[Dr Fate]

112. LOL! I remember when all the conservatives called progressives "Bush Haters" as well.

As if we did not have honest disagreements with Bush, but were merely blinded by "hatred" for him.

Conservatives now uses the same Rovian talking point, except they replace "Bush" with "Hillary."

You cant have an honest diagreement with Bush or Hillary w/o conservatives accusing you of being a "hater."