|
Post by Moses on Jun 19, 2005 18:57:27 GMT -5
During the election, the founder of Democratic Underground ran an anti-Dean campaign, and, we understand, engages in the same banning and post deletion practices as another (probably political-consultant funded) "progressive" site.
Given the control of the Democratic Party by very special interests, and big bucks players, and their efforts to drive blacks, hispanics, lower income, women, workers and the middle class out of the party, and the lack of influence of Americans on policy and candidate selection, I thought DU should also have a thread, because people are just banned and are less likely to be missed, and there are no forums for people to let other people know what is going on there.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 19, 2005 19:05:51 GMT -5
Talk about an echo -chamber! DU started a demopedia site based on the structure of Wikkipedia, and this is what they say about themselves: Owners The website is owned by Democratic Underground, LLC (a limited liability company, which is in turn owned by David Allen of Washington, D.C. He goes by the username "Skinner" while on the boards and handles most of the issues relating to the forums. The other two administrators, "EarlG" (of Washington, D.C.) and "elad" (of Chicago), handle the articles and technical issues, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 19, 2005 19:10:29 GMT -5
This is how they characterize the criticism they receive: From the left Critics of the site allege that the site administrators and moderators are biased against, and unfairly ban or censor, posters who consider themselves to be to the political left of John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for the US presidency. Also, some progressives claim that it is not a progressive value to censor political opinions that do not agree with the dominant opinion. These people claim that DU is not truly liberal or progressive, but rather centrist. In particular, many members claim that the moderators of the Israel-Palestinian forums enforce an anti-Palestinian bias or adhere too strongly to the politics of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). [edit] From the center Critics of the site allege that the site administrators and moderators are biased against, and unfairly ban or censor, posters who consider themselves to be from the moderate or centrist wing of the Democratic Party. These people claim that DU is not truly Democratic but rather liberal. In particular, many members claim that the moderators of the Israel-Palestinian forums enforce an anti-Israeli bias or adhere too strongly to the politics of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Others criticise the site for for spreading outrageous and false conspiracy theories, the most recent example being an article in the New York Times that quoted an anonymous poster on one of the forums who supposed that the December 26 tsunami disaster in Southeastern Asia had been somehow linked to military actions by the Pentagon. DU administrators have now banned "Kooky Tsunami Conspiracy Theories." from discussion forums. demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Democratic_Underground
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 19, 2005 19:14:11 GMT -5
This is how they describe the rules/philosophy of their forums:
Forums
The DU Forums are a highly active scene where progressives of all types are welcome to come and talk. The site bills itself as welcoming to progressives of all types, though users are sometimes "tombstoned" (banned) by administrators for violating site policies, such as these:
"We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible."
"Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here. Please do not take these differences of opinion personally. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to lash out and break the rules of this message board. A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board."
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 19, 2005 19:21:46 GMT -5
This information comes from someone who describes himself as " an ultraconservative political commentator": DU is run by a man named David Allen, the President of a web design firm known as Online Workshop Design based in Washington, DC. Mr. Allen hold’s a Bachelor’s Degree from Yale and has worked on Senate campaigns in Michigan, Oregon, and Delaware. Information on the site claims that it was founded on January 20, 2001 to protest the inauguration of George W. Bush- but a search of public records reveals that the domain for the site was actually registered on December 5, 2000: six days before Al Gore conceded that year’s disputed Presidential Election. As of the middle of November, Democratic Underground claimed to have roughly 34,000 ‘registered users.’ The term, however, is deceptive because the total counts individuals who have registered accounts that have been banned from posting on the message boards. For example, this reporter has (by his own count) been banned from posting on DU six times. The exact nature of the links between Democratic Underground and the Democratic Party are unknown. While, obviously, it is allowed use of the party name- and linked to by numerous party web sites, there is no readily apparent direct link between the party and the site. DU is organized as a Limited Liability Corporation. No one knows what the future holds for Democratic Underground however, for the time being, it appears as though the popularity of the site has plateaued. Its traffic rank, as measured by the Alexa internet ratings, seems unable to place it any higher than the top five thousand sites on the internet, as compared to Free Republic, which ranks among the top one thousand. Perhaps many have been turned off by the puritanical attitudes of the moderators of the site, which instantly ban any users who express thoughts out-of-step with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Those who advocate voting for a third party, for example, are now banned.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 19, 2005 19:28:55 GMT -5
Here is a review from Amazon.com: 2 of 2 people found the following review helpful: DU is both good and bad, May 14, 2005 Reviewer: randy "http://www.geocities.com/cryofan" (houston tx) - See all my reviews DU is a great place for information. Unfortunately, you have to make a donation to be able to search the archives. Also a great place to learn about leftism. Some of the people there really know what is going on. There are many hardcore leftists there. Now the bad: DU is apparently an authoritarian vehicle to advance careerist ambitions. Owned by a young Ivy league grad named David Allen, DU is apparently operated so as to play up to Democratic leaders. Allen is apparently aligned and associated with the DLC and Al From, at least loosely. A very authoritarian website, which practices a type of rigid behavioral control. DUers are banned if they do or say the wrong thing, even if they say the wrong thing at some other website. Not only are conservative posters banned, but as many leftist posters are banned as well. THe moderators seem to favor the DLC, which is of course the evil, conservative, corporate, war machine infiltrators that have swung the Democratic party further to the right. DU is run as a DLC leaning site. DU is stronly aligned with the Democratic party itself. If you say bad things about Democratic party politicians, you will be banned, even if you are a hardcore leftist. THat said, there are many many lefties still there at DU. But many of them have been banned. The weirdest thing about DU is the groveling attitudes of DUers as expressed towards their moderators by the more sheeplelike DUers on the "Ask the Admins" forum. Don't miss it! DU is run quite similarly to its mirror image forum FreeRepublic, which is aligned with the Republican party. Same authoritarian tactics, same slavish adherence to the party doctrine. However, in general, the DUers are much more educated and aware than the FreeRepublic posters. However, in general, the Democratic party and DU are much more in line with the real truth and history of America and the world than FreeRepublic/GOP.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Jun 19, 2005 22:53:07 GMT -5
I suppose I should kick this thread as I was banned from DU yesterday, with no explanation. Although I could e-mail the admins there, my understanding is that rarely do they ever write back explaining why someone was banned from their site. So I can only speculate as to why I was considered ban-worthy, even though my posts weren't the least bit controversial. The last post I made expressed my disappointment with both Dean and Conyers for falling for the AP and Milbank's nonsense over an "anti-semetic" pamphlet, the existance of which has never been proven to my knowledge.
And like every other Democratic site, there is a strident Zionist clique at DU as well. Most of the time, it's the typical, over-the-top Zionist rhetoric that I'm sure most here are familiar with. However, one member of this clique in particular, "geek tragedy," posts frequently go beyond strident and veer into potential libel. For example, in a thread discussing the Dean/pamphlet situation, someone posted the Kurt Nimmo blog entry that was posted here and "geek tragedy" basically called Nimmo a "Holocaust denier" and claimed some link on his site supported such an accusation. Well, I went to Nimmo's blog and didn't see anything of the sort; in fact, Nimmo links to DU, so by GT's logic, that would make DU a Holocaust denial site too. So I alerted the moderators about this post stating the foregoing and advised them that GT has a habit of making inflammatory posts just like that, that are not backed up by fact, and it opens DU to a potential libel suit as any lawyer worth their salt would monitor DU and find that GT has a habit of making posts like that and DU has permitted his behavior; not to mention that GT's posts are wholly disgusting in this respect and do not deserve the merit of posterity.
Not even 2 minutes later I alerted another of GT's posts on the same thread because someone made a post discussing the Israeli influence on the PNAC and GT's response basically asked the poster if they copied that from 'The Protocols of The Elders of Zion'. Again, beyond over-the-top into disgusting.
If those things weren't the reason I was banned, as Moses' posts point out, true Leftists, or those that still believe in looking out, and sticking up, for the "great unwashed," are tolerated at DU as long as they don't find fault with the Democratic Party. Or maybe they're only tolerated to give the appearance of a "big tent"; who knows. Anyway, perhaps I made the administrator's watch list because I would frequently post on consumer issues like predatory lending, bankruptcy, credit cards and credit reporting and noted that both the Democrats and Republicans were the problem in this respect. Neither party sticks up for the rights of consumers, or workers, because they're too busy fawning over their corporate benefactors and allowing them to write legislation in the chase for campaign money. Everyone, even the non-political, know it's the truth. But I guess like Israel's name in foreign policy, we're not supposed to mention it.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Jun 19, 2005 23:02:47 GMT -5
Ok, that's weird. DU was registered on December 5, 2000 and Smirking Chimp was registered on December 9, 2000. And the conservative commentator has his dates wrong. Gore conceeded on December 13, a day after the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, not on the 11th.
Registrant: TIEDRICH.COM 37 West 20th Street NEW YORK, NY 10011 US Phone: 212 206 6730 Fax: 123 123 1234 Domain Name: SMIRKINGCHIMP.COM Administrative Contact : TIEDRICH.COM jeff@tiedrich.com 37 West 20th Street NEW YORK, NY 10011 US Phone: 212 206 6730 Fax: 123 123 1234 Technical Contact : Tiedrich, Jeff jeff@TIEDRICH.COM 37 W 20TH ST STE 910 NEW YORK, NY 10011-3715 US Phone: (212) 206-6730 Fax: (212) 206-6738 Record expires on 09-Dec-2005 Record created on 09-Dec-2000 Database last updated on 09-Dec-2004 Domain servers in listed order: Manage DNS MARS.TIEDRICH.COM 160.79.147.122 XIAN.TIEDRICH.COM 160.79.147.123
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 19, 2005 23:35:35 GMT -5
Yes I thought the registration date to be very interesting and disturbing. Like they might have been involved with those in the Democratic Party that attempted to ensure a Gore loss. Among those were Ed Rendel, DNC Chair, Diane Feinstein, Richard Gephardt, Sen. Toricelli, and, previous to the recount, Senator Kerry and perhaps others.
I do know that Bush had promised powerful insiders that he would invade Iraq, and this caused media propaganda to kick in for him (and with the eager agreement to propagandize for the war in Iraq) and a reporter for the Times (I think it was the Times) predicted that the Supreme Court would decide for Bush, because it was essentially like a court that was owned by a crime family, and there was even reference to ring-kissing-- an article that was quickly demonized by the rest of the media which reassured America that they could expect a fair hearing from the SC.
So there were many who knew and were involved in fixing the election for Bush, and his promise to invade the Middle East was the major factor.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Jun 20, 2005 0:55:13 GMT -5
I thought it would be a good idea to post the screen names of the various kinds of trolls and party apparachiks operating at DU.
Known DLC trolls:
wyldwoof pepperbelly dolstein Freddie Stubbs Geek Tragedy The Magistrate [any coincedence he's been a moderator at least 3 consecutive terms now?] Cocoa paulk Inland
[/b]Suspected DLC trolls:[/b]
xultar Radical Activist [don't let the Che avatar, or other Leftist symbols, fool you; the DLC trolls like using them to appear "liberal"] Jackson4Gore tx_dem41 cestpaspossible
Zionist trolls:
Zuni [probably used to be "muddleoftheroad"] Geek Tragedy Jim Sagle ColoradoBlue [even though profile says Chicago] Behind The Aegis Coastie for Truth drdon326 MalikShah The Magistrate
Sept. 11th forum OCT trolls:
BoloBoffin MercutioATC [has other aliases as well with low post counts] vincent_vega_lives LARED hack89 Sgt. Baker [could be another alias of MercutioATC as he claims to have "classified knowledge" of activities at the FAA on Sept. 11th] Make7 Lithos [moderator; forbids discussion of Zionists hijacking US Goverment]
Trolls that don't fit into the above categories:
TTown Jake
I'm sure I left off some names, so I'll update this list as I come across them.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Jun 20, 2005 1:14:46 GMT -5
Now that I think about it, I have a hunch that "Geek Tragedy" and "The Magistrate" are aliases of 2 of DU's administrators.
GT's cover story is that he's a lawyer from NYC. However, this person sure as hell has a lot of time to post for being a lawyer; so if they are, they're not a good one. Second is the fact that GT is allowed to harass other posters and just behave badly without consequence. Third is the pics of the adminstrators. My guess is that GT is probably "Skinner."
"The Magistrate"'s schtick is to write in a 19th Century style. Of course, whoever plays this poster probably think it's cute. Personally, I find it creepy that someone would do that for almost 5,000 posts over the span of nearly 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 20, 2005 13:29:21 GMT -5
Having read some of their threads it is quite striking the similarity of this site and the other one discussed here in allowing certain posters w/ pro-Israeli views to post whatever they want to while those who aren't Israeli propagandists are deleted/banned/locked.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jun 29, 2005 6:03:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jul 19, 2005 23:54:55 GMT -5
Du Thread on Bush's supreme Ct. nominee (women's right to their own bodies are relegated to the "radical fringe" and they should leave the party if they don't like it)
alcibiades_mystery (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:31 PM Original message "If we don't fight this, I'm Leaving the Party!!!" My response: Good. Leave. You're a pain in the ass.
This guy is filibuster proof, pure and simple, and alienating the vast majority of Americans with a drawn out filibuster will do much more damage to the Democratic Party (and to abortion rights) than alienating the party purists, who will come moping back here in 2006 anyway.
There should be reasonable hearings with aggressive questioning, especially on women's rights. The Democrats should promote a women's rights campaign to coordinate with these hearings, just to get people's radar up. If anything ugly comes out, a filibuster should be discussed then. As it stands, however, the guy looks acceptable, and starting off swinging is just plain stupid. You wanna leave? Leave. I, for one, will be happy to see some of the dogmatists depart.
liberaliraqvet26 (297 posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:33 PM Response to Original message 1. i agree... lets get back to rove. it's more fun. this guy don't seem so bad.
Carni (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:55 PM Response to Reply #7 38. All I needed to hear was this guy was involved in the 2000 *recount* I want to claw my own eyes out and then dip my head in lye but what difference would THAT make?
Because behind him bush will have a myriad of nutcases and extremists and loons and eventually one of them will be confirmed--so what is the point of directing the media into a frenzy at the expense of rovegate and Iraq-gate etc.
I see doing that as giving the rove team exactly what it wants currently.
I say the hell with this and stay on the trail of bush's assorted crimes, because we will be stuck with some nutshead of bush's choosing on the supreme court anyway.
Jersey Devil (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:33 PM Response to Original message 2. Even Don Quixote passed by a windmill or two without tilting at it We have to be very careful about where we choose to fight or fall into the trap set for us to make us look like nothing but obstructionists.
Lecky (437 posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:35 PM Response to Original message 9. I agree Lots of knee-jerk responses, not to mention just because someone is pro-life does not mean that once they become a judge they will let their spiritual beliefs sway decisions. It's a whole different ballgame when you are on the Supreme Court...
[Ha ha ha ha ha. Hold on...let me go clean up because I just did a spittake after reading this post. Have any of these people ever read a SC decision on a hot button social issue?
SaveElmer (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:54 PM Response to Original message 37. Looks like we have no hand to play here... The guy looks really conservative, but there is enough wiggle room in his statements, and there are enough liberal democrats who have gone up against him giving him recommendations that I really don't see how we come out looking good filibustering him. Bush is eventually gonna get someone...and it looks like it could have been worse!
I say the dems rake him over the coals in committee...vote against him...but no filibuster
Get back to Rove, Bush and the rest of the cabal
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:58 PM Response to Original message 42. The secession threat will not stop from these people. I always thought that it would be better to gain some more center or center-right votes, than to try to court the high-maintanence segment. It's like they go around advertising they're unreliable...who wants to deal with that grief?
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Jul 24, 2005 23:07:00 GMT -5
DLCer DU: Dem women must love Roberts because Hellary will vote to confirm him. So typical too for the DLC to send one of their own, or an intern, over to spam the site with this crap, and for DUers to fall for it without realizing what's going on.
annerevere (250 posts) Sun Jul-24-05 09:47 PM Original message Hillary supporting Roberts - not a bad thing? Roberts may not be as conservative as people think. Have you read the Washington Post piece on him this morning? The guy does not wear his politics on his sleeve like Scalia and Thomas. He is cautious and respects judicial precedent. And he is married to an ardent feminist who happens to be pro life.
I don't know of many hard-line crazy conservatives who marry feminists. Do you?
Hillary may be doing the smart thing. As long as he isn't right-wing crazy and he's replacing a conservative, he may be a good pick considering the Dems don't control Congress. Bush could have given us a flame thrower. He didn't, and I think he didn't because he is not politically strong enough for a tough fight. annerevere (250 posts) Sun Jul-24-05 09:52 PM Response to Reply #1 3. I know many feminists, my self included who oppose abortion. annerevere (250 posts) Sun Jul-24-05 09:53 PM Response to Reply #4 5. She'll vote for him Because she's positioning herself as a moderate for a run in 2008. annerevere (250 posts) Sun Jul-24-05 09:59 PM Response to Reply #6 13. I see it, but I don't understand why you have to be a card-carrying pro choicer to be a feminist.
If we want to keep losing in 2006 and 2008, let's keep making that connection. And in doing so, we will lose a ton of votes of women who weren't born in the kitchen and who simply disagree.
Geez, let's stop the stereotypes, okay? annerevere (250 posts) Sun Jul-24-05 10:26 PM Response to Reply #15 30. Kerry is like Bush? Geez, that's a tough one to argue. Kerry got a lot of support here at DU, and I don't think it was because he was like Bush. Lieberman is like Bush. And Joe's not going anywhere.
We've got to stop putting down women who are feminist but oppose abortion. I'm one of those, though I don't support the abolition of Roe v. Wade. It is possible to believe in women's equality and opportunity and believe at the same time that life begins at conception.
I dislike clubs that have too many rules, especially ones that shut people out. This is beginning to sound like a very narrow-minded, my-way-or-the-highway club. BeTheChange (471 posts) Mon Jul-25-05 12:50 AM Response to Reply #33 52. Im a feminist who does not support abortion. Im not for outlaw of Roe v. Wade, but I will not march for defending it either.
I believe life begins at conception. I also strongly believe women should have control over their bodies and that starts with taking complete responsibility for thier bodies and KNOWING their bodies. I wake up every morning and chart my temperature and cervical mucus. How many other women in america do that today? How many women have so much knowledge and control over their bodies that they even know what their body is doing on any given day? Although I know that not everyone has a normal cycle, that is also something that can be worked on over time.
Everytime I say this, I am told that no method of birth control is 100%, I of course counter that 3 used simultaneously sure get the numbers wayyyyy up there.
And then, there is always alternate sexuality, oral sex, manual stimulation, nonpenetrating.. etc.
I dont think that abortion is a right. I think it is a decision made by far to many who feel they have no other options. I do not judge them for that, but I dont feel that by making that decision it empowers them.. or by having that decision to make they experience empowerment.
Obviously, this opinion is not popular on du, and Im not going to spend hours answering the slew of negative messages Im likely to get in return. Feminism is defined as: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
I will continue to fight for equality of the sexes. That has nothing to do with abortion. Alcibiades (21 posts) Sun Jul-24-05 11:18 PM Response to Reply #23 41. Only moderate? What about Souter? What about Anthony Kennedy? O'Connor was not the only persuadable vote on the Court.
Roberts is not a hardliner compared to many of the other folks Bush could have chosen, or even when compared to people currently on the Court.
Compared to the many horrible, horrible, ideologically-driven things this administration, the choice of Roberts seems relatively statesmanlike, leading me to believe that it was not made by Bush himself, but that he passed the choice off to someone else. Alcibiades (21 posts) Sun Jul-24-05 11:35 PM Response to Original message 42. Scalia passed 98 to zero The standard for the Senate's consent to a nomination typically isn't whether an individual senator agrees with the nominee on every issue, but is much lower. Basically, if they are not a criminal or insane, and they have decent credentials (legal or political) they're in.
Roberts is a well-qualified candidate. He's shrewd enough not to say anything to offend anyone one way or another. There's a very real chance that he does regard Roe as a matter of settled law. The real fight isn't now, it's when Roe is brought up again.
|
|