Ed Klein is a birther who thinks Clinton murdered dozens of people. His stuff doesn't belong on DU.

[Cali_Democrat]

Remember the post I created a few weeks ago about how DU can avoid getting ratfucked by the GOP?

Here's a snip:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025247689

1) Be suspicious of any MSM article that plays up divisions among Dems. The GOP is in a very weak position historically, especially when you consider their current standing among women and minorities along with the recent demographic changes in this country. The GOP cannot win elections campaigning on their unpopular policies so they will employ the divide and conquer strategy along with tactics such voter suppression.

2) Look at the author of the article. If the author is a well-known GOP hack who writes for conservative websites like the National Review Online, that's a pretty good indication that the article is not what it appears to be. A simple Google search of the author will suffice.

----------------------------------

Well yesterday a DUer decided to post an article from Ed Klein. The article appeared in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. That alone should set off alarm bells.

Here's the piece: http://nypost.com/2014/08/03/kennedys-pushing-warren-to-run-against-hillary-in-2016/

Who is Ed Klein? Well he's basically a racist Obama birther who thinks Obama is a Kenyan-born Manchurian candidate. He also thinks Bill Clinton murdered dozens of people:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/13/even-fox-guests-say-ed-klein-isnt-credible-so-w/184881

-------------------------------------

- Article playing up divisions among Dems? Check.
- GOPer employing the divide and conquer strategy? Check.
- Author is a well-known GOPer? Check.
- Author writes for a conservative website? Check.
- Google search confirms that the author is a ratfucking GOPer? Check.
- Article lacks facts and numbers? Check.

Ed Klein's piece is indeed a classic example of ratfucking 101.

Don't take the bait.

[hrmjustin]

1. Klein is a vile individual and should never be linked here.

[mythology]

100. Here, let me fix that for you

Klein is a vile individual and should never be linked anywhere.

[The Magistrate]

2. True, Sir: People Seriously Need To Use Some Judgement

Even if you have genuine cause to oppose Mrs. Clinton's nomination, crying up right-wing smears and slanders is a wrong thing to do.

"The enemy of my enemy usually is another enemy of mine."

[DURHAM D]

3. I hope the Hosts don't lock this.

They locked this one - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025334117

[Autumn]

4. Here is what can and can not be posted in GD edited

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

anything else would be a CS issue and for a jury to decide. You should alert on that OP. I decided to take one for the team and I alerted but it had already been to a jury and they voted 3-4 to keep IT.

[SidDithers]

26. No, anything else would be an SOP issue that Hosts can lock...

Aren't you a Host? Don't you know the difference between CS and SOP alerts?



Sid

[Autumn]

31. Then alert on it as an SOP violation. I gave a link to what is allowable to post per Skinner.

Anything else would be a CS issue and a jury voted to leave it.

I have never seen a list of sites, bloggers or authors that are not allowed.

[SidDithers]

33. Skinner's post, the one you linked to, clarifies the SOP for GD...

so that Hosts can better enforce it, and more easily know what is and isn't off topic.

If you really think that an off-topic post is a Community Standards violation, then by all means, send it to a jury. Obviously you do, because you did.

Most everyone else, however, recognizes that potentially off-topic posts should be judged, and maybe locked, by the 30 Forum Hosts.

Of which you are one.

Sid

[Autumn]

34. Send an alert on it

[SidDithers]

41. No, because I don't think this thread comes close to being an SOP violation...

why would I alert on something that I don't think is an SOP violation?

You thought the post was off-topic, and chose to send it to a jury, rather than sending it to the Hosts.

Again,I would have thought that a long-term Host such as yourself would understand the difference between jury alerts for violations of Community Standards, and Host alerts for violations of forum Statement of Purpose.

Obviously, I thought wrong.

Sid

[Autumn]

42. I sent Manny's OP to a jury, not this one.

I see no reason to send an alert on this one, SOP or CS . Yeah I'm thinking you think wrong. My response was to the OP's complaint about something they don't like being posted in GD. Now I'm wondering, would an OP about this OP be disruptive meta or discussing the discussion.

[MineralMan]

5. Some people post right-wing RFing or astroturfing articles by accident.

Some post them deliberately to disrupt the DU discussion. The only thing DUers can do is to alert on the post, and try to explain why the article at the link is a right-wing piece of crap. Then, the jury will vote on it.

Juries sometimes vote based on actual information and base their vote on rational thinking. Other jurors vote in other ways, based on things only they understand. Some jurors may actually like astroturfing and will vote to leave such posts. You take your chances when you alert.

The result is that a lot of right-wing astroturfing gets posted on DU and gets left by juries. The only thing an alerter can do is spend the time needed to write an explanation of their alert that clearly explains that the post represents a right-wing point of view. But it's up to the jury, and not all such posts will be hidden, sadly.

[eridani]

75. No excuses, period. If the info is worth posting, it should also be available from--

--a non-objectionable source.

[randys1]

101. Let me add a PERIOD to that!

[Fla Dem]

6. The post was alerted on, but survived the jury by a 2-5 vote.

[m-lekktor]

7. you are correct. i have read his shit.

it is nuts.

[William769]

8. DU juries say otherwise.

What a sad day for DU.

[onehandle]

9. Yeah, but it got like 20 recs on DEMOCRATIC Underground.

So it passed the 'sniff test' with flying colors.

[Nye Bevan]

10. "Look at what RWers are saying" posts are quite common here.

Some of the best DUers have been known to start such OPs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251246074?com=search

[pnwmom]

12. Mocking the Rethugs is not the same as deliberately repeating their lies

because you don't like the same Dem the Rethug is targeting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5333469

[Andy823]

52. Exactly

And when those repeated lies get 35 recs, well it makes me wonder just what the hell is going on.

Seems that for some it's OK to spread such BS here on DU, and when those kind of posts get recd, and juries vote to leave the BS, it makes others post the same dribble from the right wing. I have no problem if people want to voice their concerns about someone who might be a candidate in 2016, but using crap from a Murdoch owned source from known right wing nut jobs just seems to be going over the top if you ask me.

[JI7]

14. that one is making fun of what republicans are saying

[LanternWaste]

15. So is rationalizing a post that has no place on DU.

""Look at what RWers are saying" posts are quite common here..."

So is rationalizing a post that has no place on DU.

[YoungDemCA]

38. Oh please

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

[cheapdate]

69. This is a good post.

I don't always agree with Cali, but this post is a good reminder to stay vigilant and critical.

[pnwmom]

11. Another prominent poster put it up again today. n/t

[JDPriestly]

13. Democrats are divided. Of course. It's called democracy.

It's called free speech.

I am a life-long Democrat and I am divided from the Hillary Clinton backers. I will vote for just about any Democrat other than Hillary Clinton and I have good reasons for it.

I have no idea who Ed Klein is because I do not read the right-wing press unless it is posted on DU.

I remember when people used to post Fox News videos on DU all the time. That was an absolute waste of bandwidth. But the Klein article was interesting. I'd like to keep censorship to a minimum. We all learn from an opener DU.

[blue neen]

17. The OP includes links to explain who Ed Klein is and why he is not a reputable source for DU.

So, now you will know and be educated about who Klein is.

I also am a life-long Democrat and am not even ready to make decisions about 2016 yet. We have a very important Governor's race going on in PA, right now, in 2014. With that being said, I want to be able to make an educated decision in 2016 about our party's nominee. Articles from reputable sources will enable me to do that. Articles from right-wing hacks? Not so much.

[NYC Liberal]

25. People can post what they want. But when posting drivel from racist right-wing nuts, expect it to be

called out.

[Maedhros]

35. That is the proper response to this type of post.

If Ed Klein is wrong in what he is writing, then posting a refutation will encourage discussion of why Klein is wrong and readers can have the opportunity to learn.

If Ed Klein is right in what he is writing, then the facts stand for themselves despite his track record.

[Laelth]

77. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[SummerSnow]

16. They always get exposed. thanks for the info.

[Bobbie Jo]

63. Repeatedly. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

18. Klein is scum.

I would not trust a word he says. He also published a book that said the elderly Ethel Kennedy overturned furniture after being snubbed by Obama. LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[A Simple Game]

19. Democrats for censorship, my these are interesting times. n/t

[NuclearDem]

20. Yeah, yeah, "censorship."

DU has a policy that right wing bullshit isn't supposed to be posted here. If that's too much to handle, too bad.

[Maedhros]

37. One can't determine that a given piece of writing is "right wing bullshit" without first reading it.

If it is indeed bullshit, then it will be easily refuted with a counter-argument.

[Corruption Inc]

55. You mean like apologizing for torturers?

As disgusting as it is, it is allowed to stay.

[Cha]

59. If rw bullshit is their cuppa.. perhaps they'd enjoy the discussionist?

[Puzzledtraveller]

21. Indeed

Like some piece by a rightwing hack is somehow going to convert people to their way of seeing things. I does not say a lot about the confidence we have in each other. I would welcome them as learning tools and ways to better contrast our differences because we are confident.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. No differences of opinion allowed.

This guilt-by-association stuff is appalling.
And from such an unlikely source.

"Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

[NYC Liberal]

28. I'm all for not giving racist nut jobs a platform at DU.

There are lots of things you can't post here. Take a look at the TOS.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

No bigoted hate speech.
Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

DU was founded as a haven for Democrats, not a free-for-all for anyone under the sun.

In fact, ALL online forums have rules and "censor" people. That's a good thing.

[SidDithers]

29. You might want to double check the Terms of Service that you agreed to when you created your account

there are lots of topics and opinions that aren't allowed at DU. DU has always censored certain opinions and sources - we don't let conservative republicans post here, we don't let posters advocate for third parties here.

Again, you agreed to those rules when you signed up. Complaining about them now is pretty weak.

Sid

[A Simple Game]

80. But we do let conservative Democrats post here. I don't see much difference, do you?

Actually I am non-affiliated, what party are you affiliated with Sid?

[SidDithers]

84. Conservative Democrats want to elect more Democrats...

Republicans want to defeat Democrats. That's the difference.

That's also why third-party advocates aren't allowed to campaign against Demicrats here, with certain very limited exceptions.

Is that really so hard to figure out?

Sid

[riqster]

93. Well put.

[A Simple Game]

94. Hard to figure out? No, as a liberal I don't see much difference between a conservative

with a D or an R after their name. I would think that it was becoming obvious to most people, conservatives want to elect more conservatives regardless of party affiliation.

The Democratic party used to stand for certain things and all of them were considered liberal or at least progressive, are you telling me that has changed? You do know what conservatives stand for don't you?

So what is your affiliation Sid? I see you forgot to answer that question. From reading your posts I get the impression you are a Conservative, is that the party you belong to or should I change the C to a c? Or did you say you were a Demicrat? That's a new one to me.

[SidDithers]

96. Then I guess you fall squarely into the 'don't care about electing more Democrats' camp...

Again, you might want to check the Terms of Service. They pretty clearly state that DU is a place for people who think electing more Democrats is a good thing.

Sid

[A Simple Game]

97. You seem to be concerned about the TOS, well I have read all of the Terms and such.

Do you know where this comes from?

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

That is DU's mission statement, you knew that didn't you? Other than the name Democrat doesn't seem to be that prominent. Do you understand the meaning of politically liberal people means. You do know what a mission statement means, don't you Sid?

If you wish to follow the TOS perhaps you should quit pushing a conservative agenda as there is no mention of supporting conservatives in the mission statement but the word liberal is prominent!

[SidDithers]

98. *sigh*...

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges.

You do realize that DU is a partisan website, don't you?

It's not Yahoo. It's not Discussionist. It's not "anything goes".



Sid

[A Simple Game]

99. Of course I know DU is a partisan web site, I stated so when I copied the mission statement.

You did so yourself:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

Read the bold, I know conservatives don't like to admit it but DU used to be a liberal web site.

By the way, I knew you wouldn't answer what your political affiliation was, so I have to assume it is a C and a c.

Only conservatives advocate for censorship, a true liberal will allow discussion then refute by debate, never ban. Then liberals have the truth and history on their side so feel safe debating conservatives. Conservatives don't want discussion to shed light on their ideals because history is not kind to them.

You show trust in your principles by broadcasting them, liberals trust in their principles and welcome exposure. Conservatives hide their principles because they know they are rooted in selfishness.

[JI7]

32. you do realize this is not an open forum and there are restrictions on what can be posted ?

[steve2470]

39. If I want to read RW bullshit, I'll go to Discussionist, Yahoo, YouTube, etc.....

so, yea, I'm 100% cool with censorship here, which, of course, is by a private business and not by a government.

[YoungDemCA]

40. Democrats for right-wing propaganda, my these are interesting times

Nt

[bahrbearian]

79. Yup Disgusting times

[Corruption Inc]

88. They're not democrats

but still accepted and encouraged to bully people daily, along with supporting torturers, endless propaganda and throwing every single person with even the slightest liberal bent under the bus.

[A Simple Game]

95. They do like bashing liberals don't they. n/t

[Historic NY]

22. For anyone that doesn't know Rupert Murdoch owns the rag ....

Last edited Mon Aug 4, 2014, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

since its inception its followed the Joseph Goebbels propaganda methods. The Post is used to float an article like Klein's in the so called main stream press pretty soon it gets linked back to as a source at FOX and then its onto the talking assholes to create it as a talking point. Don't believe me pickup the rag at someplace where its left behind (I would spent the money on it) soon you will see. The newspaper is use to plant the story to make it grow and sound legitimate. The tentacles these links grow are spread by an army of blow hards.

[Historic NY]

61. I see the Boston paper...

picking up the story now.....this is how the propaganda genesis machine of the Murdoch empire works..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025335851

[Historic NY]

61. I see the Boston paper...

picking up the story now.....this is how the propaganda genesis machine of the Murdoch empire works..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025335851

[SidDithers]

23. Ratfuckers gonna ratfuck...

Thanks for calling attention to this in a way that Hosts won't lock.



Sid

[zappaman]

43. Did you send an alert Sid Dithers of DU?

I don't see one from anybody.
Love the recs on that thread though.
You better believe it!

[SidDithers]

44. No. Someone else innoculated the post with an early CS alert...

and I'm still of the opinion that SOP alerts basically just disappear into a black hole.



Sid

[bettyellen]

53. would you alert zappaman? I'm sure I would not bother, being black listed as we were.

[Hekate]

24. Thanks for being on this, Cali Democrat.

Just thanks.

Already there are apologists for the practice in this thread. Whee.

[Iliyah]

30. K & R

Thanks! I've seen and read a lot of right wing, goper, libertarian talking points here at the DU followed by the tolls in support thereof.

Again thank you.

[zappaman]

36. You better believe it!

[Iliyah]

45. AND Happy Birthday to President Obama!

I remember back in the day when President's birthdays were mentioned especially by the media, well before corporate media R's . . .

[msanthrope]

46. Damn straight. Well done. nt

[LeftishBrit]

47. Agree; wouldn't trust Ed Klein further than I could throw him.

[totodeinhere]

48. OK I agree with you about Ed Klein after Googling him and reading about him.

But I think the reason why this got so much play at DU is because there are plenty of DUers, perhaps even a majority, who would like nothing better than to see Warren run against Clinton. So this article pops up about Warren being pushed to run against Clinton and people identify with it without realizing who Klein is. Remember that not everybody operates at the same level of awareness. I must admit that I had never heard of Ed Klein before I stumbled on to your OP.

[RufusTFirefly]

51. Agree with you. It struck a chord.

Klein is a hack, what David Brock used to be before he came over from the dark side.
That said, the broad-brush prohibitions in the OP (not specifically relating to Klein) are pretty creepy.

A whole bunch of people and issues could be swept under the bus if these "rules" were applied indiscriminately.

[El Shaman]

49. TO Cali D

Ed Kline is out of style: he still wears 'panty hose' under his leotards.

[IrishAyes]

50. People who post such articles don't belong on DU either!

Can someone not read the word 'DEMOCRATIC' in the title? Did they wander into the wrong pew by mistake? THIS IS NOT THE 'BI-PARTISAN OPEN SEWER PIT'!

If the website owners want to scratch their heads wondering what happened when such an atmosphere inevitably drives away dedicated progressives, let them try to remember all the warning rumbles from the past.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. Thank You. My only hope is that the offenders meet the same fate as BBI, who finally slipped up....

with her "sourcing".

[freshwest]

56. I believe that was 'their' sourcing, not just one person. A DUer saw a group typing in BBI's OPs

at a public wi-fi spot.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. Well daayyyuummm! Talk about "trolling". Why would they expend that kind of energy?

[freshwest]

60. Either independently wealthy or paid? We'll never really know and don't know if anyone here does it.

Last edited Mon Aug 4, 2014, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

IIRC, Skinner has said he does not believe we have paid posters, etc. and it's wrong to accuse others of it so I never do. But Skinner banned BBI:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293

Whether it was from that allegation or not, IDK. It may have been BBI's last Journal entry, but I haven't checked the dates:

Obama's gay marriage move has no impact on policies: Still Hasn't Signed Anti-Discrimination Order

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002677848

Written by this guy:

Daniel Halper is an American political writer. He serves as the online editor of the conservative news publication The Weekly Standard[1] and is the author of an unflattering 2014 biography[2] of the Clinton family titled Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Halper

Now we find this article posted, referring to how the GOP is trolling the left and those memes keep on going:

Meet the GOPers Trolling Hillary From the Left

By Patrick Caldwell - Aug. 4, 2014

With Democratic groups uniting behind a Clinton presidential bid, America Rising has swooped in to stir up her progressive critics...

More at the link:

http://www.motherjones.com/print/257546

to OKNancy.

So this series of articles connected to this thread by the OP, is very timely. This is what we are going to be assaulted with all the way through the election of 2016. Plus the unual Obama, Biden, Democrat bashing with a dash of Kennedy (alive and dead) basing thrown in for kicks. And the EW vs HRC vs PBO staple by the Segretti method.

Media sources are fair game. I'm not sure if it's trolling or inability to get better source material. But there are definite patterns I have never seen with Democrats IRL.

[Cha]

66. Hi freshwest..

thanks for your post. that first link doesn't work, though. I was away for two years while Skinner banned BBI.. one of the reasons I left.

[freshwest]

67. How very odd! I tried it twice, the second time I put it in above the bad one, it worked.

I tried to remove the bad one several times, each time the new one worked, but removing the bad one made the good one not work. I didn't mix them up, either. So I've posted the Profile which says:

Information on this Transparency page is currently displayed to logged-in members because the member's posting privileges were revoked on May 12, 2012.

Then a click to go to the transparency page works, and Skinner said:

'Enough is enough.'

So it's been a while but I still remember that was the first thing that greeted me when I checked into DU for a long time. Just that steady drip,drip,drip of F.U.D. daily...

[Cha]

68. May 12, 2012! You Better Believe Enough is Enough! Thank you, fresh!

[LiberalLovinLug]

104. First I've heard of BBI

So I looked at his journal. Its full of articles from various publications. Mostly Salon or The Nation. Others like the Columbia Journalism Review, or the Center for Economic and Policy Research. I'm sorry to see BBI had to leave. He put up some hard hitting articles from mostly liberal points of view.

[barbtries]

57. i won't even click on the link

thank you for the heads up.

[MarianJack]

64. My general rule of thumb is...

...if it looks, sounds and smells like Republican/teabagger horseshit, than it IS!

PEACE!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. "Ed Klein's piece is indeed a classic example of ratfucking 101."

Does he mention duct tape?

[MADem]

70. Pleased to be the hundredth rec.

I can't help but notice that blatant falsehoods put forth in that thread--that were proven to be false-- were never retracted, either.

That shouldn't be tolerated here.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. You think DUers need to be protected from properly-attributed information?

Or that people can't understand what it means when a post starts with "Only the NY Post, but an entertaining thought if it happens to be true." (Emphases mine). That they don't understand that this means "I'm passing this along but don't think much of it, but you may find it interesting?"

I disagree: I think DUers can sucessfully navigate the English language, and so did the jury that vetted the post you linked to. I think people on DU are adults with critical minds who can judge properly-attributed information. Sounds like you don't, which is consistent with your other opinions, e.g. that Americans should not know that the NSA is spying on many millions of Americans, that the NSA revelations are total nonsense, and blaming the anger on racists and Libertarians, and so forth.

Is your mission - to protect us - the source of your unfounded personal attacks on Glenn Greenwald? For example, in response to a post Reporting Based On NSA Leaks Wins Polk Award (Greenwald, MacAskill, Poitras, & Gellman), you posted the following:

Flashback: Greenwald calls his business partner "a little bitch" and "a good little whore."

The piece was written by the son of an Obama appointee, the emails unsubstantiated, and the thing had been widely panned as a load of crap.

It had nothing to do with the OP, it was a hit job, yet you presented that as fact. No preface that said anything questioning its veracity at all.

Protection. We need protection. Thank you for your protection.

[msanthrope]

73. You mean where you told DUers you were quoting a racist, sexist birther who thinks Chelsea Clinton

is a product of rape?

Oh, right---you didn't do that, Manny.

And by the way--who gives a shit what is said here about Glenn Greenwald?

Is he a DUer? Is he an elected Democratic official? Is there something in the TOS that protects him? No?

Then he's fair fucking game on this partisan Democratic website.

[Maedhros]

90. Indeed, Manny.

Nicely done.

[rhett o rick]

92. Apparently the dangers of your OP so terrified some that they considered it justified

to post ad hominem attack after attack in lieu of simply refuting the article. The obvious tactic is to overwhelm with volume rather than simply providing a coherent argument. And now they are continuing the attack in this thread.

I can see why some might be frightened and afraid of articles like that and understand that they might want a safe haven from them. But they have a Group just for that. I don't like that they are trying to turn DU into such a safe-haven.

DU is supposed to be a message board for "politically liberal" posters, and as such we don't need the protection that demands censorship.

[Number23]

72. K&R'ing for poster #71 in this thread

The hit dog hollering.

[msanthrope]

74. Apparently, we have been unfair to Glenn Greenwald. I don't know quite how we got there, but there

we are.

[Number23]

103. That person and his (dwindling daily) fan club of mindless clapping seals

are a source of never ending, eye rolling idiocy. When their time is up BBI style, there will be celebrations for days.

[Laelth]

76. I appreciate your desire to protect the Party from those who seek to injure it.

But the latest Klein piece is quite relevant, and it has yet to be de-bunked in its entirety. It's not hard to imagine members of the Kennedy family taking an interest in the Party's 2016 Presidential nominee.

Generally speaking, I favor more speech over less speech, and I don't think Klein can do quite as much damage as you imagine. If what he writes turns out to be a pack of lies, we'll all find out soon enough, but I'd rather preserve the ability to discuss the matter openly.

-Laelth

[stonecutter357]

78. .

[7962]

81. Shouldnt the validity of a story matter more than where the heck it comes from??

Good grief. Its like a bunch of children around here sometimes. Ohhhh, that story came from fox, I cannot read it!! Is the darn story true? If not, then point THAT out.

[winter is coming]

83. Warren has allegedly said the story is false.

And by "allegedly", I mean that I haven't personally seen a news article quoting Warren, but a DUer claims to have contacted the Warren folks and I see no reason to dispute their claim.

[7962]

85. I was actually generalizing, but I see your point on this one. But it is the POTUS race,

Where everyone says they're not running. Until they are!

[winter is coming]

86. True. n/t

[randys1]

102. Bad sources simply should NEVER be used here or anywhere that wants credibility

If the story can be found on a credible source, then the story has legitimacy, under NO terms should we EVER source to bad sources...

[valerief]

82. I think the only NY Post page you should consider linking would be this:

http://nypost.com/horoscope/

Well, unless you go all Nancy Reagan on us.

[Blanks]

87. Posting the opinions of supporters of the opposition party...

Isn't nearly as damaging to the democrats as people who have been HERE from the beginning saying that there's no difference between the two parties.

Posting articles from birthers and other nut jobs let's us know (if you come here for news) what the opposition is up to and what they feel strongly about. Which gives us (as die hard democrats) the opportunity to find fault with their reasoning and discuss the kind of things we can 'explain' to the moronic conservative types that move in and out of the circles in our personal lives.

I'd rather see a whole forum featuring right-wing nut job articles than see the folks who are supposed to be staunch liberals/progressives whine about democrats and say they're no better than republicans, but that's just me.

[SidDithers]

89. Kicking...nt

Sid

[YoungDemCA]

91. K&R. Not all sources are created equal

nt