Why is it a crime to ask Dean bashers for links?

[dsc]

I frankly am getting sick to death of asking Dean bashers to back up their stuff and being called names for doing so. I got asked to provide a link that I had provided over a half dozen times. While I still think the person had to have seen that link I did so. I ask for a link on something I had literally never seen on here before and I get cussed out and called names. It seems to me if you post things as facts you should back them up. Is that really such a novel idea that Dean bashers think they don't have to do this but then can expect Dean supporters to provide them upon request?

Sorry I forgot the link to the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=53848&mesg_id=53848

[wyldwolf]

1. Examples?

Links?

[blm]

7. He's talking about this post

blm  (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-06-03 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. That's the speech that inspired Aaron Sorkin for a West Wing
script. Sorkin is a big fan of Kerry's longtime efforts and endorsed Kerry.
Thanks for that reminder, w_a_l.


He then demanded a link. I said I heard it a few years back, and he berated me for not having a link. I complained about his board nanny ways with me when he gives most others a pass. I hardly think my original post was worthy of such strict judgement. I was sharing what I heard. And there was not even a reference to Dean in the post, so dsc's intent to seek sympathy for a Dean bash is absurd.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Like saying Kerry's speech inspired Sorkin is a 'bash' against Dean

talk about a leap of logic!

[JI7]

19. don't see how that's a bash

in fact it has nothing to do with dean.

[dsc]

24. I was referring to her entire record

in calling her a Dean basher and I stand behind that characterization. I never said, nor did I imply, that the particular statement was why she was a Dean basher. If you really need links to show she is I will provide them though it will be tomorrow.

[blm]

42. Your record harrassing me like a board nanny

is quite evident.

I point to Dean's OWN words and actions in the political arena. If you don't like what Dean has said or done and want it to remain hidden, that says more about your agenda to elect him at all costs.

There are many other posters that use inflammatory and vitriolic attacks against candidates. Why don't you babysit them?

[ModerateMiddle]

54. Geez

This is what happens around here if you endorse a particular candidate. EVERY single thing you say afterwards is considered to be a "bash" against any OTHER candidate.

I like Joe Wilson's response when the Repukes try to slam him as a "partisan hack" for having donated to John Kerry's campaign:

"I am an American citizen. My wife and I are both entitled to participate in the political process."

[sfecap]

18. You mean this Aaron Sorkin?

Sorkin, Aaron
5/8/2003 $1,000.00
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Self employed/Writer -
DEAN FOR AMERICA


http://www.tray.com

(Actually in all fairness...he also gave to Gephart, but nothing to Kerry...his wife gave to Dean, Gep, and to Kerry....)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Yes, is there another one?

[dsc]

26. he has endorsed Kerry though

she is correct on that. Which BTW I admitted on that thread.

[dsc]

23. that is not what I did and you damn well know it

I asked for the link after you stated it as fact. You then cussed me out. You only stated you heard it after I admittedly returned in kind. But you started it not I and you never said you heard it until well after it started. Try telling the truth.

[blm]

41. The truth is there for anyone to see.

Why can't you treat me the same as than any other person on this board, dsc? You have done this to me for many months.

If I remember something I heard on Cspan, you want me to keep it to myself because I can't link to it. But, did it ever occur to you that if I posted what I heard, someone else may remember an article that they read that could add to the picture?

[roughsatori]

2. Could you provide a link to the name calling?

Sorry I could not resist. I have had people demand links, then I provide them, then they ask for it again later on other threads. It is bizarre, indeed.

[wyldwolf]

3. I've seen the same thing...

It's like they pretend they didn't see them the first time.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. Often, there is no acknowledgement of the fact that someone takes

the time to provide links, either. Someone will demand a link, the person asked for a link will post a link, perhaps several links and text, and the person who demanded it won't respond at all, or will blow off all the links provided. Too many DUers can't or won't say "I disagree with your conclusions," preferring to say "You're wrong."

[helleborient]

65. That one's easy...

Look on the current thread on who was right - Dean or Kerry

blm calls those that disagree...lazyminded

[blm]

66. Wrong...I said those who call Kerry a warmonger are lazyminded

and there was no specifying who, just a general comment - because it is obvious that they have no grasp of Kerry's full record on military issues and matters of war and have not bothered to comprehend his stance on Iraq. You can't call someone who has a long record of opposing military action a warmonger for voting for a resolution that allowed military force as a last resort. It's just not accurate.

Have you complained to MWO and the Daily Howler for their similar observations?

[clar]

4. Me thinks

that certain folks have double standard. And let's face it, certain Dean bashers are clearly rabid on the subject. (Not that certain bashers of other candidates aren't) And I, for one, really appreciate the number of times you've provided links.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. If people are calling you names, report them to the mods or

admins.

[JaneQPublic]

6. Hint

Certain ones like to alter the quotes or take them out of context. So if they gave you a link to the original, you'd find out they were making sh!t up!

In fairness though, some Dean bashers do make valid points and back them up with documentation -- but some don't.

[acerbic]

13. Not only that...

Certain ones like to alter the quotes or take them out of context. So if they gave you a link to the original, you'd find out they were making sh!t up!

A select few have "advanced" to giving a link AND making up what it says. They are the most admired by the lower level liars.

[Mairead]

39. Do us all a favor: choose different terms for people who

criticise with cites vs people who utter unsupported opinions as though they were solid science. 'Bash' is like 'flame' -- if you degrade the language by using only one word to cover everything, communication stops.

[JaneQPublic]

40. No, I chose the appropriate word

Bashing is exactly what they're doing, especially when they bastardize direct quotes and text from articles to make Dean (or any other candidate) look bad. If you are so concerned about people who "degrade the language," you would direct your admonitions towards these people. Their purpose isn't to illuminate the truth, but to obscure it.

[ModerateMiddle]

56. That's simply crap

I can be called a "Dean Basher" because I don't like the man. I certainly don't want him to be the Dem standard bearer next year against Bush. I don't like his positions, I don't like the license he takes with words, and I don't like that he disses people who have spent their lives in public service. I don't like him.

But the things I say here about him are things that for the most part have come out of his OWN MOUTH. I don't lie about him, and I don't make shit up. ONE TIME I posted something that I'd just heard on CNN and didn't have a link to it, and I backed off. Turns out that when the transcript was available, that's EXACTLY what he had said.

If what I do is "bashing", ok. But I'm not going to stop. I don't think he should be our nominee, and I will say so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. You mean like these?

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/13/dean_backed_medicare_cuts_in_1995_gephardt_says_boston_globe http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast
http://www.n-jcenter.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/NationWorld/03LegislaturePOL03091503.htm
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dean12jul12,1,6655901.story?coll=la-home-leftrail
http://www.socialsecurity.org/dailys/07-02-03.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/31711.html
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/41007
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

[wyldwolf]

10. Well, now, this thread has suddenly become a keeper!

[dsc]

11. you do provide links

and I hope you saw mine in regards to Dean's record on gay rights.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. I just couldn't resist lol

dsc you are ok in my book -- hey we all get a little hot under the collar sometimes -- before we know it we'll all be on the same side... isn't it gonna be a little dull to be saying 'ditto' to each other all the time though... lol

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. "Lol" is the proper response to 95% of those links.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Care to say what there is that is so funny?

Your blanket assertions are as impressive as your blind faith and unquestioning loyalty.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. I think all of us who criticize Dean provide links. . . Why not call

us "Dean critics," by the way? It's more accurate than "Dean bashers" and is a polite term. IMO, if you call people "bashers" for making some critical remarks, you're encouraging them to ramp up to actual bashing.

[dsc]

16. It is precisely due to that difference existing

that I used that word. One of the reasons I used that word bashers was to distinguish people who behave that way (not providing links etc) and those who don't. I didn't mean to imply that all people critical of Dean behave this way.

[blm]

43. I have provided many links.

And there isn't ONE charge that I have made against Dean that doesn't have a link that I have provided at some point. I can reference a fact that I assume everyone has seen countless times here, and I get accused of not providing a link.

You stepped up this line of attack against me, dsc, when I lost alot of my links after a lightning strike, and you know it has become a bit more difficult.

[dsc]

47. each and every time I have asked you for a link

I have either gotten a link which didn't say what you said it said, excuses as to why the link can't be produced, or cussed out and called names. It happened with the Gary Hart thing. It happened with the example I cited here. It happened with reports from CSPAN. It is a constant occurance with you. It isn't my fault you can't and or won't back up what you say. I realize in your world, life is one grand conspiracy to make Kerry look bad but it is you who do that all by your lonesome.

One last thing. None of my links are stored. Not a one. So each and every time I get asked for one I have to find it anew. On that thread I had to go to google, type in Dean and civil unions, and click on the article to get the link. That will change now that I have a computer and more ability to store favorite sites but for the two plus years I have been here that is precisely how I did it.

[blm]

48. Baloney...and completely distorted.

The Gary Hart story was NOWHERE to be found when googled and YOU KNOW IT. The Denver Post archived it and made it pay-per-view. The ABC Note pulled it and doesn't have any access to that day. You choose to paint me as a liar, instead of facing the fact the story couldn't easily be accessed. The link I used originally from the Denver Posat was broken and you did what you always do... YOU BLAMED ME.

On the Cspan reports, I only repeated what was in a previous thread here on that same Washington Journal piece and YOU treated me once again as if I made it up whole cloth.

I have never made a charge against Dean that wasn't backed up with a news report and link. Just because I reference a fact that has been linked and seen repeatedly here by most everyone without providing the link anew, allows you to berate me?

The so-called BASHING always comes down to an article posted that points to Dean's CENTRISM. That's not a bash if you want to vote for a centrist, is it? But liberals have good reason to be wary, and liberals used to be able to post here at DU and point out centrism where they found it.

[boxster]

17. In the same thread: posts like this from other Dean supporters don't help

your cause, I'm afraid:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=53848&mesg_id=54700&page=

The entire post is in the subject line: "Kerry will say anything -- he doesn't mean a word of it."

I think maybe you're seeing some backlash from unsubstantiated crap like this. The poster has been posting stuff like this, starts a flame war, and disappears. You can't really expect the "Dean bashers" to respond positively when your fellow Dean supporters are posting this garbage.

Nothing you did - this poster has been doing this in several threads. Methinks he's a troll.

[dsc]

21. You will note I responded to that poster

and that I said they were off base. I specificly said that Kerry's record on gays and lesbians is terrific. You are right that those type of comment are out of line.

[boxster]

45. And I give you credit for doing so.

The poster has since been tombstoned, but my main point was that it's tough to discuss "real" issues about the candidates when this kind of crap keeps getting posted. It leads people to equate a candidate with their supporters (very often in a negative way), and it leads to the "you supporters are all alike" kind of responses.

Obviously, this is primary politics and it's going to occur, but I guess my best advice is to just ignore the unsubstantiated BS. If you post documentation for your positions, you can't really do much more than that to help your candidate. Some posters wouldn't acknowledge proof of a statement even if it came from God, so don't feel bad! :P

[acerbic]

22. That poster has been tombstoned

Who knows if it was a stupid Dean supporter or just a generic troll... but at the same time Dean haters who behave the same as that one or worse just go on...

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Got a link for that, acerbic? A link for "Dean haters" behaving badly?

I haven't seen anyone criticizing Dean and calling him a liar. You are constantly talking about how much people lie when they criticize Dean. So show us a link.

[dsc]

27. I take it you didn't see the thread

in this forum entitled Dean is a lying politician.

Here is the link (btw it was on the front page of this forum for several hours today and still is.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=38692&mesg_id=38692

Care to edit your question?

[DemBones DemBones]

28. While I wouldn't post that sort of statement myself, it is allowed

under the rules, right? I seem to remember a post from Skinner addressing this. If someone says Dean, or Kerry, or Kucinich, is a lying politician and posts something to support that contention, it's not bashing, IMO.

IMO, "bashing" suggests making unfair, untrue or unsubstantiated comments.


I haven't read the thread you cite yet, but you keep complaining about "Dean bashing" and acerbic keeps talking about people "lying" and I haven't seen either of you make the case that supports your allegations.

[Meshuga]

30. I agree...

There were links supporting the point but I would probably choose a different title. This might be more effective since people saw it as bashing just by looking at the title.

[dsc]

31. This is what you wrote in post 25

I honestly haven't seen anyone criticizing Dean and calling him a liar. You are constantly talking about how much people lie when they criticize Dean. So show us a link.

I provided you a link entitled Dean is a lying dishonest politician. Am I missing something here? If that isn't calling Dean a liar then what on God's green earth is it?

As to your point about my link, which you didn't even read it should be noted, I did call her a Dean basher but what I specificly complained about here, and which is evident on the thread is that when I asked for a link I was cussed out (she used fuck in her post) and called names (net nanny). I provided the link you need to click it and actually read it I can't do everything.

[Pez]

29. he did provide links though

it's kind of opinion at that point.

[dsc]

32. This is what was written in post 25

I haven't seen anyone criticizing Dean and calling him a liar. You are constantly talking about how much people lie when they criticize Dean. So show us a link.

I provided a link to a thread entitled "Dean is a dishonest lying politician". On what planet have I not fullfilled the requirements she or he asked for?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Should've been:'Dean is a morally-challenged, dissembling politician'

Well, can't edit it now. Maybe next time.

[dsc]

34. While for some odd reason

the mods don't agree I still would call that calling someone a liar. Again the poster asked for a certain think to be linked and I did. That seems to have not been what the poster really wanted though. I will give you that you did provide links and it will be wierd when the stuff dies down in March or April.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Yes it would be

the 'PC' way to call someone a liar...

I mean, take the 'don't call another member a liar' rule. There was one thread where someone made a point of lying and then saying "go ahead. call me a liar" lol so what are you gonna do?

[Pez]

35. are you talking to me? n/t

[blm]

44. And yet you label me

a basher, failing to notice that I don't participate in threads that inflammatory. Go figure.

[Punkingal]

36. That poster was a disrupter......

he made disparaging comments about several candidates, and he has been tombstoned.

[Mairead]

38. Where's the cite I asked you for, D?

There've been several times when you've irritated the hell out of me by making some unsupported claim and then not responding when you're called on it. The latest occasion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=472504

[dsc]

49. It is called the US Constitution

crack open any history book and look at article one. I shouldn't have to cite things that our public knowledge. The fact that Congress is exempt from many laws it passes is public knowledge. The excutive branch can't enforce laws against Congress without its conscent. This was one of the major issues of the 94 election which cost us congress. If you don't know that then you frankly are not as intelligent or well read as you appear.

btw I said taht in that thread as you well know.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. You are wrong, and frankly it is a ridiculous argument

to say that the US Constitution dictates that Congressmen have sealed boxes of records archived somewhere.

They don't, and it doesn't.

[Mairead]

51. I ask this in all seriousness: is there something wrong with you?

You declared flatly that all other candidates have sealed records. I'm asking you for a cite demonstrating that they have sealed records. NOT for a cite saying the Constitution gives them the right to have sealed records if they want to, but a cite showing that they all have actual, physical boxes or barrels or vaults filled with records that are sealed against public inspection.

You claim that they have sealed records. I'm asking where's your evidence that they have sealed records.

[dsc]

53. what part of exempt from the freedom of information act

is unclear to you or to Fear . . . That means that those records have no way of being accessed. If that isn't the same as being sealed then what is it? That is precisely why I asked if there was a place where those records are made available. If there isn't, and evidently there isn't since not one person came up with one, that makes the records the equivalent of sealed. BTW if the records are sealed just how can I site them? I have no clue where they are stored or even if they are stored since they are also exempt from the requirement of keeping the records. But unless those records are made public by the Congressman whose records they are they are for all practical intents and purposes sealed. Records the public can not access are de facto sealed.

[Mairead]

57. There *is* something wrong with you -- you're not mature enough to own up

How sad.

[dsc]

55. BTW here is your sitation

http://www.copyright.gov/foia/


The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which can be found in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552, was enacted in 1966 and provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information. This right of access is enforceable in court. All agencies of the United States government are required to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them, except for those records that are protected from disclosure by the nine exemptions and three exclusions found in the FOIA. The federal FOIA does not provide a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, state or local government agencies, or by private businesses or individuals. All states have their own statutes governing public access to state and local records and state authorities should be consulted for further information about such records.


Nothing is wrong with me. I figured that someone posting on a political board knew what the FOI act was and what not being covered meant. Rest assured I have learned from that mistake. Note the bold type of this passage. It is the first paragraph of the first link on google by the way. Again Congress is exempt from the act which means that no one can look at the records without the permission of the Congressman or Congresswoman whose records they are. If that isn't sealed records then frankly one of us needs a new dictionary.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. Up till now I have given you credit for honesty

But you are doing yourself no favors here. Mairead isn't asking you to explain the Freedom of Information act, or the Constitution. She is asking for you to back up your positive assertion that sealed records exist.

In reply 49, your response about the Constitution was off-topic but now you post this FOIA stuff after Mairead posted in post 51:

"You declared flatly that all other candidates have sealed records. I'm asking you for a cite demonstrating that they have sealed records. NOT for a cite saying the Constitution gives them the right to have sealed records if they want to, but a cite showing that they all have actual, physical boxes or barrels or vaults filled with records that are sealed against public inspection.

You claim that they have sealed records. I'm asking where's your evidence that they have sealed records."


Why are you ignoring what she is saying? Are you being disingenuous? Do you or do you not have evidence that other candidates besides Dean have sealed records?

[dsc]

61. That is why I asked in that thread

where those records have been made public. I know the records existed at one time. There is no way in hell these people don't write memos or letters (I have gotten several and written several myself). They clearly have the right to seal them and they are defacto sealed if not made public. That is why I asked if they were made public.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. OK, I get it - you won't back down, no matter what.

Some of Dean's infallibility must've rubbed off on you.

But the fact is: Dean is the only candidate with archived records sealed from the public

It's not the biggest deal in the campaign, but it is a fact.

With your spin and innuendo that the other candidates 'could' have such records, you are really doing yourself a disservice.

[dsc]

63. They do have them

unless they have destroyed them or made them public. My assumption is they didn't destroy them (which would be worse IMO), and upon repeated requests I have been unable to get evidence they are public. That leaves one option. If you wish to call records that are specificly protected from FOIA something other than sealed then I guess that is your right but I think that is patently absurd.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. How about we define 'sealed records' as 'records that have been sealed'

lol

[Mairead]

60. Anosognosia

[dsc]

58. I will let the people decide

I have a poll up. If they agree with your position I will give you an apology.