I just took a look at the freeper website and I have decided that

[Spectral]

Freepers spend most of their time attacking us (Dems, liberals, the left) and very little time in self examination of their own party. We, on the other hand, spend as much time in self-examination as we do in attacking *, the * administration, and neocons in general. Sometimes our self examination becomes contentious.

All the same, I think our ability to look at ourselves and try to be true to our ideals speaks well of Democrats as people. Even when we fight it out. Of course, we could also be spending more of that energy on criticizing * and the neocons. But, I think self-reflection and trying to have integrity as a party is very important. I also think it is important to know where the differences are and to acknowledge them.

The Freepers don't seem to have the ability or interest to self-reflect. They are all about attacking other people, so they can divert any attempt at self reflection outwards. This makes them seem more monolithic and more cohesive. But, it also means they are ignoring serious fissures in their own party. These fissures will destroy them in the long run.

[jobycom]

1. Cool analysis, well done. nt.

[MazeRat7]

2. Yes they and other non-freeper types are about as deep as a raindrop.

Welcome to DU. Hope you enjoy your stay.

MZr7

on edit: I don't think depth of character (or lack of) is the exclusive property of ONLY freepers. Its seems to be rather common among the masses.

[Spectral]

4. Thanks! It has been very nice so far

:)

[Lochloosa]

36. Glad you like it.....now you need one of those little starry things beside

your name...:toast:

[Fiona]

3. I think we're flip-sides of the same coin....

and I don't know how to elaborate on that. The people who believed every lie about Clinton are the same as the people who believe every lie about Bush.

At FR, some people are reasonable, most aren't. The same thing is true of DU.

Political suicide is revered by both sites.

[Spectral]

7. Please do elaborate if you like, especially about the political suicide

Thanks.

[Fiona]

10. well

the people who think it's politically feasible to impeach George Bush are very similar to the people who thought it was politically feasible to impeach Bill Clinton.

Those who thought it was a win for their party to impeach Clinton were wrong. I think the same is true for the people who think it's politically feasible to impeach Bush.

That's not to say I appreciate Bush in any way. It simply means that most people here don't understand that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

And politically, Bush is safe.

[Spectral]

14. So calling for impeachment would be political suicide?

(not a challenge. Just a clarification)

[hfojvt]

23. the impeachment WAS a victory for them

it lead to the prominence of DINO Lieberman and it also kept Gore from getting Clinton's help in election 2000. Not only that, but the impeachment kept Clinton from being able to accomplish more in his 2nd term since he had to spend time defending himself.

Once upon a time, even Republicans were voting to impeach Nixon. Would that today's Republican's had half as much class and integrity. Post 2000, they should be called the FPA rather than the GOP. The Gingrich wing has taken over.

[Fiona]

28. If you think the Clinton impeachment was a win

for the Republicans, I have nothing to say to you. I'm not that eloquent.

[Erika]

8. I hold DU in a higher esteem

though I admit some do get carried away. No we are not the same as the Freepers, thank you.

[Fiona]

13. No, we're not the same....

but when it comes to political idealogy, we're flip-sides of the same coin. I thought I'd made that clear.

[Erika]

15. Read the posts

Freepers aren't allowed to flip unless it's against us. They are "kept" persons.

[Fiona]

18. I'm very familiar with both sites...

and freepers are banned here, and DUers are banned there. Flip sides.

I'm not faulting either side... I'm pointing out the truth.

Flip sides.

[Erika]

22. DU doesn't ban anyone for disagreeing with the site manager

Got that?

[snowbear]

5. Yes but....

I thought they didn't allow posts that were negative towards their own people, party, politics, etc...

If they're bashing us.. it's ok.

If they question ANYTHING that has to do with one of their own... they're deleted, banned, and sent packing.

That's what I've always read on here.. even from people who show us the actual post they sent seconds before it was deleted and they were banned.

So even if they wanted to speak out.. they aren't allowed to..

[Spectral]

9. They don't allow negative comments to examine their own party?

That kind of supports my argument, I think. Free speech takes a lot of strength; it's not for the insecure.

[snowbear]

19. Nope... Say something negative and you're history.

The great folks over at GD here are brave souls :hug: .. When something makes the news that is not positive for Rethugs, I've seen people time themselves on how long it will take to post it --- and get banned.

I have to give them credit for even going in there :o !!

But they go in to show that even credible NEWS, when it is not particularly complementary to them, is not welcome on their hate site.

It's a safe-haven for them I guess? A place they can go when all is not right in their world and they need to escape reality.

:rofl:

Sad, sad, lonely, nasty people.. :spray:

[Spectral]

32. They ignore a lot of reality then

Sounds like they only want to hear "happy talk" about themselves.

[Erika]

12. Jim Robinson(?) keeps a tight control on them

Like they are not allowed to say one word against W's immigration policies or they are out the door. They are kind of like indentured servants which they agree to the terms.

[Fiona]

16. The same is also true of here...

Let's not pretend that we allow conservatives while FR bans Liberals. Both sites ban people who don't agree with their philosophy. And that's fine.

Their site is for conservatives, our site is for liberals. They ban us, we ban them. That's OK.

But it's silly to think we're more open-minded than they are in this regard.

[Erika]

17. They have to agree with their site boss or they are out

such as in immigration. Even Hannity ruled them a fringe element.

[Fiona]

21. And nobody has ever been banned from DU

for idealogy? That's a naive assessment.

[Erika]

24. Not for disageeing with a site manager

again, Jim won't allow a post against illegal immigration. If it's too fringe for Hannity, does that give you a clue?

[Fiona]

25. Thanks for the clue...

but please don't charge me for it.

You claim that FR has no posts against illegal immigration? I would love to bet you on that. Say we put $100,000 on that... you up for it?

FR is an anti-immigrant shithole. But if you want to defend your silly premise, I'll happily take some money.

[Erika]

29. Like I said even Hannity considers them the fringe

Very....wash my hands people...

[Fiona]

31. Why not address the point?

Do you claim that FR is not anti-immigrant?

[snowbear]

26. Not that it's any of my business.. but Fiona, you know that place well..

:scared: :scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

Either that.. or you're just really good at speculation?

[Fiona]

30. yes, I know that place well...

I read it regularly, as I read this place.

Are you trying to say I'm a conservative? You would be very very wrong in that assessment.

The fact that I note the similarities in the extremists on both sides doesn't speak to my personal views.

I am a liberal. I'm a middle-aged bisexual activist woman. I've been politically active since I was a teenager, always as a leftist.

So respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about.

[hfojvt]

33. I still do not think it is a valid comparison

do "extremists" represent "mainstream DU" the way they represent "mainstream FR"? Are we keying on "lies" about Bush or are there many true and substantive reasons to hate Bush?
Admittedly I am far to the left of mainstream America, at least on economic issues, but I do not believe that makes me either a "fanatic" or a "dupe" (not that you used either of those words, but they fit well for "extremists" who "believe every lie about Bush").
Now, if you said there are many sterotypical attacks here against red-staters, Christians, and hetero white males (all of which I happen to be) then I might agree with you, but that is still not all of what is here, or even the majority.

[Spectral]

37. DU actually has a variety of views

Some people are more vocal than others, but there is plenty of debate. The freeper website is more monolithic.

Whether the far left and the far right in general have similar psychologies I don't know. But the websites reflect certain tendencies I think.

[Erika]

6. That site, as an American disturbs me.

Their absolute loathing and derogatory name calling of Mrs. Clinton is demeaning to a society that welcomes more than one party. I'll even give them their derisive mockery of Bill Clinton. No wonder even Sean Hannity wrote them off as a credible dialog source.

[expatriot]

11. Very true.... i have come full circle on this....

Not to long ago I was one of those that were saying "We need a Karl Rove!"... "We need to take our marching orders like the Repugs or we'll get squashed!" But the latest Dean hooplah is a good example of this.... Dean is not the problem, Biden and Edwards are not the problem.. there are certain realities about our ideological underpinnings that prevent us from marching in lock step... I am not say this is either bad or good... it is both. Yes, there are times when we need to force ourselves to march in lock step even if we are awkward in doing so, such as the months before a critical election, but progressives prize tolerance of dissent and we certainly could never claim a monopoly on truth, truth to us is something that needs to be constantly sought but never possessed.... truth is attained fleetingly through the marketplace of ideas... our tolerance for dissent and deviation does make us vulnerable in the nasty battlefield of populist politics... the conservatives launch their culture wars against us playing to the fears and superstitions of the people and they can point us out as the boogeyman to the people because we shelter the foreigner and associate with the subterranean, the unaccepted, the classes of society on the periphery.

[Spectral]

20. Very interesting post. I liked what you had to say.

Especially this line:

"but progressives prize tolerance of dissent and we certainly could never claim a monopoly on truth, truth to us is something that needs to be constantly sought but never possessed.... "

It think this is really true.

[expatriot]

27. thanks, now I have to go to bed... i bet my wife if I could be off DU

and in bed by midnight. see you.

[Irreverend IX]

34. They're also much less tolerant of dissent.

You don't see much introspection or infighting on FR because the political views they allow are so narrow. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with RimJob is instantly banned. All the squabbling threads on here (which, let's face it, account for maybe half of all DU posts) could never happen there. The scary thing is that their community has so many members despite all this.

[Spectral]

38. The reason they have so many members anyway may be

because freepers are looking for a place to put their anger, and they are willing to have it channeled by someone else to whatever target he chooses. These are people who just don't want to look at themselves. Or as Jesus would say, they are looking to pull a splinter out of others' eyes without looking at the giant rod in their own eyes. Jesus approved very much of self examination.

[Toots]

40. They don't truly have that many members

They count every single person even if they are banned just like DU does. We in reality have only a couple of thousand regular posters. Many of those 70,000 are no longer with us. The same holds true for Frei Republik and I heard somewhere that their number of hits has been declining.

[baron j]

35. The freepers suffer from--or revel in--the Stockholm Syndrome.

They must get off on the constant threat of the thought police.

[Catrina]

39. I'm just wondering

about the lies we all believe about Bush?

Personally, I don't believe anything that doesn't have something to back it up and I haven't noticed too many on DU being willing to do that either. So, I'm confused regarding that charge.

Otoh, the FR site encourages knee-jerk reactions to anything negative about, eg, Hillary Clinton (I believe they are convinced, eg, that she killed Vince Foster!).

I would appreciate some examples of the lies about Bush we have accepted as fact without evidence of any kind?

[Spectral]

41. Good point. There is enough ugly truth (documented) about Bush that

we don't need to make up lies. I wondered what was meant by that comment too.

BTW, is my new sig line offensive?