The use of conservative and republican sources in attacks on candidates

[bigtree]

is despicable. They should not be allowed in this forum. They neither educate or illuminate. They distort. That is all. Most folks come here to hear the Democrat's side of the issues. Not to be preached to by republican hacks. Why there is no understanding of this from the posters baffles me. The weak acknowledgment of the source should not be a shield for using republican attack rhetoric to illuminate arguments.

I would ask the posters who rely on republican and conservative sources: Do you agree with all of the republican distortions and lies or just the ones about the candidate you oppose?

This has to stop or DU will just be an extension of some republican rag and its hacks.

[quinnox]

1. It's frowned upon

I think there is official rule that if you use these sources you must post your opinion of the piece.

Generally, it should be alerted if you see this and they don't give an opinion. If it becomes a pattern by a member, it's a good indication they are a stealth freeper.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. WHAT?!

"Stealth Freeper"? Here. Say it ain't so. :eyes:

[bigtree]

3. I can't speak for other candidate's threads

but I have had to defend against a profusion of attacks sourced from republicans. The defense is "I disclosed the source!". But that is a hollow excuse for perpetuating republican lies and distortions. It seems to me that we should be defending our candidates against this. These explanations that the poster is just 'giving a head's up' is a weak argument for someone clearly trying to drag their opponent through the republican muck.

"When you reach for the stars you may not quite get one, but you won't come up with a handful of mud either."
-Leo Burnett

[quinnox]

5. Maybe this a good request for Ask the admin forum

I agree that perhaps these sources should be banned altogether.

But the primary season isn't going to last that long (probably), and then official primary rules kick in that forbid smear attacks against the nominee.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. It makes think less of the poster.

In general, those who post from such sources have little positive to say about their own candidate, and 'contribute' primarily by tearing down whichever candidate(s) they perceive to be the greatest threat to THEIR preferred candidate. I generally file such posters in my "Idiot File".

:)

[bigtree]

6. There is a lot of anxiety and frustration over this election

We're all desperate to unseat this dictator in the White House. I propose we save all of the vitriol for him and his cronies. There are plenty of issues that we can use to define our candidates. It's sometimes more difficult, or duller, but most of these innuendo arguments won't see the light of day in the public debate. Arguments must be fact-based and supportable to have legs. Look at the legitimate defenses we use. Most have stood the test of time because they were researched, decently sourced, and valid. Let's make some arguments here that will serve generations.

[gWbush is Mabus]

7. devil's advocate

90% of the media is republican.

[bigtree]

9. Then we need to work harder to promote the other side

That's what the time on this board represents to me. A chance to set the record straight from a Democrat's perspective. A chance to gather all of the Democrat's arguments and rationales. A chance to make the republican argument irrelevant and rare.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Totally agree.

Using Newsmax, etc. to smear one candidate in support of their favorite is despicable. That's how Republicans play politics.

Interestingly, most Kerry supporters I've run into on the board have been very pro Party....I see few threads started bashing the other candidates.....and that was also true a few weeks ago.

I wonder if that's why Kerry is doing so well with Democrats?

[sistersofmercy]

10. Totally agree!

There's a thread right now I find completely offensive and contrary to the major goal of all Democrats.

[bigtree]

11. kick

[bigtree]

12. Kick because of the reemergence of republican sourced attacks

:thumbsdown:

[wyldwolf]

13. I agree...but I also feel sources from the opposite end of the spectrum...

...are equally suspect.

Why?

Rightwing and far left sources both have an ideological agenda.

How many times was the Clark article from "Dissadent Voice" brought out in the famous Dean vs. Clark threads - only to see the one using it back away when a vitriolic article from the same source on Dean was produced?

And we know what agenda FOX News has.

I think far right and far left sources often lead without extensive fact checking. (Though mainstream media lately has done the same)