Bella Abzug allegedly targeted by the primitives

[franksolich]

http://www.oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php?topic=4886

Oh my.

The things one finds, when one's looking for another primitive.

Nikki Stone 1

I've been targeted at DU
 
Original on: November 18, 2009, 07:57:00 PM » 

My remarks about the unrec feature on my own thread have all been scrubbed, as has an interchange that I had with Beaverhausen, who accused me of something (?) innuendo laden.  I made a comeback (just laughing at her) and the whole sub thread is gone.

Cali and Beaverhausen must be BFFs with one of the mods.  Cali has been a sour, nasty piece of work as long as I have known her and Beaverhausen is just an idiot. 

I have officially been targeted now.  We'll see how long I last.

Well, Bella Abzug's always welcome over here, even though the bloom is off the rose.

waiting for hope

Reply #1 on: November 18, 2009, 07:59:06 PM » 

Cali is known for her ability to get people ousted - shame about Beaverhausen though, she was a real ardent Edwards supporter during the day. But hell, so many threw principal away for popularity - it's hard to tell who is serious these days. Good luck!

Bellator

Reply #2 on: November 18, 2009, 08:01:14 PM » 

You've got more patience than I do.....I just can't handle the fighting. I enjoy a constructive conversation, but it seems nearly impossible in there.

I post once in awhile....usually to correct something that is not even close to right. I don't even know why I do that

waiting for hope

Reply #3 on: November 18, 2009, 08:02:49 PM » 

Question - was it in David Swanson's thread?

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #4 on: November 18, 2009, 08:05:40 PM » 

"Cali is known for her ability to get people ousted"

That explains how I have been targeted.

You know cali is such a miserable little person.  I always imagine her sucking lemons--at both ends.  OK, that's gross but you get the picture.  I imagine she hasn't been laid in years and years. LOL!!!!!!!

What a pitiful soul.  Her entire life is getting people banned from a website.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #5 on: November 18, 2009, 08:06:14 PM » 

Question - was it in David Swanson's thread?

No.  It was in my own thread and cali's thread.

waiting for hope

Reply #6 on: November 18, 2009, 08:13:12 PM » 

Just saw both of them ... being rational is not one of her strong points - reactionary and pissy. And yes, pitiful. There are quite a few over there I just find pitiful - especially the one that likes to piss on Jake's threads ..

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #7 on: November 18, 2009, 08:18:03 PM »

Jake is a smart guy and he and I think along the same lines.  He is smart in that he doesn't get nasty back like I do.  He just school those stupid ****ers, especially ProNonSense, who links to WH spin and tries to pass it off as news.  My favorite was when she denied saying something that we could (and did) absolutely prove with her own damned posts from the primaries.  Jake has patience with her and tries to teach her.  I just figure her brain is custard and I only enter into a thread with her when Jake needs some backup.

Cali, on the other hand, is a complainer, a whiner and very, very pitiful.  But a 30-year dry spell will do that to you.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #8 on: November 18, 2009, 08:27:58 PM »

I think my patience is beginning to wear very thin.  This health care thing has put me over the edge.  The fact that these brain-challenged sheep cannot see why mandates are not a health plan, just a plan to take our money for an inferior product is just maddening.  I see no difference between their adulation of Barack Obama and the RW's adulation of Sarah Palin.  Here are two people with very thin resumes but very powerful backing, who look good on camera and inspire slavish devotion among a small segment of the population in an American Idol kind of way.  But neither of these people ever really deserved to get onto a presidential ticket.  That means that they, like Reagan, are puppets, figureheads, actors.  The real work is being done elsewhere and. perhaps, under the radar.

I am beginning to think that it's all political theater.

Saracat

Reply #9 on: November 18, 2009, 10:31:32 PM » 

Absolutely, it is, as you state downthread, "political theatre". And the blind worship of any political figure seems to be a product of insanity. I saw an interview on CNN where Nora whatshername interviewed Palin fans and they couldn't name any issues that she supported. O'Donnell pointed out to one young girl who said she admired Palin for not supporting the "bailout" that she and John McCain both supported the Stimulus. It almost became a childish "did not , did so" Until the kid finally said pettishly"Well she doesn't anymore! Wah! Many of the O fangirls can't differentiate between The president of the united states and a rock star. Jake and I had a running joke for a bit that they should have elected Adam Lambert!

I have actually gone to a couple of the Lambert fansites and the attitude is remarkably similar. Do not criticize. EVER. Praise all things connected with your idol, and condemn all who do not agree with you as evil or stupid. Exactly the same attitude.

And don't let them kid you that it isn't "'sexual" either, or that they admire his politcal skill alone. There was another Group dedicated to a presidential candidate on DU that regularly daydreamed and speculated about the politician and his attributes. They also had a bathing suit picture and posted bordeline porn until Skinner called a halt to it.

cornermouse

Reply #10 on: November 19, 2009, 02:27:23 AM » 

One of the biggest problems with DU is "hero worship".  The other problem is that their "hero worshippers" drove off or tombstoned most but not quite all of the posters who actually thought about things.  End result is posters who say things like "he's so cool"  "he's dreamy" and "it's not his fault, he's only been in office for 11 months, the democratic majority isn't large enough", you expect more than any mere mortal could accomplish" have become the norm.  I'm not interested in that.  I want someone who can run the country effectively and for the good of more than a favored few.

I agree with the political theater remark.  I don't remember the issue but I seem to remember at one point before the election there was an issue where the democrats could have done something to make life less difficult and they chose not to because they figured it would improve their chances for the presidential election and made the mistake of appearing in front of cameras and hinting about it.  I remember because I was somewhat shocked and rather irritated. 

Obama didn't have enough substance before the election to suit me and there were some things he said that made me a little wary because he sort of sounded like Dubya (who I couldn't stand to listen to when he talked because his vocabulary was so limited and even lousy, especially for someone who was supposedly an Ivy League graduate) but with a better vocabulary. 

There was also his/Obama's lack of a track record, the feeling that his ability to come up from nowhere to get into the White House was rigged (especially when the photographer/reporter who followed an unknown small time politician to record him for posterity, that was big time fishy), and finally when they said that he got into the state senatorial or house position through what was effectively a dirty trick. 

I just didn't like him nor was I willing to trust him after Dubya and what I was seeing from his camp.  He effectively threw the grandmother who helped raise him under the bus during the campaign.  I had big problems with that one.     

What Edwards said was what I wanted to see put into action.  No one else was saying what he said until they felt cornered and once he was safely out of the way, that language disappeared from their vocabulary with the speed of light. 

I didn't approve of everything Hillary would have done but whatever else, she's got a easily seen track record and had proved that she was tough enough to stand up to the republicans on the worse issues if she wanted to.   
 
Cali had a habit of appearing where I was for a while but I think she got bored after a while and found new victims.  That would be you.

MonteLukast

Reply #11 on: November 19, 2009, 05:36:44 AM » 

Cali... ugh. 

Never liked JRE, even before the debacle. Calls him "johny hedgefund".

In September I wrote a piece called "RH Is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl", which had as its theme "never underestimate the potential of the 'nonthreatening', 'likeable', and 'fun' to be very treacherous". Most people liked it and thought it to be a good commentary on our society.

I had one very noticeable detractor-- who dismissed it with a Reagan-there-you-go-again-esque "Codswallop." You guessed it-- Cali.

Her rationale for not liking JRE is apparently his present or past lukewarm support for gay rights.

But if she indeed is a driving force behind getting people targeted and banned, I'm not surprised. I don't know if she's buddies with the mod, but she could be a potential mod herself... sort of a "demi-mod"?

Mike

Reply #12 on: November 19, 2009, 07:53:50 AM » 

There is a new wave of bannings going on there now.

What is interesting to me is how a very small number of people are able to control the discussion there.

Another interesting thing is how in the dark the general membership is kept by the various rules about what you can and cannot talk about. Many people have no idea how aggressive the purging is and how many of the very best people there have been eliminated. They assume "well they must have broken the rules or done something really bad" and think that only a small number have been banned. And of course it is forbidden to talk about that on penalty of being banned yourself.

Amazing that so many liberals and progressives meekly put up with the bullying, authoritarianism and suppression.

People will say "well Skinner owns the board and can do whatever he wants." Yeah, well, Wall Street owns the country and can do whatever they want. What does that have to do with the price of beans? I don't know how people can imagine they are fighting for justice and democracy in the national political arena, when they are unable or unwilling to in their own lives and in their own organizations.

Actually it is worse than that.  People think that because they are on the "good" team - the Dems - and because they are the good people fighting for the good causes, that this gives them license to be authoritarian anti-democratic tyrants.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #13 on: November 19, 2009, 10:52:21 AM » 

The mods sent me a notice:

The moderators have sent you the following message:

Hi Nikki Stone1, The moderators have removed a number of your posts recently for general attacks on members of Democratic Underground (i.e. "unrec cowards" in your words) or complaints about the moderators for deleting those posts. Please stop posting broad brush accusations about other DU members. Please contact one of our Administrators with your concerns about the unrecommend feature or the DU moderators. They can be reached at -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html Thanks.

In order to continue participating on our message board, you must agree to follow the rules by clicking this link:

I acknowledge receipt of this notification and I agree to follow the rules

Click here to go back to your moderator messages

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #14 on: November 19, 2009, 10:54:31 AM » 

The DU Administrators

D***d A***n
Forum username Skinner
Owner and Co-founder
Contact Skinner for questions about: Discussion forum, Donations to DU, General inquiries about DU
skinner@democraticunderground.com

D**e A*****p
Forum username EarlG
Co-founder and Front Page Editor
Contact EarlG for questions about: Writing an Article for the DU Homepage, Top 10 Conservative Idiots, General inquiries about DU
earlg@democraticunderground.com

B***n L*****r
Forum username Elad
Lead Programmer
Contact Elad for questions about: Technical issues, Bug Reporting
elad@democraticunderground.com

Deletions (***) by franksolich, so as to practice internet privacy.

balantz

Reply #15 on: November 19, 2009, 11:03:35 AM »

I got one of those several months back. I was posting articles that illuminated the crimes of Israel against the Palestinian people. I was told to click the compliance button or be eliminated. I chose to click the button so I could remain and post other things. Unfortunately the crowd that remains there is for the most part unconcerned with much of anything I post, even without the very important Israel/Palestine information. The majority of the ones left there are "Rah Rah Obama Dems" and there really isn't much I care to discuss with them as they don't seem to want to open their minds to anything other than "Rah Rah for Obama and the Dems". So consequently I find there really isn't much I want to post there anymore. The 9/11 Dungeon is so thoroughly controlled by the OCT Trolls that I don't much post there either.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #16 on: November 19, 2009, 11:15:40 AM »

My first mod warning.

It's interesting because I have alerted so many times on such awful stuff thrown around by people on DU and what happens?  I'm the one who gets the alert because I call their cowardly unrec'ers cowardly.  But the language I've seen thrown around there is so awful. 

My thought is that DU is a party propagandistic apparatus.  I began to think that during the primary when operatives were allowed to trash everyone except Obama.  That's why I stopped posting there until after the primaries.  I think it is now time for another hiatus.

My guess is that the Democratic party's mask has slipped.  People who have lived longer than their acne years remember when having 51 votes was enough and when a medical program didn't require mandated purchases of a private product under threat of fine or possible imprisonment.  We also remember when Wall Street had rules and when Congress was capable of enforcing them.

In my opinion, both parties are morally bankrupt.  And the overt and covert manipulation it takes to keep  the idea of these parties alive, even on silly sites like DU, is a sign of the death of our national political fiber. 

I'll be posting mostly here from now on.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #17 on: November 19, 2009, 11:23:34 AM »

Oh, yeah, God forbid you say that the Palestinians are getting the short end of the stick.  I hear all the time how the Israelis bought the land, and I think yeah, so did Peter Stuyvesant.  (Interestingly enough, Peter Stuyvesant hated Jews and tried to get rid of the few who showed up in New Amsterdam in the 1600s.  But I digress.)

Genocide is genocide, and apartheid is apartheid, whether you throw money around to legitimize yourselves or not.  Payments made to the American Indians didn't and don't legitimize the Trail of Tears, smallpox, and other countless abuses. European money to buy up land and oppress the original people there doesn't legitimize the abuses in Gaza.  This isn't about religion: it's about empire, theft and oppression.  There needs to be a place to talk about that.  DU is not that place.  I have never tried to talk about Israel or Palestine there.  I know what the limits are which is why I have survived so long. 

Of course, I didn't know that criticizing people who abuse the unrec option was also against the rules.  I must have struck a nerve with the PR company running DU.

followthemoney

Reply #18 on: November 19, 2009, 11:26:12 AM »

So true, Nikki.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #19 on: November 19, 2009, 11:38:55 AM »

Mike,

I think the new wave of bannings is due to the very real criticism of the health "care" bill, or as it should be called the "Mandatory Purchase of Insurance Bill".   No one is really worried about "death panels" or the nutty Glenn Beck.  These things serve to make the opposition to this bill look insane, dangerous, and stupid.  It is the more substantive criticisms coming from regular people and from the Democrats who are not dazzled by the cult of personality that worry the party and the PR firm running DU.  There is a fear of real sustantive criticism because it undercuts the propaganda being used to sell this bill (and the party in general).  I have been very vocal about this fraud of a bill on DU.  I also have made the mistake of being disappointed in some of Obama's choices, including putting a pesticide executive in charge of agricultural negotiations, http://www.democraticunde...l&address=389x7045293 .

But the big mistake I have made is to challenge a feature which allows the PR firm in charge of DU to control what appears on the front page by counteracting the number of recommendations it gets.  I have watched really good threads have their recs cut in half by the "unrec'ing crew" run by the PR firm.  My mistake was in challenging that.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #20 on: November 19, 2009, 11:45:13 AM »

I am so glad that I am not the only one who sees similiarities between the hardcore Palin and Obama fans.  They can't remember or name a single principle the person stands for (except against abortion, in Palin's case, which is one more issue than anyone could name about Obama.)  What they are good for is providing a lot of emotional excitement without demanding anything from their candidates.

This is why I really fear that Palin will be elected President in 2016.  I think Obama will keep his seat--he's done everything TPTB have asked him to do and he's good PR for the power elite to hide behind.  But Palin is being groomed.  Half of marketing is name recognition.  If the GOP can keep Palin in front of the cameras and start "building her gravitas" in a PR kind of way, she may very well run.  And win.

Mike

Reply #21 on: November 19, 2009, 11:52:11 AM »

So did I. I refused to acknowledge that I had "compared Obama to Hitler" - I most definitely had not (and wouldn't) - and that I had "numerous offensive posts deleted" - I had not, and several people searched all of the threads to see if this were true, and it was not.

This is a way that they put many people like me into limbo. You aren't banned, but you can't post, until and unless you admit to slanderous things about you that are not true. If you do admit to them, they have your own "confession" as evidence to use against you in the future.

Nikki Stone 1

Reply #22 on: November 19, 2009, 11:57:03 AM » 

That's exactly why I haven't clicked my agreement to these people.  I will not admit to doing something "wrong" when it is perfectly legitimate to question their motives with the unrec feature.  They are cowards over there.  That's why they have to ban people.

balantz

Reply #23 on: November 19, 2009, 12:06:03 PM »

Mine was a little different I guess. I had numerous warnings about posting articles and videos showing the atrocities being committed against the Palestinians and I was pushing the line for a few months. The warnings reminded me that D.U. had a place for such articles and videos, in the I/P Dungeon. I also suffered warnings for posting 9/11 articles and videos and was reminded that's what the 9/11 Dungeon was for.

It's all in their rules. I managed to get away with a lot for some time and was quite wiley about it I think, but I finally pissed a couple of moderators off and they gave me that "comply or else, this is your last warning" message which I complied with so I could still help shed light on important issues. I have managed to get a few things by them since, but lately it looks like things have gotten more severe there and if I were to push it I would be banned.

I don't care one way or the other because there isn't anyone left there but Obamites. I still want to be able to kick my September Clues thread in the 9/11 Dungeon,

Mike

Reply #24 on: November 19, 2009, 12:07:49 PM »

The way to understand DU is to look at it as a sweat shop.  It is a private, for-profit business, yet all of the value is created by hundreds of unpaid and poorly treated workers - the people writing and researching and posting. It is run like a dictatorship, with the owners financial interests being protected at all times, and the workers being kept divided and off balance and in fear and ignorance about the operation. Then, to add insult to injury this for-profit enterprise then runs heavy-handed campaigns to get people to donate to their bank accounts. (Hate to say this, but only liberals would all for this scam. My stomach turns when I see people post gushing praise and gratitude - "oh thank you thank you than you Skinner!!")  Good God, people, crawl and grovel why don't you, and kiss the boot that is on your necks.

So yes, challenging management's dictatorial authority in any way, even commenting at all on policies, or suggesting or even hinting at any solidarity among the workers - or even free and open communication between the workers - will get you banished, smeared, and excommunicated.

Some of the most obnoxious posters there may well be sock puppets for management. If you ran a board like that, would you never be tempted to post on the issues? Yet it is very rare to see the owners posting about anything. Or is it?

Saracat

Reply #26 on: November 19, 2009, 02:35:19 PM » 

I vaguely remember getting a "warning" during the primaries but I fought it all the way up to Skinner, and i had the support of some of the mods. But I agree that questioning or criticism isn't encouraged . However, I have got to say that those disappointed in Obama now seem to outnumber the sycophants.

I thought it was hilarious when they jumped me about Stupak only to find Obama voicing the same opinion as mine about it. They had gone so far in defending Obama they ended up attacking him!

cornermouse

Reply #27 on: November 19, 2009, 03:11:17 PM » 

I agree.  I think there's a lot of unhappiness over there.  I was sort of wondering if the General Discussion:  Presidency was another attempt to slow down criticism of Obama? 

The downside of all the tombstoning is the loss they had of most of their really good posters and news sources.

I think the mandatory insurance without any universal coverage or even much of a public option is a serious mistake.  The thing is, either they know it and are going ahead anyway or they are that badly out of touch with the majority of us.  News organizations are already spinning it as a dislike of insurance overhaul in general so they're out of touch too.

question everything

Reply #30 on: November 19, 2009, 10:45:26 PM »

I wonder whether this is the procedure before they ban someone.

I've had two threads that I started, that someone knew posted, not within the main stream of DU - so what?  They each had less than 20 posts.  And when I came back to the thread to reply - these people were banned.

I don't think that moderators should have the authority to ban anyone.

As for being a target - welcome to the club...

followthemoney

Reply #31 on: November 20, 2009, 11:09:09 AM »

This behavior is very similar to the behavior of the Democratic Party. 

There is no reason a party affiliate should allow discussions that the party itself will not tolerate.

One might easily and wrongly assume that a party named 'Democratic' would be democratic.

I only go there for reasons subversive to the party proper.

Bellator

Reply #32 on: November 20, 2009, 07:43:55 PM »

If this is true......a true reflection of the Democratic party in general. Then they are doing everything exactly the opposite of what is needed to do to be viable. I don't understand why anyone wants to make enemies of people who should be allies.

I guess it's that thing about someone being different so let's demean them??....make ourselves feel better about our own narrow beliefs? I just don't get it....

There is very little of value for me there anymore.

[BadCat]

Does this means you no longer lust for her, frank?

[Carl]

Nikki..the island is kept afloat at the pleasure of the democrat party establisment.
Don`t go thinking your opinion on anything matters.

You all have been herded off to the side knowing that you think posting your perpetual outrage on the Internet somehow equals actually doing something.
This keeps you out of the public eye where you are an embarrassment to the high powers you rail helplessly against.

[GOBUCKS]

Does this means you no longer lust for her, frank?

Are you kidding? Coach would hit that in a split second! Hell, he'd hit cali, lemons and all!

[franksolich]

Does this means you no longer lust for her, frank?

Actually, what happened was, I was going after the wrong Nikki primitive.

I meant to go after the New York Nikki primitive, and Bella Abzug is a California primitive.

I think the New York Nikki primitive is the "Peace Nikki" primitive, but I'm still looking into it.

Just your usual standard run-of-the-mill mistaken identity; the primitives all tend to look alike if one watches them too often.

[franksolich]

Are you kidding? Coach would hit that in a split second! Hell, he'd hit cali, lemons and all!

There's still a little bit of wistful lingering affection for Bella Abzug, but Bella Abzug lost some major brownie points with franksolich because of her negativity about the bitter old Vermontese cali primitive and my fellow alum Skins.

Primitives need to stay in their places.

It's true the bitter old Vermontese cali primitive is a wretch and not a nice person, and perhaps has that "old lady" smell on her, but on the other hand, the bitter old Vermontese cali primitive is a survivor of more struggles than Bella Abzug's ever had to confront, and so hence the bitter old Vermontese cali primitive is ranked substantially higher than Bella Abzug.

Bella Abzug needs to respect those better than her.

And as for my fellow alum Skins, who so kindly and generously and magnanimously and unselfishly gives Skins's island for the primitives to romp and play, I won't tolerate criticism of him by his benefactees; the old school tie and all that, you know.

[GOBUCKS]

It's true the bitter old Vermontese cali primitive is a wretch and not a nice person, and perhaps has that "old lady" smell on her, but on the other hand, the bitter old Vermontese cali primitive is a survivor of more struggles than Bella Abzug's ever had to confront, and so hence the bitter old Vermontese cali primitive is ranked substantially higher than Bella Abzug.

And a vicious old housecat like that could be dynamite in the sack.