If you disagree with someone, just claim she/he is a sockpuppet spreading propaganda

[ProSense]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Autumn (a host of the General Discussion forum).

End of discussion.

Cool tool!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. I really cannot grasp what you are saying

Unless you include some gray quoted text and hyperlinks. (which is the classic cover for auto-generated spam).

One thing that may help my comprehension is if you rewrite it in the machine code it started from.

I keed, I keed!

[RobertEarl]

5. The OP is calling out sock puppet callouts

I don't know why. Usually PS posts real important stuff.

[SidDithers]

9. It's cute to see you in a thread about sockpuppets...nt

Sid

[Puglover]

15. And it's more than cute

to see you tacitly accusing people you disagree with of being sock puppets and others that you happen to agree with, not so much.

Oh and I'll save you the trouble.

[Dragonfli]

21. It's not his fault, he is grumpy because he is compacted

As he has tried to tell us on several occasions, "this clown needs an enema".

I think we should start a fund to send him to a colonic center in Toronto, why then he'd be right as rain.

[SidDithers]

26. Another one defending the sockpuppet...

Colour me surprised.

Sid

[Dragonfli]

39. I'm just worried about you my conservative friend, I want you to be healthy. /nt

[SidDithers]

53. I'll be just fine, my Libertarian pal...nt

Sid

[bluestate10]

28. Someone who writes a post like yours can talk about shit? nt

[Dragonfli]

38. He is the one obsessed with his problem, I merely point it out.

[SidDithers]

24. RobertEarl actually was a sockpuppet...

He started his account on December 14, 2011, but didn't abandon his BeFree account until Feb 11, 2012. He was posting with both accounts during the overlap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3323854

If that's not sockpuppetry, what is?

Now, you'll condemn the practice, right?

Sid

[Puglover]

34. Since admin doesn't give a shit

why on earth would I Sid? It's Skinners living room not mine nor yours.

I will say that if someone is/was actively using two accounts to post assuming they aren't trolls we used to send them a PM and tell them to choose one or the other. And if they didn't we just deleted the account with the fewest posts.

I honestly don't give a crap who is and who isn't.

But you seem to lob it out as a pejorative to folks that you disagree with.

[SidDithers]

52. Admin doesn't give a shit...

but that doesn't mean the sockpuppetry needs to be kept secret. Especially so when the sockpuppet poster is posting in a thread about sockpuppets.

There are plenty of formerly banned DUers with new accounts too. Admins don't seem to give a shit about that either. But that doesn't mean that Hannah Bell, or Binka/MaryT or walldude or any of the others deserves the courtesy of a fresh start without any history. It's not fair to the thousands of DUers who've been loyal, TOS-abiding posters here for years and years, that asshats who have been justifiably banned come waltzing back to continue stirring shit.

Fuck 'em.

Sid

[Puglover]

60. I believe that Skinner said

if a banned poster returns and doesn't stir up shit he would not be aggressive about banning them.

Whatever, this is just not high on my give o shit meter. I simply don't care that much.

I just think that if your point is that you dislike socks, you might consider giving them all the same treatment. Por ejemplo. If a poster racks up 700+ posts in two weeks and is exceedingly aggressive right out of the box this ain't their 1st time at the rodeo.

Just curious how do you know this about befree and RobertEarl. Did you ask Skinner to do an IP check? Did he admit to this? Cause most of the time I don't have a clue who is and who isn't.

On edit: Yep Skinner did say it. I knew it was somewhere.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1259455

[pintobean]

81. Hang on, Sid's

on to something.

[SidDithers]

86. Clever...

Sid

[msanthrope]

145. Well played, Sir. nt

[MADem]

105. +1,000

I actually think this site would benefit from a hard-wired "sig line" that they could not remove, that said "This is the poster formerly known as ......, ...... and ......"

At least we'd know what we were dealing with.

[SidDithers]

118. Yup, that would be good...nt

Sid

[jtuck004]

162. I'm not sure that mortals can know the mysterious ways of the Skinner, EarlG, and Elan...

but we can read research. While most people I have spoken with agree that it's the most loyal members of a group that keep it together, that may not be the case. It may be those with the most tenuous of connections that keep it together, and the more they are cut free the more the group tends to fragment, to the point it might disappear entirely.

I ran across this in my reading, concerning network theory. You may have already seen it: "Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks", here.

These researchers study networks, and they wanted to look at one on a really large scale, so they obtained a really, really large amount "about" cell phone calls from a mobile provider that serves a large European country's population. Smaller studies had been done, but the problem with small studies is similar to that of personal experience - one just simply may not see enough to pick up on what is really happening. They determined core centers of social networks (i.e. friends, family, acquaintances) based on length of calls, frequency of calls, etc.

What they found is that, contrary to popular belief, the most connected and core group of a network of people are not the ones you should worry about losing if you want the network to hang around.

These guys explain it fairly well, though one should hit the link and read the study if they want a better understanding:

"...the team discovered that if one removes people from the network who have many links within their community, the remaining social network degrades but doesn't fail. When, on the other hand, people with links outside their immediate community are taken off the network, the social net suddenly disintegrates, as if its structure had buckled...It suggests that there is a premium on diversity within a group and in society at large".

From "Big Data", Viktor Mayer-Schonberger and Kenneth Cukier

Most of us can only gaze at the curtain behind which sysadmins reside, perhaps catching a glimpse of an apparition from time-to-time, and only guess about the magic behind their works. But maybe, and only maybe, they know of such things, and realize that by bestowing the digital flatbread to transgressors of the TOS, it may actually fragment and make the kingdom here less important than if they lose those who hold that document near and dear.

But I am only a mortal, and can never be sure...

[arely staircase]

45. most recently, billy blades

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3334218

[MADem]

49. Wow, Sid--that's fascinating!

Ya learn something new every day. Thanks for that! Explains a LOT!

[leveymg]

80. Sid - You're misusing your MIRT priviledge by "outing" someone publicly. Isn't this something

you should be taking up with the Committee, off the board?

[SidDithers]

85. Why shouldn't sockpuppetry be outed?...

Nothing to do with MIRT, btw. That information is from the public profiles of the poster's 2 accounts.

Sid

[leveymg]

91. Do I have to repeat what Skinner already told you about why? Ok, here it is:

Star Member Skinner (57,802 posts)
3. This isn't life or death. It's just a discussion forum.

I know you really want to nail me down and force me to take a definitive position on this, but I'm just not going to do that. If someone wants to be a part of this community, if they figure out how to be a productive and positive member, then I don't really see why I need to lose sleep over the fact that they slipped back in.

I don't want to empower the zombie hunters, troll hunters, and witch hunters on this site. They can be worse than the zombies, trolls, and witches.

Do try not to be worse than the zombies and witches, Sid.

[SidDithers]

99. And if Skinner chooses not to ban them, that's his decision...

and if he chooses to ban me for outing them, that's his decision too.

In the meantime, if I see a poster that I know has engaged in sockpuppetry, posting in a thread about sockpuppetry, I'm going to point out the hypocrisy.

Similarly, I see one of DU's known zombies stirring shit, I'll remind their target, and anyone else reading the thread, that they're being attacked by someone that's been previously banned.

DU3 is all about transparency. Hiding your history behind a sock or zombie account is the opposite.

Sid

[MADem]

120. Right on. nt

[chillfactor]

137. amen...n/t

[MADem]

119. There are no secrets here at DU3. And there shouldn't be.

Those old "mod" days, when bad behavior was covered up, are gone. The new DU is a bit uglier, harsher, and meaner in some regards, but it is also more honest. That's the trade-off.

This isn't theoretical stuff, this is stuff that the average poster has a right to know.

If some of the more notorious posters come back as zombies, or have sockpuppets that are active while they, too, are posting as themselves, then DUers who don't pull that kind of childish shit should be informed. It's the decent thing to do.

Skinner's tolerance is higher than most of ours, I think, but even he gets sick of the shit:

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=306286&sub=trans

I think knowledge is power. It's not a question of "zombie hunting," it's calling out people who are mocking others for having a (gasp) Democratic perspective, and accusing those same others--without any damned evidence-- of doing the same damn thing they've been doing. There's a distinction, and a real difference.

I have to agree with Sid's POV here.

[leveymg]

124. There are certain constraints on serving MIRT, and one is not to use inside member information

particularly to wage public squabbles on the board. I have to disagree with what Sid did here.

In the interest of transparency, I have to say that I am not one of Sid's biggest fans, but I'd reach this same conclusion if anyone else did this. It was a violation of trust. But, I'm not the one who has to deal with this, fortunately.

[SidDithers]

127. Again, there was no MIRT inside information being used...

Sid

[leveymg]

134. If that is the case, then so be it.

I didn't know that member information was publicly available. My apologies for that.

[SidDithers]

147. Check your own profile...

your join date and the date of your last post is right there.

Jeez.

Sid

[MADem]

129. When people get dumped for being a sockpuppet or zombie, it's noted in their profile.

I think Sid has done a good thing, and I wish that when people are dumped for being a sock or zombie, that more information, not less, is provided.

I think the violation of trust starts when someone fires up a duplicate account to gain some sort of "advantage" over posters who play the game fairly. The fact that some of them come back in their second or third (or who knows, maybe tenth for all we know) iteration to scold others (who have plodded along in their same old persona) about their conduct on the board is rich--in the artery-clogging, kill-ya-dead definition of the term. It's reprehensible and should not be tolerated. People who don't play fair don't deserve any protection--they deserve the full light of transparency, because that's what this place purports to be all about.

[pintobean]

144. Informing the community is a good thing

for example

[MADem]

149. I'm glad the admins are doing it. I hope they make it a habit. nt

[SidDithers]

158. Similarly...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=284378&sub=trans

Zombie of Hawkeye-X

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

135. Interesting. n/t

[Flatulo]

139. Wasn't BeFree a rather persistent 9/11 Truther?

[Arctic Dave]

27. Looks like a lot of them are here.

There is a veggie platter at the back table. Enjoy.

[NoOneMan]

33. Maybe they are sick of being called a sockpuppet by those that see relentless blind shilling

Those people need to stop recognizing the relentless blind shilling, mind their business and just start agreeing with the shills

[arely staircase]

41. but should billy blades be free?

tht is the question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3334218

[JaneyVee]

2. What if the real sock puppets are really the ones claiming others are the sock puppets?

What a great divide and conquer strategy that would be. Hmm, where have we heard that before? http://www.politicususa.com/2013/04/10/flashback-2010-republican-adopts-progressive-attacks-obama.html

[NYC_SKP]

3. Paid Shill!

I, personally, am paid $1.00/post with a holiday bonus. Last year it was an iPad3!

[ProSense]

11. Sockpuppy!!!!

I mean, sockpuppet!




:rolf:

[MADem]

121. Where do I sign up? I have posted enough, for free, to send

my family on a round-the-world cruise!!!

[freshwest]

163. And just look at my notorious post count! Although half are kittehs, I still think I should be paid!

[chimpymustgo]

4. If the shoe fits.

[ProSense]

7. See, it works.

[wtmusic]

6. If you are a sockpuppet, claim anyone who correctly identifies you just disagrees with you

End of discussion!

- From Personas v2.1 User Manual

[ProSense]

10. Good one.

Counter accusations with more accusations. Who needs a discussion.

Wheee!

[bigtree]

59. classic sockpuppetry

. . . apparently.

[flamingdem]

8. Don't forget the requisite hardhitting photo to go along with accusations!

[ProSense]

14. .

[BumRushDaShow]

43. That almost looks like

or even this guy -

[sufrommich]

12. Yep. It's the height of narcissism to believe

anyone on a forum who disagrees is either a troll, sock puppet or paid disruptor. I think some like to believe they are doing super important stuff by posting on the internet.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

13. People that regularly attack Democrats on a site called DEMOCRATIC Underground and

heap praise upon people with very libertarian pasts

VERSUS

people who defend Democrats regularly on a site called DEMOCRATIC Underground...

It's clear who the sock puppets are.

[SidDithers]

17. Yup...

Sid

[treestar]

92. +1

Their attempts at division are obvious.

[Electric Monk]

102. (from someone who has been here two whole weeks, with their latest account)

nt

[pintobean]

111. Still smells of the grave. nt

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

150. With broken records like you, it's easy to catch on quickly. nt

[pintobean]

157. Now that you admit it

Who were you?

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

159. Admit what? That I've been here for two weeks?

My DU metadata (ONOEZ!!!) already tells you that.

[DevonRex]

16. I think it's a "the one who smelt it dealt it" thing myself.

Just saying.

[hootinholler]

18. Post to avoid jury duty in this thread

Fucking. Classic.



Sincerely I haven't had this good a laugh in quite some time. Thank you!

[ProSense]

19. Good stuff

[msongs]

20. the OP reveals its favorite technique. plus don't forget to kick your own post a lot nt

[ProSense]

22. Cool, a nonsensical one-liner kick.

Thanks.

[bluestate10]

23. Some DUERs use that tactic. They are to be challenged. I don' set anyone to

Ignore because I want to challenge their "facts" if I see those "facts" are wrong. Keep posting.

[ZombieHorde]

25. I have had a hard time making this tactic work

in face-to-face debates, but I'm still working on it.

[NoOneMan]

29. Except thats not really how the term is used (also known as Strawman 101)

Rather, its for people who consistently, unabatedly, unabashedly, without apology, 100% of the time toe the party line without an independent thought of their own with relentless vigor.

Does this apply to you? Is that why you have such anger about the "sockpuppet" term? Do you favor "shill"? Just curious

[bigtree]

83. you really believe the points you make here are original and not from some pernicious source?

You have an incredible blind side in this discussion. You hold a point of view which you apparently feel is independent from the 'party line.'

Who determines what is 'party line' and what is 'independent'? You?

Who/what is the master that you use to make the determination of what is 'party line' and independent' opinion? I really can't see the distinction or difference between a relatively low post DUer coming on here posting one opinion or the other, and any other poster expressing what may be an opposite one.

Don't come on here and act as if your own attempts to influence opinion in these threads is somehow unassailable and beyond reproach (under your own logic). Where do you get your own 'talking points' from, NoOneMan?

See how that works?

[BumRushDaShow]

154. + bazillion

[hfojvt]

30. well

it is hard to understand why somebody would seemingly work overtime spreading administration spin unless there was some sort of remuneration involved.

The alternative is some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder and I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt

[NoOneMan]

35. "unless there was some sort of remuneration involved"

The very sad fact of the matter is people dedicate their lives to doing this for free, thinking it has an impact in the real world other than making them look desperate for attention and sick.

[ProSense]

37. Well,

"it is hard to understand why somebody would seemingly work overtime spreading administration spin unless there was some sort of remuneration involved. "

...it's hard to take someone who thinks Krugman is a "tool" seriously.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304#post5

[NoOneMan]

47. You know, Krugman isn't God

He is an economist after all. That's one step up from virgin sacrifice.

[ProSense]

56. Didn't you just post someting about a "straw man"?

"You know, Krugman isn't God"

Is that comment an illustration?

[NoOneMan]

58. Its a comment

Though your blue-linking of him often is an illustration of an Argument from Authority.

But Ill let you revel in your mastery of logical fallacies

[ProSense]

61. I bet

"Though your blue-linking of him often is an illustration of an Argument from Authority.

But Ill let you revel in your mastery of logical fallacies"

...you thought that was an intelligent response.

[bigtree]

74. objecting to 'blue-linking'

. . . mostly coming from folks who are determined to ignore FACTS; from folks here who resist and ignore anything that would render their own opinion invalid or wrong.

Heaven forbid we back up our opinions here with accessible facts and info supporting them. God knows the administration position doesn't deserve to be represented in discussions . . . of their position.

[BumRushDaShow]

48. Krugman now under the bus!

Bwah!!!!!

[hfojvt]

69. we are all doing what we can

I tried to explain to you why I say he is lying.

I would apologize for my inability to get you to understand, but I think you are just heavily vested in denial.

And again, it is hard to understand why somebody would be so deeply invested in denial unless there was remuneration involved. Again, the only other alternative seems to be a mental defect, and again, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

You may say the same about me, vested as I am in my point of view, but again here is my argument

1. The Bush tax cuts heavily favored the rich
2. the Bush tax cuts were set to expire in 2010
3. Obama ran, promising to keep 78% of the Bush tax cuts
4. while that seemed like a reasonable compromise to avoid getting defeated at the polls, the fact is that keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts ALSO heavily favored the wealthy - this is not just my own logic and knowledge it is analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice.
5,. therefore, progressives, who claim to care about inequality, should oppose keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts.
6. Instead of keeping 78% of them, Obama instead kept 100% of them for two more years, promising to REALLY fight next time.
7. I saw that as a huge betrayal, which flipped me from being a supporter of Obama to a detractor of Obama. That was the straw that broke my back
8. On top of that Obama added the accursed payroll tax cut - a tax cut that also heavily favors the rich. Again increasing inequality.
9. two years later, and even after being handily re-elected Obama still does not fight. Instead of keeping a disgusting 78% of the Bush tax cuts, we are now permanently stuck with 85% of the Bush tax cuts - something that again increases inequality.
10. Krugman DISHONESTLY flips that around and says that ATRA decreases inequality relative to k

eeping 100% of the Bush tax cuts. As if they were not going to automatically expire. As if it is not a FACT that ATRA greatly increases inequality relative to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

and your counter arguments have been

1. you said Krugman is a tool so you cannot be taken seriously
2. you are ignoring the progressivity of the income tax (an argument originally used to defend the Bush tax cuts, that of course, the rich get bigger tax cuts, that's just the way tax cuts work.)
3. that is nonsense

Basically, you've got nothing, but you are deeply committed to administration spin and so you keep posting snips of that dishonest article from Krugman.

The administration betrayed the public by refusing to fight for us.
The administration betrayed the public by capitulating
The administration betrayed and betrays the public by spreading propaganda about its own betrayal to make sure the public never finds out about the other betrayals.

Your part in this? There is no question you are spreading the propaganda. The only mystery is - why?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

79. Agreed. 100%.

Note, too, that "the accursed payroll tax cut" not only favored the rich in the short run but weakened the funding of Social Security. It's a good precursor for cutting SS with a chained CPI and pushing for a partial privatization of Social Security.

[hfojvt]

110. but I am really surprised it is not still with us

perhaps Obama is going to propose bringing it back as one of his plans to "strengthen the middle class".

[Major Hogwash]

87. " . . . dishonest article from Krugman. . . ."

[ProSense]

96. The poster's argument

is based on ignoring that the tax code applies every dollar in each tax bracket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022764804#post23

[hfojvt]

113. by which you mean

"tax cuts will always favor the rich"

and therefore

"it is okay that Obama's tax cuts favor the rich"\

the exact same spurious argument I heard when I was fighting against the Bush tax cuts.

[ProSense]

130. No, I mean, the point you're making is bogus. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

140. He said Paul Krugman's article was dishonest.

Which was the funniest thing I have read here all day.
Krugman would shred him, or anyone else for that matter, like a tree chipper in a debate about the income tax rates, the economy, or the effect on the middle class or the poor.

Paul Krugman is the most accurate, the most knowledgeable, and the most prepared speaker on all of the economic issues of our time.
He's a freakin' genius, so I feel sympathy for anyone who tries to go up against Paul on the subjects he is so well-versed in.

[hfojvt]

107. dang I hate it when logic proves me wrong

oh wait ...

[ProSense]

88. You simply keep repeating the same debunked points.

We've debated this ad nauseum, and your point is bogus.

[hfojvt]

115. well I have debated it

you have responded with lots of insults, some links and a few smilies thrown in for good measure.

I guess in your world that counts as debunking.

okay then, double debunking on you then

[ProSense]

126. No,

"well I have debated it you have responded with lots of insults, some links and a few smilies thrown in for good measure."

...you've repeated the same nonsensical point to justify calling Krugman a "tool" and insist that he's "lying."

[hfojvt]

133. the same nonsensival point?

You mean the FACTS

Fact 1 - ATRA gives the richest 5% $1.3 trillion in tax cuts that they would not have gotten had the fucking Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire

Fact 2 - ATRA gives the richest 20% $2.4 trillion in tax cuts that they would not have gotten had the fucking Bush tax cuts been allow to expire

Fact 3 - giving the rich bigger permanent tax cuts than the bottom 60% INCREASES inequality.

I am quite sure that Krugman knows that, so for him to make a false comparison (ATRA compared to the 100% continuation rather than the expiration) in order to make a false claim (that it decreases inequality) is pretty clearly lying.

Your only answer to those facts is simply to declare, by fiat, that they are nonsense.

[ProSense]

136. Yes,

You mean the FACTS

Fact 1 - ATRA gives the richest 5% $1.3 trillion in tax cuts that they would not have gotten had the fucking Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire

Fact 2 - ATRA gives the richest 20% $2.4 trillion in tax cuts that they would not have gotten had the fucking Bush tax cuts been allow to expire

Fact 3 - giving the rich bigger permanent tax cuts than the bottom 60% INCREASES inequality.

I am quite sure that Krugman knows that, so for him to make a false comparison (ATRA compared to the 100% continuation rather than the expiration) in order to make a false claim (that it decreases inequality) is pretty clearly lying.

Your only answer to those facts is simply to declare, by fiat, that they are nonsense.

You continue to push a nonsensical claim based on ignoring the tax code. The tax code is progressive and the facts are clear.

President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.

Do the math.

The last time I made this point, you dismissed the equation and dismissed the health care tax, and claimed that "$50,000 is not in the bottom quintile." Pick any amount in the "bottom quintile" and the top one percent, and then do the math.

The gap still closed.

[hfojvt]

164. the health care tax simply is NOT relevant to ATRA

because it was NOT part of ATRA

thus it is not part of the question - does ATRA increase inequality or decrease it?

The math, however, is impossible to do. What for example, were the standard deduction and personal exemption in 2001? How much of the $500,000 income is from dividends? How much from capital gains? How much do they itemize deductions? Then there is the bracket creep. Rates have gone down because of inflationary adjustments. Should I compare $27,000/$500,000 in 2001 to the same nominal dollar figures or the same real (inflation adjusted) dollar figures?

Since I know that the rich got bigger tax cuts than the poor from ATRA, to even attempt to do the math is a waste of time.

But okay, let's take away standard and itemized deductions and personal exemptions and child tax credits and dividend income and just compare taxable income as wages to taxable income as wages. 2001 to 2013

taxable income 2001
$27,050 ***** $500,000
taxes (federal income)
$4,057.5 ***** $172,610.15
after tax income
$22,992.50 ****** $327,389.85

2001 gap - $304,397.35

taxable income 2012
$27,050 ***** $500,000
taxes
$3,611.25 ***** $155,763.75
after tax income
$23,438.75 ***** $344,236.25

2013 gap - $320,797.50

gap has increased by $16,400.15

tax rates here

2013
10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $400,000.


in 2001 tax rates for singles were
15% on first $27,050
27.5% up to $65,550
30.5% up to $136,750
35.5% up to $297,350
39.1% for the rest

and the gap would be even bigger if the rich person had some dividend income, once taxed at 39.6%, now taxed at only 20%.

Even if you take away the bracket creep, the richer person is STILL
saving 2.5% on their first $400,000 of income past $27,050 - a savings of about $6,750 that poorer people do not enjoy - but Mitt Romney and Rush Limbaugh (and Paul Krugman) all enjoy it.

You simply do not close a gap by giving bigger tax cuts to richer people than you do to poorer people.

And that's what ATRA did.

[treestar]

98. So no one could genuinely support the administration

without being paid to do it? Wow.

And on Democratic Underground.

[hfojvt]

152. supporting the administration is one thing

seemingly working 24/7 to post pro-administration spin is another.

Take 100,000 posts and imagine it takes an average of five minutes per post, especially if they involve lots of research. (some posts, like the ones that just say "that is nonsense clearly do not take that long.

Okay, make it even 3 minutes per post on average. You are talking about 300,000 minutes or 5,000 hours. Who has that kind of time to invest? Who WOULD invest that kind of time? It's either an obsession/compulsion or a paid gig. That's 2.5 years of full time work. And that's the lower limit.

One thing it clearly is not though, is honest debate.

[bemildred]

31. Or you could call them immature cowardly racist treasonous homosexual egotists.

Or spys. Name calling is fun!

[Arctic Dave]

32. This post has no links.

It must not be true.

[MADem]

36. You have been treated poorly here.

I don't understand why people who don't agree with your support of the Democratic Party (the NERVE of you to support Democrats on a site called Democratic Underground) don't either disagree civilly, without calling you names--and they do call you names, both on and off your threads-- or simply hit the X and trash the thread.

The shitty behavior of the people who speak ill of you, quite relentlessly, too, some of them, says more about them than they realize. Time will reveal all, I suspect. Probably in the run up to the 2014 elections.

[ProSense]

40. I have thick skin and

laugh at them 24/7: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242#post19

[flamingdem]

50. Oh, they're naming names on this thread - a compliment to be listed along with PS!

Very surprised since I'm pretty goofy at times. I guess they figure that's part of my act.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3358622

[JoePhilly]

57. I just added a response to that ...

I'm really bummed that I didn't make their list.

I'll have to try harder.

[flamingdem]

63. I understand! I think I was included for the Alex Jones comparison thread

That really riled up the populace, he he.

[NoOneMan]

64. Which is ironic

Who would pay for that garbage?

[flamingdem]

123. I alerted but nada.

I like what you wrote lol

[MADem]

151. Your response was terribly clever, too! nt

[MADem]

89. Perhaps because you aren't an Eddie Enthusiast? nt

[Scurrilous]

161. That is an honor!

Soon you'll be getting the "are you paid?" "OMFG a bluelink!!1!" treatment.

Congrats!

[MADem]

70. Unbelievable.

The call-outs in that thread are beyond the pale.

[pintobean]

103. One of them quit posting

after a "public shaming" accusation, followed by an ATA question that didn't get answered publicly.

[FSogol]

82. Completely agree. n/t

[bigtree]

90. disgusting, really

. . . to act, as some here do, as if representing the administration opinion has no merit in these discussions . . .of the administration opinion.

Yes. ProSense has been treated badly here.

[treestar]

95. That is what gets me

It is Democratic Underground. We support electing Democrats. Then you see people posting complaints that anyone is supporting Democrats on this site!

[MADem]

97. I think some folks think this is Anarchist's Underground, while others--or maybe even

the very same people--think this is Conservative Underground!

All I know is, if that black guy in the White House is anywhere near 'it,' then 'it' is BAAAAAAD to these folks.

And by "that black guy in the White House," I'm not talking about The Butler....




http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327773/

[flamingdem]

122. Too true that nt

[bigtree]

131. I'm one who can remember being lectured on what a progressive choice Mr. Obama was

. . . many of these same folks want to tell us now how much they feel betrayed by his presidency. Somewhere along the way, THEY were uninformed, or misinformed, and they want to convince us now that they really know the score.

I don't know how much his race plays out in those representations here, but I do know that there is a vital need for folks who take the time to accurately represent the president's and his administration's opinion. That aspect of the discussion is often left to opinion and hyperbole; rejecting attempts to set the record straight as 'talking points' and sockpuppetry'.

I mean, it's not as if there isn't enough opposition to the administration opinion here in these threads. Plenty of room here for what usually amounts to a rebuttal of a majority of posts. The whining and lashing out is ridiculous and looks desperate; most of it just one-liners and snark. It's no wonder why supporters of this historic presidency feel slighted when their attempts to represent this president's positions and opinion are labeled as shills by posters with low-info threads work to rally opinion against one position or the other with rhetoric and fact-free arguments.

It's no wonder why these same critics of this administration and president reject links and evidence which refutes their opinionating and editorializing.

[MADem]

143. I remember some of those lectures, too!

I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the primary, but I managed to move forward and support the team, because I am old enough to understand very clearly what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is. Boy, did I catch some shit for that--from many of the same people who are now beating the living crap out of Obama, day in, day out. And they're beating on him for not having the Congress to pass the laws they want.

Or maybe they're beating on him because they like being contrarians--it sure seems like that, some days. It's pretty obvious they never read the damn links they routinely mock.

It's a bit ... hilarious ... in a sick and twisted way.

I suppose as long as they're in here, causing petit-dramas and mini-trouble, they won't be OUT THERE, making a real difference!

[mick063]

42. I'll give you credit

for keeping your nose to the grindstone.

Additionally, I'm relieved there are no links. One of your recent posts had me reading links until I fell asleep and planted my face in the keyboard.

I'm desensitized with the rah rah stuff. It didn't seem to work.

[MADem]

148. I read the links, too.

Many don't, but it doesn't stop them from fact free snarking. That's the bit I find most objectionable.

[Cooley Hurd]

44. Pro, can I ask you of your opinion of this article?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

This is, apparently happening as we speak. Does this type of behavior make you comfortable?

[ProSense]

54. The

"Pro, can I ask you of your opinion of this article?"

...article was originally posted in 2011.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x434832

Could this poster have been a sockpuppet: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293&sub=trans

Or this poster: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=280518&sub=trans

Will we ever know?

"This is, apparently happening as we speak. Does this type of behavior make you comfortable?"

Why would you assume that anyone would be "comfortable" with a sockpuppet or troll?

[bigtree]

55. shocking. A PR firm practicing PR

. . . all of this on a WORD DOCUMENT, no less!

So, this means, for some here, that it's open season to accuse others here (they happen to disagree with) of being part of some conspiracy.

I have an idea. Why don't they just stick to debating issues and initiatives, and stop trying to characterize the folks they disagree with as part of something more nefarious than their own efforts to communicate with DUers.

[NoOneMan]

62. Again, this term has nothing to do with simple disagreements

Its about consistent, relentless, brainless, unapologetic advocation of establishment talking points, time after time.

When people see others do this it is dumbfounding so they cannot possibly think any person would willingly do it for free (but humans are sad enough to suspend critical thought and do so).

[ProSense]

65. What nonsense.

"Again, this term has nothing to do with simple disagreements

Its about consistent, relentless, brainless, unapologetic advocation of establishment talking points, time after time. "

Trying to redefine "sockpuppet." Regardless of how you characterize someone else's opinions, that doesn't make them a "sockpuppet" for disagreeing with you.

Utter silliness.

[NoOneMan]

66. "that doesn't make them a "sockpuppet" for disagreeing with you"

That's exactly what I am saying. Disagreements have nothing to do with the term or how its even been used consistently.

Use the reading part of your brain next time. Thanks.

[ProSense]

67. No, you're redefining the term to justify your point. n/t

[NoOneMan]

68. Haha, Thats what your OP is about! Its a straw man

Look, I can disagree with you 25% of the time and still label you as a sockpuppet if 100% of the time your mindless, brainless post relentlessly push establishment talking points.

It has nothing to do with disagreements. Its about displaying a behavior of a partisan caricature so brainwashed people can't imagine you would do it for free (so the assumption is that you must be paid). That is what "sockpuppet" users mean. Sorry you don't get that. They aren't insulting what you are saying. They are claiming you are saying nothing of value because you have no original thought of your own that you aren't paid to have.

Ill let you have the last word.

[ProSense]

73. Someone isn't a sockpuppet because you feel like calling him/her one.

Silliness.

[bigtree]

71. no, that's not the definition in the article

. . . what is described there is a deliberate attempt to infiltrate web discussions with predetermined talking points behind an innocuous facade. Hell, ANYONE here can be accused of spreading 'talking points' when repeating opinions that our media and internet so obligingly provide in duplicate news reports and opinion posts and columns that EVERYONE has access to and almost invariably uses some of the info provided in formulating their own opinions.

It's always amazing to me that someone can come on here and accuse someone else of being part of some conspiracy when they happen to echo some opinion or the other. Can't they see that their OWN opinion has, more than likely, also been repeated somewhere? The ONLY thing that makes the accusers' opinion superior and unassailable (in their own mind) is that it happens to be in disagreement.

For some accusers, they may well be spot on about a talking point that's been deliberately introduced into discussions and repeated here, but to accuse someone of 'sockpuppetry' for echoing that view is just a lazy way of defending your own point; and, it's likely off target. I believe most folks here are just people looking to flesh out these opinions and points in discussions here. That open discussion is a perfect opportunity to refute the points you disagree with. That's what we should focus on; not on subjective and presumptive personalizations which are not much more than just cliquish attempts to control the debate.

[bigtree]

46. there are sockpuppets

. . .and, there are sockpuppets.

See the difference?

[Coyotl]

51. I know this much, I DO disagree with sock puppets spreading propaganda

but not always

[randome]

72. Or accuse them of using the new daily 'talking points'.

You know, like using the phrase 'sock puppets' in tandem with one another.

See, guys? It works both ways so it's a losing proposition all around!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

75. Is that what you did to cause MM to start a thread on the topic?

[burnodo]

76. Sure. That's what you do

you should know very well

[ProSense]

77. No, but you apparently have a creative imagination. n/t

[treestar]

78. Yeah, works just as well as the old "paid to post" routine

One of the many refuges of those with no real argument.

[burnodo]

84. and you know precisely what you're talking about

being a blatant example of same

[bigtree]

100. who pays you?

. . . so quick to call out posters in this thread (and others). Who pays you for that?

Who here knows burnodo from shit on a shingle?

[treestar]

104. And the whole idea appears to apply more to their side of things, too

The recs, the many posts that say nothing other than agreement with the talking points. The TP are obvious - "spying on Americans" "the Fourth Amendment" all without much discussion. The instructions just say "invoke the Fourth Amendment" or call it "spying." On each "burning issue" we can easily pick out the talking points.

Whole threads make it look like the board has a lot of support for whatever the issue is. And then they start wondering in that thread where the administration's "apologists" are if they fear they are being ignored.

The "I'm done with Obama" business also is a clear showing of it. No real Democrat would say that.

[bigtree]

114. it's not as if we're immune from wondering who sent some of these folks here

. . . to attack the administration position.

It's just that we usually don't have the temerity to question where that opposition originates. On a Democratic website, THAT opposition should be far more suspect than representations from our Democratic president.

[Marr]

93. You have more than 100,000 posts on a wide range of political subjects-- ALL OF THEM

supportive of the Obama Administration's position. This is by your own admission-- I'm sure you recall.

How could any thinking person not find that suggestive of something? I mean, I'm only aware of one type of outlet that can always, always be relied upon to say positive things about a given item, and that is an ad agency.

[ProSense]

101. Not

"You have more than 100,000 posts on a wide range of political subjects-- ALL OF THEM supportive of the Obama Administration's position."

...true. I post a lot, but not all of it is about Obama.

Wyden’s Next Steps For Ensuring That The Shale Gas Expansion Provides Net Benefits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023356661

California Inmate Dies In Solitary Confinement During Hunger Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359536

Human Rights Watch: "Ratify Disability Rights Treaty Without Further Delay"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023355005

Rand Paul Hits Back At Chris Christie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023345646

[Rex]

116. No, I think his point is that you never, ever give negative feedback

on anything the POTUS does. I've read your posts since you got here and you do post on a wide range of topics. Personally I don't care if you never post negative feedback, since 50% of GD is negative feedback toward Obama.

IOW, easy to find.

[Marr]

117. It would've been more accurate to say you have never *criticized* the administration.

I will acknowledge that my previous statement was not phrased well. While you may well have posted on subjects unrelated to the Obama Administration, you have never argued counter to the official Obama Administration position.

[Egalitarian Thug]

155. That's not what (s)he said.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're a sockpuppy.

[treestar]

106. This is a politician

As Democrats, we are going to want to support a Democratic President. At least we will not jump at the chance to find something wrong. That's a lot more natural than a Democrat or liberal never finding him to do anything right.

[Eddie Haskell]

94. Or just ignore a post's content and bash the site where it was published.

An ad hominem attacks will get you locked up around here.

[War Horse]

108. The Snowden/Greenwald thing has been rather weird to read as an infrequent poster

but long time reader of DU.

With GG it's mostly been about pointing out Greenwalds past actions/standpoints... that I've seen, at least. I may have been reading selectively.

The Snowden criticism has really reached infantile levels at times, though (not only talking about DU here, but it's been kind of reflected across the Interwebs and repeated here). It's been even more weird than with those canonizing him.

Some critics may actually be proper 'authoritarians', as is so often claimed here. Or sock puppets. I wouldn't rule out that that's the case, in a few instances.

But some may actually be convinced that GG, Snowden and others are greatly exaggerating their claims. Just something to consider, before making accusations.

Some may also just be interested in an honest debate, and are pissed that the whole issue is getting so clouded. I'm probably one of the least informed people about this issue on this board, but I think I know confirmation bias when I see it. And it seems to exist on both "sides" of this debate, in spades.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

109. Who sent you?

[ProSense]

112. .

[agent46]

125. Like the man said

"If you're not a sockpuppet then you've got nothing to worry about."

[customerserviceguy]

128. Thanks for posting this

My favorite is "You're spouting Republican talking points!"

Sure saves a lot of brainpower when you don't actually have to refute another person's observation or opinion.

[PufPuf23]

132. I admit I am a sockpuppet but lost the other sock before ever joining DU. lol

Anyone could likely sleuth me to real self from my posts over the years.

In real life I buy socks 3 nor 4 of the same exact socks to mitigate the lost sock syndrome.

Now some are old favorites with holes and to darn is a lost art.

One doesn't need to be a sockpuppet to sling propaganda as evidenced at DU.

There is BS, some quite well-crafted, on the internet.

One would be naïve not to think that the internet and sites like DU do not have organized voices from special , "the truly entitled" interests.

[Skittles]

138. WTF - IS IGNORE NOT WORKING???

[ProSense]

146. Why did you click it? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

156. LOL!

I'm dying here!



Oh, dear. Sunday fun day!

[Scurrilous]

141. K & R

Better yet, if you are a sockpuppet yourself, start a thread decrying sockpuppetry.

You'd better believe this happens.

[Cirque du So-What]

142. From all appearances

this thread is merely META's sock puppet.

[Junkdrawer]

153. Pay no attemtion to that man behind the curtain...

The Great and Powerful OZ has spoken....

[Autumn]

165. Locking. It is the consensus of the hosts that this does not meet the

SOP for GD