How do you folks manage to post on FreeRep?

[AbbyR]

I mentioned this in another thread, but thought I might get more answers if I posted it by itself.

I went over to FR and, in answer to a comment on the fact that Fitz is just trying to get Rove on perjury, because that's all he can get - I posted something innocuous like "I'm still worried, because isn't that all we got Clinton on: Perjury?"

It was deleted by the moderator and my account was closed in less than 60 seconds - I promise.

Gee - I thought it was a pretty safe thing to post over there. How do some of you manage to stay there?

[C_U_L8R]

1. you can observe

without getting in the cage with em.

[Cary]

2. Why?

???

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. it was your correct spelling of Perjury

good spelling always gives you away. :rofl:

[Emit]

lol. n/t

[Inland]

46. Mystery solved! nt

[dogday]

4. Just like me. I was banned first post

Mine was about DeLay... I said are we not taught by our parents that we should take responsibility for our actions? Gone in 60 seconds.... :hi:

[Obamanaut]

44. Me too. I responded to a post that said * was getting mad by

saying that he has actually been mad for quite some time. Banned.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Me too

I can't even remember what I said now, it has been several years ago, but they booted me within about 10 minutes. Same deal on that other site that exists for the sole purpose of spying on DU.

[DavidMS]

5. I think you used correct spelling.

N/T

[texastoast]

9. That could have been it--dead giveaway n/t

[JuniperLea]

13. DHO! hahaha! n/t

[Old and In the Way]

6. They are paranoid and suspect of any new poster.

Unles you have built up a history, even reasonably innocuous comments will be considered trollish. Of course, there are many frepervillians who could post the same thing and no one would bat an eye. But if you are new, they hold you to a different standard. They need to keep the cognitive dissonance as quiet as possible.

[timber84]

kinda like here sometimes

[Old and In the Way]

64. Kinda, but not really.

As more and more Republican corruption and incompetence gets exposed, the tolerance window shrinks at FR. They've had a few systematic purges there. Every day, they become a little more dogmatic in their belief system. It's really sad watching the site devolve into a modern day cult of Maoists and reality deniers.

Unless you say something really stupid here, you won't get banned. You might get blistered, but not banned.

[KansDem]

62. Say "ping" a lot. Or "ping back 'acha"

I think you can build up a history there by typing these terms. I think they mean something like "agreed," or perhaps synonymous with DU's "kick"

Anyway, typing a one-word response is a quick way to build up a post count without outing yourself.

And it's fairly easy to spell!

[Old and In the Way]

69. I seen 500 post threads, that contain a cummulative 1 paragraph of

informed content. I find that interesting. Someone can make a witty or interesting 1 sentence observation and the next 25 comments are "ping", "LOL", "true that", or "ditto". I guess some will be trolls building up post counts, but a lot of people there don't seem to have a whole lot to say or can't express themselves using written language.

[texastoast]

7. You gotta lockstep

Nothing can be mentioned that is out of line with their Nazi thinking.

I was banned twice. Once I lasted for three months, but when the AWOL Bush story came out, I said something like, "Well, where was he?" That did it.

But now, I have a new computer, a new ISP, and a new email address. Jimmy boy will host me once more, once I get in the mood to do that and I buy some new disinfectant.

[SoCalDem]

26. I've been registered there since 2001, but I never post anymore

It's an UGLY place in every way, and I have no interest in posting there..I figure that eventually they'll purge inactive posters and I'll go bye-bye.

[texastoast]

32. I've been putting it off

It is an exercise in restraint to go over there, and you are right--it shows some of the worst of humanity.

[NYCGirl]

8. Post on it? I can't even LOOK at it.

:shrug:

[DainBramaged]

14. I WOULD RATHER WIPE DOGSHIT OFF MY SHOES

Than post on or visit that site. Visiting Freeperville is like viewing kiddie porn, disgusting and vile.

[HamDon]

27. Something missing in that photo

[texastoast]

66. That's not DOGSHIT!

That's a cow paddy. Now scat!

[annabanana]

80. cows don't leave "scat"...

neither do dogs.

(I forget what animal DOES, though. . . foxes? wildcats?)

[texastoast]

81. Scat is

the excrement of an animal. Just poopie of our animal friends. I don't think scat discriminates. Oh, that means we scat too!:think:

[DainBramaged]

86. FINE, I'd rather wipe DUNG off my shoes than visit Freeperland

[texastoast]

89. That is such a big picture

So very detailed. Yowsa!

[Skittles]

54. and it is very difficult to look at

can you believe those dipshits acually send money to support that piece of crap site? It hasn't evolved at ALL. They just HAVE to cringe when they see how superior DU is.

[Jacobin]

10. Try it again and here are some tips

Use something like this:

"That daym Fitsjerild is perskuting President Bush's best hand in a tim of war. The DemRats dont car about nashunle securti and wood prolly lik to see binLadin run the countri for thim. I thik the perscuter should be fired by President Bush in this time of war."

[Lolivia]

12. Dear god - your sig line

Did Scalia really say that? Do you have link/case name where I could find it?

[Shipwack]

19. My Google-Fu is strong today...

Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993

Now, I haven't gone to a case log site to look it up, but several web sites cite that as the case where he said that. I'm afraid that if I look it up, it will be really true.
:scared:

[Lolivia]

22. Haha

Yeah, I know what you mean. If I see the proof, I can no longer delude myself that Scalia is even remotely sane. :)

Thanks for the cite - I'm going to take the plunge and look up the case.

[mikelewis]

57. Here's the case...

This is not to say that our habeas jurisprudence casts a blind eye toward innocence. In a series of cases culminating with Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992), decided last Term, we have held that a petitioner otherwise subject to defenses of abusive or successive use of the writ may have his federal constitutional claim considered on the merits if he makes a proper showing of actual innocence. This rule, or fundamental miscarriage of justice exception, is grounded in the "equitable discretion" of habeas courts to see that federal constitutional errors do not result in the incarceration of innocent persons. See McCleskey, supra, at 502. But this body of our habeas jurisprudence makes clear that a claim of "actual innocence" is not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.

Petitioner in this case is simply not entitled to habeas relief based on the reasoning of this line of cases. For he does not seek excusal of a procedural error so that he may bring an independent constitutional claim challenging his conviction or sentence, but rather argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because newly discovered evidence shows that his conviction is factually incorrect. The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception is available "only where the prisoner supplements his constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence." Kuhlmann, supra, at 454 (emphasis added). We have never held that it <506 U.S. 390, 405> extends to freestanding claims of actual innocence. Therefore, the exception is inapplicable here.

Petitioner asserts that this case is different because he has been sentenced to death. But we have "refused to hold that the fact that a death sentence has been imposed requires a different standard of review on federal habeas corpus." Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 9 (1989) (plurality opinion). We have, of course, held that the Eighth Amendment requires increased reliability of the process by which capital punishment may be imposed. See, e.g., McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) (unanimity requirement impermissibly limits jurors' consideration of mitigating evidence); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (jury must be allowed to consider all of a capital defendant's mitigating character evidence); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion) (same). But petitioner's claim does not fit well into the doctrine of these cases, since, as we have pointed out, it is far from clear that a second trial 10 years after the first trial would produce a more reliable result.

Perhaps mindful of this, petitioner urges not that he necessarily receive a new trial, but that his death sentence simply be vacated if a federal habeas court deems that a satisfactory showing of "actual innocence" has been made. Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-20. But such a result is scarcely logical, petitioner's claim is not that some error was made in imposing a capital sentence upon him, but that a fundamental error was made in finding him guilty of the underlying murder in the first place. It would be a rather strange jurisprudence, in these circumstances, which held that under our Constitution he could not be executed, but that he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=506&invol=390
(about 1/3 of the way down the ruling)

[rpgamerd00d]

87. Here is what Scalia actually said, verbatim:

"there is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."

i.e. if you are convicted and then afterwards, find evidence that proves you innocent, you have no right to have that evidence considered.

Fucking nutjob.

[SoCalDem]

34. He said it..the rat-bastard.

:(

Bousley v. United States, 523 US 614 (1998)
... “actual innocence” means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency. ... Justice Scalia contends that this factual innocence inquiry will be unduly ...
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-8516.ZO.html - 28k - Cached - Similar pages




Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.

We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent." I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) "shocks" the dissenters' consciences, post, at 1, perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of "conscience shocking" as a legal test.

[kevinbgoode]

31. And always say: "DUmmies are MORANS". . .

I think that moran word is a key to access into their secret posting group.

[Lexingtonian]

11. delete cookies and such before you go

Sites don't just read for their own cookies. I bet JimRob reads for DU, Kos, and a bunch of others. Doing a flyby of RedState to pick up their cookies probably helps too.

[warrens]

15. You forgot to say "that scumbag Clinton"

They don't do reasonable over there. The only way to last is to lurk and make ridiculous right-wing comments from time to time. Use the words dime-o-craps and lieberals a lot. Cut and paste from their most extreme nutbars, and make sure to imply that you're a vet who hates them peacenik commie freaks.

Maybe even join that Pray For Bush thing and post every day there.

[Brazenly Liberal]

60. Klintoon

If you want to look like a real rightwingnutjob, you have to spell it "Klintoon"

[warrens]

88. And Hitlery

And the preferred spelling is KKKlintoon!

[Robbie Michaels]

16. I Wouldn't Even Try It

First of all, they're all for free speech as long as you agree with them. Second, chances are excellent they have your IP address logged. Why bother?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMDemDist2]

18. go to a neutral site to hash it out

not to a partisan site

try neutral underground

and thanks for stopping by

:hi:

[texastoast]

20. I don't have trouble with conservatives

But I do have a great deal of trouble with ultra right-wing, bookburning neocons and religious zealots who think this country should be Christian.

What are your thoughts about environmentalism, evolution, free speech, borrowing money from the Chinese to finance the war, and conniving to go into that war based on lies? These are issues that affect everyone.

[Maddy McCall]

24. I do...anyone who still supports Bush instantly goes on my idiot list.

:shrug:

:hi:

[texastoast]

28. That would be a neocon

I know lots of conservatives who are major PISSED at Bush.

[Maddy McCall]

33. Not necessarily. I know "conservatives" who still love Bush...

but who don't support the "neocon" agenda, and would never consider themselves neocons. Yeah, they're idiots.

Yes, there are conservatives who don't support Bush. Why do you think my opening question to "hedhunter" was: "Do you still support Bush?"

[TahitiNut]

38. Yep. It's criminally insane to continue supporting that pathological fart

I find myself less and less able to regard this regime's supporters as anything but a danger to themselves and others - enough to warrant commitment to the appropriate institution.

[Maddy McCall]

39. Go look at his second post. "Plame wasn't outted because...

everyone in Washington already knew she worked for the CIA."

This guy didn't waste any time.

[Richard Steele]

47. He made it all the way to 2 posts- good job Mods!

Typical lying little troll that he was,
I ain't gonna miss him.

[TahitiNut]

50. Yep. Like I say: criminally insane. Coprolite for brains.

:shrug: Willful ignorance and pathological partisanship.

[NMDemDist2]

25. ROFL

well put! :applause:

[Maddy McCall]

21. Are you a Bush supporter?

Let's be open. Are you?

I'll be glad to have a discussion with you, because these days you are such a rare bird, and I really am curious as to what the mindset is of someone who still supports Bush.

:hi: Hi, and bye if you get zapped before you can reply.

(I suppose you read DU's rules?)

[Systematic Chaos]

29. I am NOT thoughts, I am Gentle Giant....

But I digress. :)

I think that what it all boils down to is that there just isn't anything left to debate with conservatives. You have controlled all three branches of government, without exception, for five straight years, and this country is more fragmented and distraught than at any time since the Civil War. Our reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world couldn't get much worse unless we actually nuke Iran. What more could you possibly want? Exactly WHAT do you propose we debate?

If you actually get to stick around long enough to answer me, I can't wait to hear the answer....

[TahitiNut]

41. Your baaad.

:rofl:

[CottonBear]

30. Democratic Underground is a site for Democrats.

It is a partisan site. You may want to read the DU rules.
You may want to post on a non-partisan or conservative site rather than here since you are not a Democrat or a progressive.

edit: Unlike conservative web forums, we value proper spelling, grammar and punctuation. We are not always perfect in our posting but we do try.

[mdmc]

35. welcome to DU

peace

[LSK]

36. how do you feel about your "free market" resulting in these gas prices?

[BooScout]

37. Stick around........

If you read and understand what we are talking about here you'll turn into a Liberal pretty fast.

[Ian David]

42. Many "Conservatives" are more "Liberal" than they think

Part of the reason they "hate liberals" is because of what they've been told Liberals stand for.

Many think that Liberals want to make it illegal to own dogs as pets, force our children to learn the intimate details of gay sex, ban the bible and destroy Christmas.

Months ago, I was channel-surfing and I actually heard Limbaugh on the radio say that Liberals were celebrating a Supreme Court decision allowing eminent domain seizing of property for commercial development.

The funny thing is, here on DU we spent days fuming over that ourselves!

Liberals own homes, too!

Look, hedhunter...

The very fact that you're over here looking for "common ground" tells me that someone's told you that in order to be good you have to be a conservative.

But conservatives don't seek common ground or compromise-- the conserve the status quo.

By definition, to be conservative means to resist change.

Maybe I'm being premature, but does that sound like you?

[TahitiNut]

48. Welcome to Boot Hill. R.I.P.

[haele]

52. Read the rules for DU. Follow them and you'll have no problems.

But sad experience with many conservatives in real life has shown me that self-proclaimed conservatives rarely stick around because the very way they think does not allow them to be open to other ways of viewing the world.
The definition of conservative most of those afore-mentioned self-proclaimed conservatives is the meaning "protect the social structure - the traditions or status quo - that I prefer in life".
Too often, conservative as in "guarded or moderate understanding or estimation" or conservative as in one who conserves - as in environment, resources, energy,etc - goes by the wayside when faced with the modern idea of social conservatism - which more and more seems to be some sort of evangelical version of social darwinism - only the strong (i.e. - lucky) deserve to survive and prosper, and everyone has to stick to their position in some sort of "tribal hierarchy" or they are to be driven out.

On edit - since I see s/he is gone, there is no further comment to make. That one chose his or her conservitive views unwisely.


Haele

[Kerrytravelers]

58. Ask your president the same question.

He'll take his toys and go home. Then Homeland Security will come after you.

[Kerrytravelers]

61. Bye bye.

[DainBramaged]

65. There is NOTHING to debate, being a Conservative just sucks

And since you are already gone, here's some advice, shut the fuck up and go back to Freeperland. YOU cause hunger among the little children, YOU cause our elders to eat dog food, YOU bled our health care system so that our elders have to choose between medicine and food, and YOU are directly responsible for the deaths of our Fathers and Mothers, Aunts and Uncles, Brothers and Sisters, Sons and Daughters in the Middle East.

Go fuck yourself.

[LSK]

23. i never tried

But you can come face to face with freeps at yahoo without fear of getting posts deleted.

[mdmc]

40. i found that there were just as many asses here

as on fr. it is just that du asses think the same way as i do.

I usually post on fr when there is a sanity vs. insanity thread (such as hr4437 or the drug war). I have a very hard time following fr, so i usually don't go there.

[Ian David]

45. Yes, we do have assholes here, too. Some are freeper trolls...

and some are liberal idiots and some are just confused people who somehow managed to master the fine art of copy-and-paste.

I have 51 people on my ignore list.

That's 51 assholes out of 88,382 total user registrations.

That's not too bad!

[Kerrytravelers]

68. My ignore list is growing. I stopped tolerating childishness.

Someone wants to debate the subject. Great. Let's go. There are several really cool DUers that I disagree on issues, but I can always rely on them to flesh out their opinions and bring facts and experience to the table. Sometimes they persuade me. Sometimes I persuade them. Sometimes neither one changes their opinion, but having the understanding of how someone else views an issue is something I know I can get from these particular DUers.

Then we have the assholes who have no basis in fact. They can't cite any sources or experience. Their details are vague and impossible to do a search on because they lack key essential details needed. They then insult your character and make baseless accusation that hold no water. They also won't stop. Even when you're done and gone, they continue to reply and reply, having to get the last word. And their last word is always some insult where they're trying to be clever, but really they just look stupid. Often time these posters have been registered quite a while, but have a lower post count than others who registered about the same time as them. When you do a search of their name, you find a history of flame throwing and arguing- as if all they come on here to do is argue.

Unfortunately, in the recent past, we've lost some valuable DUers to this kind of stupidity. People who just don't bother coming here anymore because they get tired of this insane crap, too. This is too bad. These people added something to the DU community and are now gone because of the behavior and the nasty posts towards them.

[Ian David]

78. People here make me change my mind all the time

I am, after all, wrong 1/12 of the time.

Although sometimes, when someone makes me realize I'm wrong, I like to say something like, "Why do you hate freedom?" and hope they realize I'm kidding.

[Zodiak]

75. criminy!!

I have 3

[Ian David]

49. Check out this stuff from a right-wing Republican lawyer...

who is also a Delegate to the next Republican convention.

He seems to hate Bush, hate Al Franken, but he's in favor of things like gay marriage:


By David Grossack Updated: 4/25/2005
THE BIG BETRAYAL IN WASHINGTON

I have been a Republican since the age of 18. I am a member of the Hull Republican Town Committee and have been for about 20 years. I have long believed that the Republican Party symbolized the best hopes for all Americans of attaining prosperity through freedom. I have believed that Republicans wanted to limit the size of government, reduce taxes for everybody and return the country to a pre-New Deal ideal of self-reliance, responsibility and fairness.

I have strongly promoted George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, the Party and the principles for which I hope the Party stood.

I am being disappointed.

I am watching what is going on in Washington and I instead see a small clique of wealthy and powerful launching economic warfare against the majority of the American people. At a time when Republicans control both the White House and the Congress, what an opportunity for greatness is being squandered on a program of seemingly mean spirited legislation that caters to special interests.

More:
http://usaexposure.com/news/news.php?sid=96

[mdmc]

53. i did notice that some people from the primary

have been tombstoned...
by 'ass' i mean uncivil...rude...
I always disliked that kind of person...

[Old and In the Way]

74. The Republican Syndicate will never support this guy.

I'm convinced that the last thing they can tolerate are reformers and people with integrity getting into the inner workings of the Party. They need to select people who demonstrate a willingness to put their interests ahead of the good of the country. If they can't be bribed or blackmailed, they are a threat.

[TexasLawyer]

43. Happened to me too--

and what I posted was merely factual-- John Kerry's position on Iraq withdrawal.

The post said Kerry was for immediate withdrawal and "surrender", and I posted a news story with quotes showing that this was not so.

It took 60 seconds. And I was called a "troll" and a DU-er. I had to look up what they meant by "DU-er". Duke University? Depleted Uranium?

But THAT's how I found Democratic Underground. So IT'S ALL GOOD!!!

[mdmc]

55. that is a cool story on how you found du

thanks for sharing.
peace

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

51. Same experience here. Banned/deleted after one post, that didn't

even have text in it, just a link to a Boston Globe article about Kerry's military service, in response to some misinformation. I can't remember how long it took, but it was very fast.

Clearly there is no "benefit of a doubt" there. If the first post or so strikes someone as the slightest bit trollish--banned.

Obviously we don't tolerate any or all views to be expressed here either, but there's a LOT more leeway before a ban.

[helderheid]

56. Quit trying to post under the name Tony Snow. n/t

[ProgressivePatriot]

63. Freeperville....

no place in the universe is filled with more America-hating scum.

Now AbbyR, go soak in some chlorine......lol.

[Joanne98]

67. Sign up for a Freep Ahoy cruise.

[Kerrytravelers]

70. The pics from those cruises are scary.

I'm not about to look any up. YIKES!

[Joanne98]

73. I haven't seen them yet. I posted the preparation threads on DU

They were hilarious. Especially the menu. French food ahoy. lol

[Old and In the Way]

76. Hehehe...could you imagine a couple dozen DUer's signing on

to a week long cruise with FR? We could make it hell week for those people. :rofl:

[Joanne98]

77. Somebody would fall off the boat. LOL!

[Swamp Rat]

71. I never did nor will I ever post there... it's THEIR website.

I respect their personal (cyber) space.

The ones who don't respect mine get an eyeful! :D



:D :headbang: :spank: :crazy: :D :smoke:

[negativenihil]

72. Psst... check this out.

Ok so, instead of soiling your perfectly good email or ip address visiting that cesspool... i offer up 2 items.

first, the coral cache distribution network
http://www.coralcdn.org/

Surf FR through there... they use a distributed network of proxy servers, so blocking you by ip will be pretty pointless and almost impossible. Bonus side effect, your ip is NEVER logged on their server.

second, GMAIL!
http://gmail.google.com

never hurts to have a few random email account in your back pocket. Need a gmail invite? i've got tons.



}(

[mikelewis]

79. I've been posting disinformation there for years, those idiots keep buying

any line of crap you send them. As long as you speak their languange, they'll believe anything. They are the biggest bunch of schmucks I have ever come across. Hell, I know of at least 20 or 30 other DU'ers who do the same. It's good to get in there and trip them up from time to time but if you should get back in, try not to blow your cover. We need all the agents we can get.

[AbbyR]

85. Oh, I did go back in, under a new name

But I have no confidence that it will work. And thanks, everyone, for the information. By the way, I'm sorry I missed post #17 - looks like he didn't last long either. Since I'm ALWAYS too late to see the banned posts, I have no idea what the banned folks said.

That's one thing I noticed on FR - they are all so - well - I hate to sound prejudiced, but they all sound so ignorant and uneducated. I try SO hard to find out both sides/all sides of a story and not just the liberal side.

Oh, well - thanks for the info, folks. I may try again, but I have so little time to spend on the computer, and I'd rather spend it here. But if I go back, I'll try to be quiet, or just agree with everyone.

[MercutioATC]

82. I lasted a year there. The comment that got me banned?

"Some people don't view homosexuality as a perversion" (in response to a poster that professed to not understand how some people advocated giving rights to people who "lived a perversion")

[Rocknrule]

83. You have to write things like:

"Bush is king! Bush is God! Bush is the greatest president ever! I'd sell my soul to Bush! I wish I could have his child, even though I'm a guy. Oooooohh, he looks so hot and manly in that flight suit, he really puts the cock in cockpit! I wish I could surgically attach my lips to his ass! I love Bush so much I wish I could eat his shit! 9/11 changed everything, BUSH RULES!"
:puke:

[NNN0LHI]

84. Here is the trick. Just end every post with God Bless George Bush

You can say anything in your message. It doesn't matter. Just end every post with God Bless George Bush and they will never ban you.

Don