Skinner Writes Hilariously Detailed Rules For DUmmie Dissent
"Just plain NUts!!!"That is the phrase that comes to mind when reading head DUmmie Skinner's new, obsessively detailed, highly redundant rules dealing with DUmmie dissent following the discovery by many in DUmmieland that the Mighty Ozbama is a mere mortal hiding behind his teleprompter. The FUnniest thing about these rules is that Skinner is DEAD SERIOUS and yet it comes off as completely hilarious in its utter obsessiveness as you can see in his THREAD, "Democratic Underground is changing. It's time to change the way we run it." So let us now watch Head DUmmie Skinner obsessively attempt to micromanage DUmmieland in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, profusely thanking Skinner for some of the best DUmmie comedy material ever, is in the [barackets]:
Democratic Underground is changing. It's time to change the way we run it.
[Any kind of dissent is so alien to our nature that we have to develop a whole new set of incredibly bizarre rules on how to deal with it.]
As you know, Barack Obama is the first Democratic President since DU was created back in 2001. Nearly a year-and-a-half into his administration, it is apparent that having a Democrat in the White House presents new and difficult challenges for the DU community.
[Hmmm... The Free Republic had TONS of dissent over Bush's support for shamnesty and attempting to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court yet NOT ONE new rule was developed on how to deal with that situation. OTOH, Skinner will soon post, in excruciating but hilarious detail a multitude of redundant rules on how to write about The One.]
The DU Administrators have long been frustrated with the persistent undercurrent of negativity and conflict here, which has been exacerbated by the lack of a common villain in the form of George W. Bush. But we have been reluctant to make changes to the way we run the site out of fear that we might do more harm than good. The problems we face are extraordinarily complicated, and despite (or perhaps because of) nearly a decade of administering this site we tend to be fairly skeptical of our own ability to effect broad-based changes that will improve DU for the majority of our members.
[Extraordinarily complicated? It's really simple. Some DUmmies have noticed that their Obamessiah is flawed and you don't know how to deal with it.]
So we have been banging our heads against the wall for a long time trying to figure out what we can or should do to try to make DU "better." We are committed to maintaining Democratic Underground as a community that welcomes a wide range of Democratic and progressive viewpoints. Now that we have a Democratic President, we will remain open to members who are generally critical of him, members who are generally supportive of him, and the majority of members who do not fall neatly into either camp. We considered many possible approaches -- from adding lots of new rules to getting rid of most of them -- and eventually came to realize that the DU rules we already have are actually pretty good. But we do not all share a consistent view of what they mean or how they should be enforced now that the larger political environment has changed.
[DU rules have been simple. Don't march in lockstep with the Party Line and you get Tombstoned. However it is going to be hilarious to see you spell out your new rules.]
So, our goal is to get everyone back on the same page. To be clear, we are not promising that all the discussions here are going to be "nicer," or that you will no longer have to read stuff on DU that you find annoying -- in fact, some of that stuff (depending on your point of view) might get worse rather than better. What we are trying to do is to make it more clear where the limits are. In practice, this means moderating will likely be more aggressive in some areas and less aggressive in others. We have no illusions that this approach will make everyone happy. But we hope by managing expectations and better explaining limits, we'll have a few more satisfied people here than we have now.
[Will you check the papers of any DUmmie suspected of being a LOUSY FREEPER TROLL?]
So after a great deal of consideration we've come up with a proposal to try and make DU a community again.
["A proposal?" Don't be so humble, Skinner. You have written up an obsessive series of detailed proposals notable for their unintentional hilarity.]
To be clear: These changes have not been implemented yet. Hopefully we can phase them in over the next couple weeks.
[Why am I picturing that scene from "Casablanca" where the loudspeakers in Paris announce in German the new rules of the approaching New Order?]
1. A clear, concise version of the DU rules will be pinned to the top of the two General Discussion forums, and will appear whenever someone clicks "Alert"
[Make the rules flash like neon signs. Please! Pretty please!]
We believe that most of the DU rules are just common decency and common sense, and if everyone just tried to participate in the spirit of mutual respect it would not be necessary to post a list of rules. Of course, that is just a dream. Here in the real world it is necessary to have some concrete standards so people understand what is expected of them.
[Another movie flashback. This time Strother Martin as the chain gang boss in "Cool Hand Luke" explaining the rules.]
With this in mind, we have "boiled down" the DU rules to remove all the explanatory filler and provide a straightforward list of violations. That list is below. This will hopefully make the rules much clearer for everyone -- members, moderators, and even administrators -- and get everyone on the same page. Unfortunately, there will always be some level of subjectivity when deciding what is within bounds and what is not. But we have made every reasonable effort to be both clear and concise, and remove unnecessary gray areas.
["and get everyone on the same page" aka "getting your mind right."]
Here is the official "list of violations" from the DU rules:
[Pay Attention! (Especially YOU Will Pitt).]
LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS
[Let the comedy begin!]
{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
[Threatening to kill DUmmie bobolink in a public park?]
- Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
- Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "f*ck off," or the like.
- Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
- Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
- Calling someone a bigot.
- Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.
- Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.
[How about calling someone a "poopyhead?" Or a "toilet plunger."]
{ } Broad-brush or Extreme Group Attack - When discussing groups of DU members, the following are considered broad-brush group attacks:
- Broad-brush attack - intended to paint all people belonging to a particular group in a negative light. (The word "all" can be explicitly stated or implied.)
- Name-calling - Referring to any group of DU members by names intended to paint them in a negative light.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are conservatives, disruptors, or similar.
- Belittling people who are new or have a low post count.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are not Democrats, liberals, or progressives.
- Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive.
- Note: As a general guideline, if it is possible to identify specific individuals who are being attacked, then it is against the rules. But if the attack is against a vaguely defined group of "some but not all" people, then it might be permitted.
[What if the attack is on mostly some of all the people? Is that permitted?]
{ } Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
- Race or ethnicity.
- Gender (women or men).
- Sexual Orientation.
- Religion or lack of religion (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.).
- Geographic region or place of origin.
- Disability (mental or physical).
- Weight or other physical characteristics.
- Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "c*nt," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).
[You left off Gaiaists and Druids. So is it okay to use "insensitive terminology" on them?]
{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
- Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.
- Advocating violent overthrow of the government, or harm toward high-ranking officials.
- Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
- Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
- Sexually explicit content.
- Graphic violence, gore, pain, or human suffering (except with a legitimate political purpose, and with a clear warning in the subject line).
- Asking for medical advice.
- "Gravedancing" or "gravemourning" when someone is banned.
- Signature line/avatar image violates DU rules, is controversial, or is likely to cause discussions to go off-topic.
[Too bad you didn't have the above posted earlier. It would have prevented the Pied Piper from being tombstoned. Unfortunately, the perpetrator of Hoaxmas is now...Gone With The Wind.
{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "F*ck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.
[The above will be cited when the heretics are subjected to the DUmmieland auto-da-fé.]
{ } Harassment or threats
- Any type of threat against another member of this community, either explicit or implied.
- Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise.
- A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person.
- Digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere.
- Stalking someone across discussion threads or forums.
["Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise." Why not just shorten this to the "Will Pitt Rule?"]
{ } Rule enforcement issues
- Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.
- Publicly accusing the moderators/administrators of bias.
- Publicly "calling-out" the moderators/administrators over specific enforcement action.
- Continuing an argument from a locked thread or from a thread you have been blocked out of.
[The Thought Police will NOT be questioned!]
{ } Spamming
- Posting the same message repeatedly.
- Personal fundraising, for-profit advertising, or selling products or services (except in the DU Marketplace forum, or if given explicit permission from the DU administrators).
- Posting entirely in capital letters.
[Personal fundraising is banned? An "Andy" rule to have. And Bev Harris is just $10 away from making John F. Kerry president.]
{ } Off-topic/Wrong forum
- Any discussion thread or post that is off-topic for the forum or group in which it is posted.
- Non-news items posted in the Latest Breaking News forum.
- Highly speculative "conspiracy theory" topics outside the September 11 forum.
- Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.
- Discussion of purely religious topics outside the Religion/Theology forum.
- "Rallying the troops" in a forum or group to disrupt elsewhere on the website.
[Sigh! Will these rules ever end or will they stretch to the length of an ObamaCare bill?]
{ } Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
- Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
- Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.
[Admit it, Skinner. You had the DUmmie FUnnies in mind when writing, "Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members."]
{ } Copyright violations
- Excerpt exceeds 4 paragraphs, or does not have a link to the source.
[ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....]
{ } Other (Please explain)
[ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... Oh! You're finally done?]
Please note that in this effort, we gave special consideration to what can and cannot be said about prominent Democrats. As you know, the DU rules explicitly state that "Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted." But that comes with a caveat: "When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here." I know many of you believe that any attack against Democrats, no matter how inflammatory or divisive, should be permitted here, but that is not what I believe and it is not what the DU rules say.
[Oops! My mistake, Skinner. You just can't let go.]
Now that we have a Democratic President, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that he be shown more respect here than the illegitimate, incompetent asshole who previously held the office. He should be referred to as "President Obama," "Barack Obama," or simply "Obama." Calling him derogatory names (including "Barry"), attacking him with content-free insults, or parroting partisan attacks from the McCain/Palin campaign, are all disrespectful to this community as a whole. If you think that is unreasonable, then you are going to have difficulty here going forward. But if you are among the vast majority of people who criticize President Obama in a constructive and respectful manner, you have my appreciation. You are a valued member of this community.
[Can we call him "BO?"]
2. When a post is deleted, the author of the post will be able to see the text of the deleted post, and the rule it violated.
[Can I see the deleted posts? I'm missing a lot of great comedic DUFU material when you make those deletions.]
When a post is deleted, most people will still see the same old "Name removed/Deleted message" placeholder, but the author of the post will be given access to the full text of that post, along with specific rule it violated. We fully expect that this will cause some consternation from members at first. But it is obviously the right thing to do. Most importantly, it will help educate our members about the DU rules and how they are enforced. Over time, we hope this will help those of you who want to be constructive members figure out how to do so. In addition, it will let the author review the post to see the violation -- we know from experience that people will often forget the stray personal attack they added to the end of an otherwise appropriate post. And finally, it gives a powerful incentive for the moderators and administrators to double-check our work and make sure we are justified in removing a post.
[Fortunately the DUFUs were able to capture most of Pied Piper Pitt's posts before they were deleted just prior to his tombstoning.]
3. When a member has a post deleted from a thread, that member will be automatically blocked from posting again in that thread.
[Except when he has been fouled which means the ball is taken back 10 yards.]
We understand that this idea may upset some people. We understand that nobody wants to be blocked out of a discussion thread because of an honest posting mistake, and we do not want to do that to any of our members. But we believe blocking one person out of a thread is a less draconian solution than locking the entire thread so nobody can participate.
[Out of sight; out of mind. Mostly out of mind.]
We know many of you are tired of threads getting locked when the original post does not break the rules. We are tired of locking those threads. Members have long complained that under our current approach, a determined person (or group of people) can get a thread locked by repeatedly breaking the rules in the thread so it is almost impossible for the moderators to clean up after them.
[The image of moderators with pooper scoopers comes to mind.]
If someone is blocked out of a thread after their first deletion, then they have a disincentive to break the rules in the first place. Furthermore, it provides an incentive for other people to alert on rule-breaking posts so the author of those posts can be stopped from causing further damage.
[Now I am picturing moderators dressed like referees and tossing the Bolshevik Red flag into the air. PERSONAL FOUL! 10 YARDS!]
Would this always be fair? Of course not. But our sincere hope is that we could completely stop locking threads when the original post does not break the rules. We also hope that we could completely stop the practice of deleting entire sub-threads -- which often results in "innocent bystanders" having their posts removed unfairly.
[Will this also stop locking brakes?]
4. A uniform approach for dealing with frequent rule-breakers.
[More detailed than the NFL rulebook...]
Earlier this year we made a number of upgrades to our behind-the-scenes moderating system which allow the moderators to respond much more quickly to alerts. But moderators still do not have a uniform system for dealing with members who repeatedly break the rules. This needs to change.
[The DUmmie Quick Response Team...]
Going forward, members who break the rules repeatedly will be automatically brought up for regular reviews in the Moderator Forum. When this occurs, the moderators will take a look at the member's recent activity to decide whether it is appropriate to take any additional enforcement action: sending a private message, sending a warning, handing out a suspension, or banning someone outright.
[Bring Pitt back for a public auto-da-fé !]
When deciding what action is appropriate, special consideration will be given to determining whether we believe someone is, overall, a constructive and valuable member of our community. Does this person seem to like DU and its members? Does this person act as if they want DU to be a better place? Are this person's deleted posts innocent mistakes rather than malicious and deliberate? Do we think this person makes DU better for the vast majority of our visitors? Does this person have an inclusive attitude toward other members and viewpoints -- freely expressing when they disagree, but doing so with the understanding that their own point of view is not the only one that is valid or welcome here? Do we think this person is likely to improve their behavior?
[I'm thinking that Pitt will cite the above when pleading his case to be untombstoned.]
If the answer to these questions is no, then we are going to ban that person. We aren't going to waste our time with pointless warnings and suspensions to malicious malcontents that will almost certainly be ignored. If, however, we believe that someone is worth trying to "save" we will do what we can to keep them around, including handing out warnings or suspensions in hopes that the person might change their behavior.
[Ooh! You're tough, Skinner. Perhaps I should be wary in the future when describing you as a looking like a 15 year old teenager trapped in the body of a 13 year old boy.]
We hope that everyone will consider these proposals in the spirit they are offered. We believe this approach will make it easier for everyone who wishes to be a productive member of this community to do so, regardless of ideology. We all know this place is never going to be perfect. But we do have an ideal that everyone should strive for: A Democratic Underground where thoughtful discussion can take place among a broad range of progressive viewpoints, where everyone accepts that disagreements are both necessary and appropriate when they are expressed in good faith, and where problem people are dealt with in a fair and timely fashion. That is the type of community that we wish DU could be. If you agree, we'd love to have you here.
[Are you finally done. It seems you began this rules list several centuries ago. And now on to the DUmmie reactions...]
I think, minimise the rules
[Make them shorter? But how? Skinner was a brief as possible.]
I'm new but I think there's a risk of becoming too absorbed in a huge list of regulations built up over the years which can only be understood in the context of conflicts in the history of DU which newcomers are ignorant of.
[Perhaps the DUmmie Court of Appeal needs to be set up for the interpretation of Skinner's rules.]
I still think certain topics should not be buried in DU's waste bin far away from view.
[They should be allowed to ferment in the DUFU comedy distillery.]
I would like to see an explanation with the tombstones.
["Will Pitt was tombstoned for being a loudmouthed jerk for threatening physical harm on DUmmie bobolink who turned out to be a harmless, but sanity challenged, female Moonbat."]
Certain topics almost guarantee flame wars. I'd like to see a few of them gone, too.
[So long to all Obama threads.]
It had been close to unbearable to come here with all the vicious attacks against Obama. I actually thought I had redirect virus that was sending me to FreeRepublic instead of DU.
[Would you prefer a redirect virus that sends to you the DUmmie FUnnies?]
I love the clarification of the rules
[Good because I have several telephone books for you to read.]
Well, looks like the "Democratic" went out of the "Underground". .........While I believe in some of the changes it seems that any future criticizing of a Democratic President or Democratic policies (ie the healthcare reform or SS & Medicare "reforms") will be censored, uh I mean deleted. Also, there seems to be a curious timing thing here with the "changes" coming just before the November disaster, ur I mean elections. Just sayin'.
[The bitterness of your Tombstoning will be tempered by the Kewpie Doll that will be arriving in your mail.]
It's clear, DU is now about message discipline.
[Will it be a cash bar at your Tombstoning party or will the drinks be free?]
posted by PJ-Comix at 12:15 PM
74 Comments:
Skinner prolly posted that because the only other choice would be to tombstone half of DU in a matter of a week, or 40 business hours take your pick. And this being the innertubes, word would get around pretty quickly.
Ain't it sweet how he calls for order and discipline and niceness while still declaring their rights to demean the Evil Repugs with the lowest language.
Principal Skinner, meet your base...Bart Simpson.
Well, that whole "build a community" thing is interesting coming from the Left. Isn't that what people who want the borders secured against unlawful migration are really trying to do? Build a community of Americans?
The November elections are coming so, on orders from the White House, Commissar Skinner is disiplining the DU cadres; purges and show trials are next. Like Obama, the DU is no friend of the First Amendment.
Egads! That is one long winded list of rules.
He actually 'had it goin' on' until he got to:
" Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "F*ck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
If he had made that "inappropriate attacks against PEOPLE," it might have stood as a model for some of the more raging blogs out there.
As it is, DU and Li'l Barry McFlopTard are just a pack of synchronized asswipes, swimming in prredictable slime and now, with more dictatorial rules than ever!
so, if M'Chel were to be on DU, and referred to her hubby as Barry(as she does many times in interviews and appearances, she would be banned or otherwise disciplined?
Skinner would to wise to remember that Wookies tear the arms off those who offend.
(sorry about mixing the sci-fi references)
;0)
Scratch a reactionary leftist, find the fascist gibbering underneath.
Lazarus Long...now THAT's a good sci-fi reference!!! Heinlein rocks!!!
I really wonder if the denizens of DU - any of them - notice just how closely that list of rules comes to the very sort of fascism they always claim to be fighting against?
Ironically (and predictably), DU is now perfectly mirroring the evolution of all "progressive," statist regimes: the need to maintain the propaganda always overrides the underlying ideology, and freedom is surrendered to maintain the illusion.
Skinner or Stalin? The only difference is that the executions are virtual instead of actual. The group-think state-approved speech codes are now exactly the same.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
For those watching, though, the irony and hypocrisy are pretty delicious.
"Heinlein rocks!!!"
True, dat.
"I really wonder if the denizens of DU - any of them - notice just how closely that list of rules comes to the very sort of fascism they always claim to be fighting against?"
Ironically, no, they don't.
Finally, a written copy of the unwritten rules of DU. The two that cracked me up were
1. The banning of "Highly speculative 'conspiracy theory' topics outside the September 11 forum"
I think that line speaks for itself.
2. "Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name."
It's like how they get so offended by the phrase "democrat party" as opposed to "democratic party". Did the repuke-rethug-chimpy-mc-buck-fush-hitler ever say "democrat party"? if he did, that's a hate crime.
Two legs bad, four legs good. all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others. that's dummie logic for ya.
"[Make the rules flash like neon signs. Please! Pretty please!]"
Or to paraphrase one of DU's greatest bards:
blinking
blinking
blinking
red and blue.
"As you know Barack Obama is the first Democratic President since the DU was created back in 2001. Nearly a year-and-a-half into his administration, it is apparent having a Democrat in the White House presents new and difficult challnges for the DU community."
Indeed, it was much easier when Chimpy McHitler ran the show. Dissent was patriotic then, now it's something Skinner has to carefully parse.
The DU "community" will morph into a volksgemeinschaft under the new rules.
Leftists are always their own worst enemies. The road to utopia will be lined with the graves of tombstoned DUmmies.
In other words, don't criticize the incompetent asshole presently occupying the Oval Office.
Here's an exercise. Write something that violates every one of those rules in a single post.
YooHoo, troggy, the point monkeys are looking for you.
Skul
Skul, troggy's busy having a nervous breakdown....News at 11:00!
"Skul, troggy's busy having a nervous breakdown...."
How could you tell?
Well, LL, he's incoherent; he's babbling; he's not making any sense; he's being overly sensitive....wait a minute....you're right, how can you tell?
I was tombstoned 3 months ago by DU for commenting about Al Gore's cozy relationship with some Goldman Sachs execs and their money deals involving impending climate change legislation. My point? If Gore had been a Republican, du would have been all over the story. I noticed a lot of other long time posters there were getting tombstoned too. Since then I've done some research on Skinner. He's a graduate of Yale (as in Skull & Bones Yale) who has had previous business ties to the DLC. If I had known back then what I know now, I wouldn't have bothered with their UNdemocratic site.
WOW....just WOW....
If Skinner and his minions enforce those rules to the letter, that site is going to basically shut down.
Troglaman The Guttersnipe would never get a word on here if those rules were in place here.
Oh my gawd, that is too funny! That's the same type of batshit crazy behavior that Charles Johnson (owner of Little Green Footballs) fell into not long ago. Deviate one iota from the leftwingnut narrative and you get banned. Why, the nerve of those apostates! That's classic.
PJ - brilliant as always. But dude, looking at your blogroll, you need to remove little green footballs - Charles Johnson, aka the Husky Ponytailed Blogger, has gone over to the dark side and his new pals are DU, Kos and Huffpo. Heck, you could use HIS site for material.
Take care bro. Smooches.
sfcmac said...Oh my gawd, that is too funny! That's the same type of batshit crazy behavior that Charles Johnson (owner of Little Green Footballs) fell into not long ago.
BINGO!!
2 lefties doing the same. Who woulda thunk it?
Bwahaha!! Now the DUmp's gonna sound like two marbles rolling around in a tin can instead of three. DLC's given $kins his orders and he's asking how high he needs to jump. This is just delicious!
"Troglaman The Guttersnipe would never get a word on here if those rules were in place here." jumpin jerome
That's right, jj.
So, Skinner's rules exclude the insane?
...we gave special consideration to what can and cannot be said about prominent Democrats...members who break the rules repeatedly will be automatically brought up for regular reviews.
Today, Skinner's Rules for DUmmies. Tomorrow, Obama'a Rules for the Internet.
What the Left cannot control, it will criminalize or abolish.
There are few friends of the First Amendment in Washington.
"What the Left cannot control, it will criminalize or abolish." kat
Really? Which senator just called for drug testing to qualify for unemployment benefits? Who was it that just called for sending the children of illegals back to where-ever? Who was it that just proposed vaginal ultra-sounds prior to any and all abortions? Who was it that made it law that anyone with an accent could not teach English? Who is it that wants to abolish homosexuality because it's a sin? The left?
Internet censorship is not being proposed by Obama, it's being proposed by Comcast. The more you pay, the less you're censored. Net neutrality is being argued by the left. Not you assholes.
Once again, the realities just pass you by, kat. It's astonishing.
Name one right taken away by Obama. One. He was going to take away your guns, right? He was going to established indoctrination camps, right? He was going to socialize medicine, right? And where are the super remote controls that are going to turn off your beloved Fox News? You all swore they were here. But they're not. None of it's here. It's all been a figment of your imagination. And yet...
You just make shit up. He hasn't done one damn thing you stupid dumbshits said he was going to do. Not one of your dire predictions have ever panned out. Not one. But does that matter to you? No. Reality takes a second seat to your demented and idiotic beliefs. Reality doesn't matter.
I'll ask again...can you name one right taken away by Obama? (I, troglaman, already know the answer. Be careful.)
Hopeless. You're all fucking hopeless.
I mentioned the death of LGF roughly six months ago; it's still on the sidebar. On the plus side, the mere mention of Charles the Lizard Queen's meteoric fall made Troglatwerp completely flip his shit.
"He was going to socialize medicine, right?"
He HAS socialized medicine, you retarded marmoset.
He hasn't done one damn thing you...said he was going to do."
Patience, troglaman, patience. It's only been eighteen months, Obama and the Donks are working on it. These things take time, you can't wreck a nation overnight.
"Obama and the Donks", sounds like a 60s rock group, a one hit wonder.
"He HAS socialized medicine, you retarded marmoset." laz
No, he hasn't. You won't be able to name one aspect of his health care reform that's become socialized. Not one.
If you care to give it a try, I'll demonstrate what a idiot looks like while explaining 2+2=5. Go for it.
I wish he had socialized it. Unlike you, dipwad, I'm acutely aware of the fact he didn't. You just think he did because you're...well...a fucking lemming. You believe what you're told to believe.
Who's better...Hannity, Rush, or Beck? Truly. I'm interested. Which one makes the most sense? Dare to answer.
""Obama and the Donks", sounds like a 60s rock group, a one hit wonder."
I think it was Dr. Zero who called the regime “Dr. Utopia and the Unicorn-riders”.
Which I think is perfect.
"No, he hasn't. You won't be able to name one aspect of his health care reform that's become socialized. Not one."
Wow I was right, you aren't too bright.
"I wish he had socialized it."
Bingo.
Proof positive.
"You just think he did because you're...well...a fucking lemming. "
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I call you a "retarded marmoset", you call me a "lemming".
The difference is yours is but a pale imitation of the original, unintelligent and derivative.
In other words, dumber than a box of rocks.
>>Name one right taken away by Obama. One.<<
In the next few years, we won't have the right to not carry health insurance on ourselves without being penalized. So we have a prez who has taken away our right not to buy a product.
Too easy. Now grow up, son.
USA4ME
Liberals operate best when provided strict rules of law where non-compliance is meted out by an iron-fisted dictator. It's the natural order of how they wish to live and Skin's is only giving them what's best for them. Most liberals are too foolish to realize they don't have the mental capacity to operate in a world of independent thought. Being reminded of their place might be a little tough on them at first, but like all liberals, they'll come around.
"No, he hasn't. You won't be able to name one aspect of his health care reform that's become socialized. Not one" (the mighty trog).
"Wow I was right, you aren't too bright." laz
So did you name one aspect of Obama's health care reform that became socialized? No. You didn't. And yet you proclaim yourself an Einstein without proclaiming how you know what you know.
Please. Is there anyone out there that doesn't see a pattern here?
None of you ever explain. If the mighty trog asks for an explanation about how Obama socialized medicine, I'm told I'm an idiot for not seeing it, which is a lazy explanation. If one of you makes an obviously racist comment and I call you on it, you accuse me of not recognizing your elevated sense of sarcasm...and to hell with quoting the sarcastic comment, I should just know it somehow, like you do.
You're all full of shit.
Want an example? I'm about to ask laz, again, which part of Obama's health care reform is socialized. He won't tell me. He'll say I'm too stupid to understand. That if I haven't already understood it to be so, why should he take the time to explain...or that I, troglaman, am a potty mouth (which I am).
Ready?
laz...I, troglaman, have asked nicely for you to explain which part of Obama's health care reform represents socialism. And you've accused me of ignoring the obvious (without explaining the obvious).
Part of a credible accusation of stupidity usually involves what it is I'm stupid about. And you, you idiotic nattering nabob, can't seem to do that. I propose you're a vacant, moronic, motherfucking dumbass. You just make shit up. And you don't even know you're doing it.
That's what's at stake, laz. If you can't explain your accusation that Obama has socialized health care, then there's no other conclusion than that you're utterly full of shit. And every time you post something here, a little piece of us will clearly remember what an absolute bullshitter you proven yourself to be.
So...once again...explain how Obama has socialized health care, you coward. Simple request.
(troglamatic prediction - he won't do it)
"Please. Is there anyone out there that doesn't see a pattern here?"
Yeah.
You're a moron.
A verbose moron, bit a moron nonetheless.
"Part of a credible accusation of stupidity usually involves what it is I'm stupid about."
Geesh, trogletroll, EVERYTHING.
"I propose you're a vacant, moronic, motherfucking dumbass."
See? Wrong again.
"You just make shit up."
Pointing out your major league moronicity is not "making shit up", it's revealing reality.
"So...once again...explain how Obama has socialized health care, you coward. Simple request."
Ummm........
No.
You're too stupid too understand it.
Oh, good Lord, troggy, how melodramatic do you have to get. You sound like a simpering idiot.
And what's with this "And every time you post something here, a little piece of us.....". What's with the "us"? You do realize this is a conservative site. There's no "us" there.
Lazarus, you are spot on.
The reason Troglaman - The Official Hate-Mongering, Dishonest, Anti-American Guttersnipe of the DUmmie FUnnies Blog - is incapable of acknowleging when anyone points out how clueless he is is he's so stupid he can't comprehend his own stupidity. Guttersnipe - like all Moonbats I've ever seen - lives in a private fantasyland universe where he's a total flawless genius. The biggest problem is he is hell bent on sharing that non-existant genius with the rest of us.
Troglaman the Guttersnipe is the only person on here who makes stuff us because he's got no concept of reality. As a result, virtually everything he says is fantasy. It would be far easier to show the few things he got right because you could fill this entire blog page with the things he just makes up. I know - I did it once and he STILL couldn't comprehend it.
Troglaman the Guttersnipe can't respond coherently to what you say, Lazarus because he's mentally incapable of doing so. He shows his total lack of mental depth when he did he usual sickening stunt of spewing out a bunch of cuss words because he can't respond coherently to anything that challenges his self-proclaimed genius. He once posted something on here then turned around and acted like he had no idea what he did. That is a person who is intellectually shallow and dishonest.
Troglaman the Guttersnipe is the only coward on here becuase he just spews worthless mental excrement instead of making some coherent explanation of why he's so brilliant and we are so wrong - he just echoes the Moonbat groupthink talking points like the good little Guttersnipe he is.
And you are right, Lazarus, he IS too stupid to understand it.
And by the way, Suzie, there is a reason he sounds like a simpering idiot...Guttersnipe is a simpering idiot.
"What's with the "us"?" susie
What else? Me and my inner homo, lame brain...sheesh
"Want an example? I'm about to ask laz, again, which part of Obama's health care reform is socialized. He won't tell me. He'll say I'm too stupid to understand." the mighty trog
"You're too stupid too understand it." laz
Come on, admit it. That was a fabulous and fantastic Troglaman-as-Kreskin moment right there.
"And what's with this "And every time you post something here, a little piece of us.....". What's with the "us"?"
Multiple personality disorder.
They're fighting it out inside his head to find out who's the most moronic.
Oops, my bad. I forgot troggy's inner homo. There's not a lick of sense between the two of them.
"Guttersnipe - like all Moonbats I've ever seen - lives in a private fantasyland universe where he's a total flawless genius. The biggest problem is he is hell bent on sharing that non-existant genius with the rest of us."
"he just spews worthless mental excrement instead of making some coherent explanation of why he's so brilliant"
(the one and only jumpin jerome, ladies and gentleman)
Crack psychological profiling skills happenin' right here, right now, folks.
BTW jj, you find that quote where I said people's taxes went up 1.1% last year yet? Didn't think so. Wasn't that was when we established you just make shit up? Why yes. Yes it was.
Anyway, I'd like to share with the rest of you that jj FINALLY hit it out of the park - - - I do, indeed, live in my own little world (an underground compound with my inner homo and hopefully...thanks susie!...my inner lezbo) where I am an incoherent megalomaniacal slug vomiting excrement at every turn. A world where I sit back, disgorge my bilious fluids, and somehow find a way to make believe myself a superior being.
The trouble is, jj, that this world is of your making, not mine.
Let me clue you in, my brother...I am a smartass commenter on a site on the internet. That's what you know. I could be anyone. I could be a rightist subversive wanting to prepare you for the upcoming culture wars. Or I could be a bee-keeper in Nebraska. In fact, I could be a 90 year old dwarf traveling around Slovenia in the back of an ox cart. But you insist on creating me in what can't be anything else than your own image. Because it is your own image. Get it? It's you.
See, if you'd just stuck to explaining the aspects of Obama's health care reform that are supposedly "socialized", we wouldn't be having this embarrassing, and ultimately irrelevant, conversation.
"There's not a lick of sense between the two of them." susie
This is how you're describing my relationship with my inner homo? Jeez.
What are you implying?
Let me clue you in, too, troggy. You're none of those "interesting" things. You're just a dull, aging hippie, that has never grown up. Such the pity.
"I am a smartass commenter on a site on the internet. That's what you know. I could be anyone. I could be a rightist subversive wanting to prepare you for the upcoming culture wars. Or I could be a bee-keeper in Nebraska. In fact, I could be a 90 year old dwarf traveling around Slovenia in the back of an ox cart. But you insist on creating me in what can't be anything else than your own image. Because it is your own image. Get it? It's you."
- - - Troglaman the Guttersnipe
First off, Guttersnipe, you are not a smartass commentator. Corona and Lazarus Long might qualify for that, and that's a good thing. But you, Guttersnipe? You're not a smartass commentator, you're just a hate filled dumbass bullshitter. THAT is what I and everyone else here knows.
And I'm not creating your persona, you are, and I'm merely acknowledging it as you go to great lengths to present yourself that way.
"I do, indeed, live in my own little world (an underground compound with my inner homo and hopefully...thanks susie!...my inner lezbo) where I am an incoherent megalomaniacal slug vomiting excrement at every turn. A world where I sit back, disgorge my bilious fluids, and somehow find a way to make believe myself a superior being." - - - Troglaman the Guttersnipe
And that is probably the most honest thing you've said on this site in a month.
And speaking of dishonesty, you did post that taxes went up 1.1%, you did turn right around say otherwise and you did then act like you didn't make the post. It's all right there for everyone to see because you can't delete it. And the reason you keep up this hateful charade on this is you are morally bankrupt as well as intellectually shallow.
So, just keep on gulping down bottles of Everclear, power slamming your head up your ass, and spewing mental excrement all over the place, Guttersnipe. You've made it crystal clear you're utterly incapable of doing anything else, Guttersnipe. Some find humor in you, I find only disgust at your Moonbat behavior.
Suzie is right, you are an aging hippie with no future, a bratty child in an adult body.
And you're damn sure no brother of mine.
"...I am an incoherent, megalomaniacal slug vomiting excrement at very turn.
Somewhat harsh but an accurate self-description, troglaman.
"And that is probably the most honest thing you've said on this site in a month." jumpin jerome (referring to my poetic 'compound...slug...excrement' thing)
How nice of you to say so. But since what your referring to is a summary of YOUR version of "Troglaman - A Dirty Look Under The Pelt" (sarcasm of the derisive type, susie) it only seems natural (and infantile) that you would see it as honest, don't you think? Since your essentially agreeing with yourself? I believe that's what's called a 'one man handshake'. Or is it 'one hand manshake'? I can never remember. Anyway. It's cool you considered yourself honest, you little Freudian dream-come-true rascal, you.
"And speaking of dishonesty, you did post that taxes went up 1.1%, you did turn right around say otherwise and you did then act like you didn't make the post." jerome
Now see...this really chaps my hide. Jerome, you obviously remember this exchange as well. It came down to who was lying - you or me. At the time, I asked you multiple times to quote me. I said I'd own up to it if I said it. I still will. If anyone here can quote the mighty trog as saying taxes went up 1.1% during that thread, I'll leave here forever and contribute to your favorite charity. Promise. Sincerely.
But if no one, including you, jerome, can quote me saying it, then you're a liar. It's simple. And when that happens, you'll be every vile thing you think I, troglaman, am. Oh look! We've come full circle.
We'll see what happens jerome. There will probably be a lot of 'troglaman's the spawn of satan' bullshit, but in the end, I'll be quoted or I won't be. Believe me, if someone can do it, they will. Our fates lie in the balance.
In the end, jj, you can believe whatever you want about me. It'll probably bring down the incidence of axe murders and pet mutilations in your neighborhood if you do.
"It came down to who was lying - you or me."
Having arrived late to the argument, and not having read it, I believe Jerome.
This thread has exhausted its possibilities.
It's exhausting reading ANY of trogletroll's natterings.
"It came down to who was lying - you or me." the mighty trog
"Having arrived late to the argument, and not having read it, I believe Jerome." laz
This is laz's method of inquiry. Impressive, isn't it?
"This is laz's method of inquiry. Impressive, isn't it?"
You know, trogletroll, you may not be the total, complete asshole I've thought you to be.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, nevermind.
"You know, trogletroll, you may not be the total, complete asshole I've thought you to be." laz
I'm a bigger asshole than you ever imagined. And you're a fucking moron. Always. You're a dream-come-true, laz. You just keep proving me right again and again simply and clearly because you couldn't find your way out of a paper bag if your life depended on it.
Keep it up, bro.
Hmmm.... Let's see . " I won't raise taxes on those that make less than $250,0000"
He raised cigarette taxes. Quite a few people with incomes under $250k smoke (not me). That's one promise broken.
Closing gitmo? Two.
Pull out of Iraq? Back pedaling to three.
This is fun!
Democratic Underground - censoring your speech since 2010!
"I'm a bigger asshole than you ever imagined. And you're a fucking moron. Always. You're a dream-come-true, laz. You just keep proving me right again and again simply and clearly because you couldn't find your way out of a paper bag if your life depended on it."
- - - Troglaman, the sick perverted hate mongering Guttersnipe
This is typical of Guttersnipe, someone who's self-delusional and lives in a private fantasy land accessed by power-slamming his head up his ass. There is no doubt he's that way, he'd have to be to keep claiming that he wins every argument when reality is that he's barely coherent enough to understand what he saying, let alone what he's talking about.
If his ilk wasn't in charge of the Federal Government, it would be pathetic; since they are, it's dangerous.
"I'm a bigger asshole than you ever imagined."
Ok, ok.
You are.
"This is typical of Guttersnipe, someone who's self-delusional and lives in a private fantasy land" jumpin jerome
Find that quote yet, jerome? Self-delusional and private fantasy land? I'm sure you know of what you speak.
I'll disappear, jerome. Forever. Promise. You can cure the scourge of troglaman right now. Just quote me. That's all you have to do. Let's see where your heart is. Step the fuck up, weenie. Do it for 'us'.
If you can't do it, then admit it. Stop blowing shit. Quote me. Quote me. Quote me. You can't. You lie.
Since you can't admit the fact you're a lying pussy, which you are, then there's nothing left to do.
I doubt anyone's much interested in this but you and I. Let's leave it at that. I think we're both pretty clear about how it turned out.
"I doubt anyone's much interested in this but you and I. Let's leave it at that. I think we're both pretty clear about how it turned out."
Isn't that cute.
The crazy man is dancing around the camp fire, making weird noises.
"Find that quote yet, jerome? Self-delusional and private fantasy land? I'm sure you know of what you speak.
I'll disappear, jerome. Forever. Promise. You can cure the scourge of troglaman right now. Just quote me. That's all you have to do. Let's see where your heart is. Step the fuck up, weenie. Do it for 'us'.
If you can't do it, then admit it. Stop blowing shit. Quote me. Quote me. Quote me. You can't. You lie." - - - Troglaman The Guttersnipe after power-slamming his head up his ass yet again.
Well, since you are still incapable of understanding your own words Guttersnipe:
"When one considers that 98% of America got a tax break, you're screaming and frothing at the mouth about higher taxes becomes either incredibly stupid or you're in the upper 2% who got hit with higher taxes. It's one or the other.
I, troglaman, tend to doubt anyone hanging around this site makes enough dough to have experienced a tax hike. Therefore as usual, anyone complaining about higher taxes is full of shit. If you're not in the upper 2%, your taxes, amazingly, went down. You didn't pay what you paid last year. Got that?. That's what happened. I can prove it.
So if you think you're paying higher taxes, you're delusional. Your taxes have been reduced.
This is rather easy to prove. Any of you turnip seeds willing to challenge the mighty trog on this rather crucial matter...will be crucified. Reduced to a puree of meat and bone." - Troglaman The Guttersnipe, 16 April 2010, 1:44 AM.
""For all the anger about taxes, on this April 15, you’d think that rates had never been so high. In fact, it’s the reverse. They’ve rarely been this low. The median income family of four, earning $75,594, will pay only 4.6 percent of its total income in federal income taxes, after taking exemptions, deductions and tax credits. Last year it was 3.5 percent...the lowest rates since 1955"
Since none of my links work, just google any part of that quote.
If any of you stupid jerkwads making less than $250,000 think your taxes went up, you're just flat-out wrong. They went down. That's all there is to it." - - - Troglaman The Guttersnipe, 17 April 2010, 3:22 AM
Your words, Guttersnipe. Look upon if you dare with dispair - then just power-slam your head back up your ass as usual, because everyone on this board knows you won't dare leave because this is the only place (other than your private fantasy land universe) where anyone even notices your existance.
Wow, JG! Checkmate!
Thank you Susie, I decided enough of Guttersnipe's BS was enough.
Now we wait to see what his latest string of falsehoods are after he gulps a couple of liters of Everclear and power-slams his head up his ass in order to learn what excrement he needs to emit (which sadly will include more vile curse words I'm sure).
Hey Troggy Boy...I think he called your bluff...
Where did troglaman say taxes went up 1.1%?
That's the question. Jumpin Jerome says I said taxes went up 1.1% while also claiming taxes went down. Does anyone see where I said that in Jerome's generous quote.
Listen, you stupid chimps. This isn't as difficult as you're making it. Just quote where I said taxes are going up 1.1%. Jerome got the whole quote, God bless him. WHERE DOES TROGLAMAN SAY TAXES WENT UP 1.1%?
Jerome says I said it. I say I didn't. I think he's lying and I'm not.
There you go. Render judgment.
Deliberately power-slamming his head as far up his ass as possible, Troglaman The Guttersnipe spewed out the following:
Where did troglaman say taxes went up 1.1%
That's the question. Jumpin Jerome says I said taxes went up 1.1% while also claiming taxes went down. Does anyone see where I said that in Jerome's generous quote."
Your ability to deliberately ignore the truth and just repeatedly lie about it is unfathomable, Guttersnipe. I show you word for word how you said something and then you have the brazen gall to come back on here and for at least the third time howl you didn't say it???? You really are a depraved psychotic liar.
Once again, this is what YOU said, Guttersnipe:
""For all the anger about taxes, on this April 15, you’d think that rates had never been so high. In fact, it’s the reverse. They’ve rarely been this low. The median income family of four, earning $75,594, will pay only 4.6 percent of its total income in federal income taxes, after taking exemptions, deductions and tax credits. Last year it was 3.5 percent...the lowest rates since 1955"
Since none of my links work, just google any part of that quote.
If any of you stupid jerkwads making less than $250,000 think your taxes went up, you're just flat-out wrong. They went down. That's all there is to it." - - - Troglaman The Guttersnipe, 17 April 2010, 3:22 AM
You post that taxes went up on a family that made $75,594 had their taxes go up 1.1% and then turned right around, power-slammed your head up your ass over and over and howled that NO ONE who made under $250,000 a year saw their taxes go up.
YOU, Guttersnipe, are an intellectually vacant dishonest psychotic liar of the first order.
Judgment rendered.
Bazinga, JG!
"Last year it was 3.5 percent...the lowest rates since 1955" the mighty trog
Last year was the lowest rates since 1955. 3.5 percent. Do you want me to repeat that over and over again or what? Unless you made over $250,000, your taxes went down.
I do, however, have to give credit where credit is due...jerome's taking me to task in between calling me a dick. He, at least, makes an effort which is more than I can say about most of you dipshits.
I absolutely hate the motherfucker. I do. But I have to admit I, troglaman, respect him just a little bit more than I did an hour ago.
Nice work, Guttersnipe...you even lie about your own posts.
Nice try taking only half of what you said and ignoring the other half as if you never said it.
Maybe in your fantasy world you can get away with that.
But here in the real world, no such luck...liar.
Learn The Most Important Important Secrets To Help Rapidly Improve Your Current Vertical Jump Over 12 inches In Less Than 90 Days Here!
hello everybody, i just produced an epic URL depicting of Ray Allen on the Boston Celtics and why his style effects the whole league.
Basketball fans must check it out!!! Just Click Here
Post a Comment
<< Home