DUmmie FUnnies 03-20-06 ("A strategic need to temporarily quiet the 'impeachment' chorus...")

There is a great line in the movie, The Madness of King George. It comes when King George III of England, who is has been confined for madness finds out that his son, whom he hates, is about to usurp his power from him. In order to prevent that from happening, King George must appear before Parliament in order to assure them of his sanity by SEEMING normal. When the crazed King George sort of pulls himself together (temporarily) just before making his Parliamentary appearance, he explains how he was able to manage it by saying, "I have remembered how to seem." In other words, even King George knows he is not really sane but has rememebered how to SEEM sane at least temporarily in order to prevent the seizure of power by his son. The same applies with the DUmmies in this THREAD titled, "A strategic need to temporarily quiet the 'impeachment' chorus..." Therefore the DUmmie author of this thread is telling his fellow DUmmies to at least SEEM sane temporarily in order to make gains in this year's election. This DUmmmie KNOWS that if the public were to view the Madness of the DUmmies over the Impeachment issue, that would hurt them badly at the polls so they must cool down talk for now about impeachment to SEEM sane enough to earn votes on election day. Of course, the DUmmiecrats have NOT given up on impeachment. No matter what the results on election day, they will be screeching for impeachment as soon as the election results are in. On a brief historical note, although the extreme alcoholism of William Pitt the Younger was only alluded to in the movie, in the play, "The Madness of King George III," the Pitt character was often seen taking swigs from his flask which was an accurate reflection of the historic Will Pitt the Younger's severe drinking problem which apparently has carried down to his descendant, the present day scourge of Newton schoolyards, William Pitt the Plunger. So let us now observe the Madness of the DUmmies as they are urged to SEEM sane in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, who highly recommends the King George movie for all, is in the [brackets]:

[What is it with us Dems that makes us try to kick Lucy's football over and over and over again?]

We need to quiet the call for a Bush impeachment. Now, don't get pissed or fly off the handle - there is a strategy to this.

The wheels are flying off the Bush machine. It is now getting through how incompetent this administration is, but what we have to try and figure out is where the impeachment talk "tipping point" is and do not go beyond that. What I mean is, is that there is possibly a point where Bush impeachment talk will equal that of what happened to Clinton: where it causes his numbers to go back up and rally the party faithful.

Secondly, a full on bore rabid impeachment mode will only do one thing this November: rally the conservative base. What we want is for them to remain demoralized and think, "what the hell" when it comes to voting in November. But if we build this impeachment business into an unthinking frenzy, these people will become rabid and feel they must save their president and come out in full force, thereby re-electing a Rethug Congress.

[Thanx for keeping your "seeming sane" strategy under wraps by posting on the Web for ALL to see. Hee! Hee!]

Also, we need Bush for the November elections - this election should also be a referendum on his policies. So we need to turn this back a bit and push for taking back Congress and if that is done, THEN start serious talk of impeachment.

[Translation: Only appear to SEEM sane before the election. After the election we can revert to being NUTS once again. And now to hear from his fellow DUmmie Nutroots...]

Trying to get impeachment with a republican congress is impossible. If the American people want impeachment, they can push for it after November. But the whole regime may self disintegrate by then and we would only need to prosecute the criminals after that.

I don't know which is the right way to go, strategically. But, everything in my core says that our "leaders" need to speak truth to power, damn the repercussions. Otherwise, they truly deserve the repug-propelled impression that Dems can't/won't lead.

We need election fraud to be front and center of the media- and of our conversations.

Bush aint going anywhere. Censure and Impeachment are SYMBOLIC PROPAGANDA - without a majority in both houses they have no chance of success. The point is to REFRAME THE DEBATE, the point is to make the november election a REFERENDUM ON BUSH.

Here's how I see it: it's a field loaded with minds. The gold is at the other side. The activist liberals want to rush on through that minefield full bore, while instead we should carefully go through it in a methodical manner with good tactics.

if Dems take over Congress, they will have control over all the committees. They will most likely have access to all documents and ways to find these documents. Sadly, this is all bloodsport and once a love for blood is obtained, it can't be lost. Can you imagine what people like Feingold, Conyers and Waxman would do with real power? (Remember, Conyers is probably doubly pissed off over the rightwing machine for trying to embarrass him over that aide-watching-kids smear.) I think if the Dems can take over in Nov, we will see an unprecedented number of investigations into the Bush Administration that could very well damage the Republican Party for some time. But only if we win in Nov.

Impeachment is not a political battle. It is a battle for the Constitution, the heart and soul of America. We cannot hold back the truth.

I say, lets concentrate on getting a super-majority (veto proof) in the legislature, and get on with the business of running the country. Once he's out of office, we turn loose the criminal prosecutors loose on him and his cabal. Impeachment only gets him out of office, we need him in jail! We need his assets seized under RICO statues. We need his entire term thoroughly discredited as the disgrace it is, to ensure Democratic rule for the next 20 - 30 years. The SCOTUS is the biggest challenge we will face in the coming generation.

[Since the Republicans have a 5 vote majority in the Senate and ONLY a third of the Senate is up for election this year, that "super-majority" chance is somewhere between nil and none. Oh, and you forgot to say that you need the grounds of his Crawford Ranch to be covered with salt so it could never ever grow brush again.]

Impeachment talk should be delayed until we regain control of the House this year. Don't give the Repubs a reason to rally their base.

[And don't tell anybody by PUBLICLY POSTING it on the Web for all to see. Hee! Hee!]

PJ, you should check out this little tidbit unfolding over at Wikipedia's DU article.

Talk:Democratic Underground

don't know how long the du article project has been extant, but from a general reading of the 'talk' thread, it appears ample evidence of du's malfeasance already exists. but what's lacking in most of these testimonials is a direct connection between censorship and banning and how that is a direct result of allen and co appeasing du's dominant financial contributors. a smoking gun email perhaps that records, for example, a favored contributors's instructions to allen or one of his business associates that if such and such's 'anti-semitic' or anti-military posts are not deleted and the member banned, then 'my' money and i are going elsewhere. well, that probably won't happen for the very reason they delete messages in the first place. to destroy evidence of their skullduggery. it's extremely unlikely that zionist b is going to come forward to implicate himself in the shakedown or that gomer pyle a will voluntarily admit he put the screws to the owner using his recurring charge as leverage for the sole purpose of removing words that offend his pre-nuremburg view of the world and the military's role in it. so, as scholars seeking truth, we must find another avenue to arrive at it. i like my idea of an impartial observer who can give us a summary, including analysis, of du manipulations and how they directly tie to allen and associates bank accounts. an amazing randy kind of gal or fella who debunks for the love of debunking. for my money, there's a lot of bunk in need of some righteous debunking at democratic underground. a seasoned sociologist would find the field most fertile there. hell, a seasoned detective working bunko would find it simply appalling. -st just 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your long list of names is Original Research and violates WP policy and doesn't belong in the Article. Nor is it referenceable work in the article. I wouldn't have reverted it on the talk page but I can see why.--Tbeatty 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

let's play reverts, then. this is annotative research conducted by third party sources at du, and not mine, but rather from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

bluedogs, yellowdogs, and brownshirts reign at du

loveohblues, skittles, speed0898, b calm, retired af dem, magellen, alomom, usafguy99, yorgatron, haele, rushisrot, diverdave, darbyusmc, symbolman, deaconblues, thomwv, aristus, speedoo, leftofthedial, kirinon, fightingirish, dees, toots, br_parkway, bluecollar, hubert flotz, nookiemonster, pecwae, stand and fight, k blagburn, oasis, lpbk2713, chascaz, PsN2Wind, ohtransplant, annarbor, nonconformist, pfitz59, Tinksrival, nealmhughes, yellowdogmi, NaturalHigh, bonzotex, Jai4WKC08, cynatnite, SalmonChantedEvening, arnheim, HeeBGBz, astonamous, happydreams, dogman, hack89, rppper, Moody Bluz, nathan hale, TahitiNut, DemoGreen, TacticalPeek, AZDemDist6, hootinholler, Hanover_Fist, Vickers, GreatCaesarsGhost, Prisoner_Number_Six, Pam-Moby, Career Prole, tkmorris, DemoTex, Renegade Six, RobertSeattle, onestarnot, oneighty, landdaddy, slater71, UTUSN, MadMaddie, Jack Rabbit, tabasco, hwmnbn, BewilderedCitizen, jokerman93, LIBERALNAVYVET, Earth_First, genie_weenie, oneold1-4u, Dees, BrotherBuzz, Bigmack, Tierra_y_Libertad, bpilgrim, lldu, alfredo, Kerry fan, meatloaf, ismnotwasm, TX-RAT, Chef, tabasco, madokie, Nickster, TomInTib, paineinthearse, Ron_Green, Uncle Joe, benddem, leeroysphits, fknobbit, MrsGrumpy, jschurchin

thanks go to one current and one past moderator at democratic underground for providing me this list. according to them, each one on this list has been cautioned by site owner, david allen one time or more about being too obvious in their uh, fascist leanings. no threats about being banned were involved, just friendly warnings to the effect of being a bit more circumspect in their future posts. gotta keep the dough rolling in, dontcha know, and man do these people love to give. average amount of their donations were about one hundred dollars a quarter, with the largest donations around 1,000 dollars a quarter. one third of the donars on the list admitted in emails to du staff that they were regular and welcomed posters at 'arch-nemisis' site, free republic. again, thanks go to those two du mods who were kind and honest enough to provide these details of david allen's malfeasant mistreatment of his more naive members (they would be the progressive and true democrats, there- their avereage donations are around 5 and ten dollars a month, if that). and those du mods' names are...now, wouldn't you like to know? -st just

If it's not original research then show me how I can verify it. Where is it published? By who is it publised? Who fact checked it, etc, etc,? These are all requirements for sources. I am not sure that even then it would be relevant. --Tbeatty 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

i should remind the person who reverted my last post, without reading it first, that i am working from a confidential du source, a source whose identity will be revealed in 72 hours, with bonafides in tow.

my source at du has advised me today that the above list of du donars pertain to donations made between late 2004 and mid 2005. the following names fall into the same catagory as those above, that is to say, routinely attached to threats to withold future donations, or rescind recurring charge donations if posts and/or posters contrary to their interests (mostly pro-troop and pro-israel) are allowed to remain. except these latest tabulated donations were made between late 2005 and february of 2006, ie, the end of the first fiscal quarter of 2005/2006. now, the names:

acmejack, trumad, sparosnare, caution, fenris, madokie, Absolute Armorer, 1rstCav, WesDem, Army, SammyBlue, MADem, cryingshame, Hekate, benddem, Jim Sagle, Behind the Aegis, Mr Prax, Colorado Blue, Minnesota Liberal, nini, BL611, Burning Water, Katherine Brengle.

My source also informs me that a point of much humor among the democratic underground's owner and staff is the certainty that the appearance in a member's user's name of the word liberal, democrat, blue, left, progressive or any variation thereof means the member is either a covert republican or a right-centrist or a dlc-style democrat.

another tasty little tidbit relayed in my source's email concerned du's 'resident scribbler', a fellow with the username, will pitt. she says that pitt- as rabid and irrational a troop supporter as she's ever seen in her tenure as a mod- has 27 unique user names that he regularly marshalls to pump up responses to his own posts or to posts of members he's sympathetic to. 27 user names for one member? what a wicked web. but then again, practiced deception seems to be david allen's and du's forte.

in the interest of full disclosure i should tell readers that i am a du member and post under the name abex. or, should i say, i WAS a member of du until now. as well, my current du source is planning on resigning her mod duties in three days and has given me permission to reveal her identity after she makes it offical. stay tuned.-st just St just 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Underground"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.