Skip to comments.
Democrat Website Shunned July Warning - Banned Dem Prophet!
freerepublic and a certain rat cellar
| July 2002
| tlbshow originally
Posted on 11/08/2002 7:45:30 PM PST by parsifal
In July 2002, freeper tlbshow picked up on a thread on a certain rat underground website. It seems one of the dems had actually bothered to read Ann Coulter's book, "Slander" and thought her analysis of democratic and leftish problems was correct. The brave rat posted his/her thoughts on the dem website and drew a firestorm. The Dem article is reproduced here in full:
I just went to one of the "bad places." Is this the article you were referring to:
Ann Coulter is Right - And I Am Reeling" Posted by khangaskhan on Jul-03-02 at 11:46 PM
I just finished reading Ann Coulter's new book, Slander. As much as it pains me to admit, she is right. Not about our underlying philosophy, but about the way we politick. We Democrats, and particularly we Liberal Democrats, are far too busy name-calling and acting like elite self-righteous snobs, to dirty our hands with the problems of the working class. I do not say this lightly and am reluctant to say it at all for fear that it will end up on some right-wing moron website.
But the charges that Ann Coulter so devastatingly levels at us are true. If the only victims of our attacks were Republicans and the right wingers, then it would not matter. They deserve it. But I believe that we have almost fatally wounded ourselves as a party in the process. We do not debate fairly because we do not understand what we are all about. We substitute canards and slogans for thought.
Let me give you an example. I remember reading about a study of the Head Start program. The study noted that by the fourth grade, there were no significant differences between those students who attended Head Start and those who didn't. The Neanderthals, of course, wanted to discontinue funding for Head Start. And our side. . .the good guys. What was our response? Well, we called them neanderthals. How could they be right? They're neanderthals. They're greedy. They don't like poor children. They're racists.
Do you see our methodology? They rely on a study. They make a logical, cogent point. We simply call them names and rely upon our own reputation for self-righteousness. Then....we wonder why these guys are murdering us on talk radio. They understand just enough of the situation to be dangerous (and wrong). But do we "tell the rest of the story?" No. Do we respond with reason? Do we respond with logic? No. We are far too good for that. What would a liberal talk show host do, call Republicans names for two hours?
We are the "right kind of people", you see, and they aren't. And if you don't believe this, then read Slander. I expected to find a book of right-wing blonde-bimbo-babble. And through the first few pages I was not disappointed. But somewhere around page 10, I began to get an uncomfortable feeling. Coulter wasn't just calling us bad namesshe was challenging us to debate. And debate on logical grounds. Read this, from page 10 and 11:
"But ad hominem attack is the liberal's idea of political debate. They self consciously hold themselves outside the argument and make snippy personal comments about anyone who is actually talking about something. The Republican's motives are analyzed, his intelligence critiqued, his personal life unearthed. If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather that the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?"
And for the next 230 pages of text and voluminous detailed footnotes, Coulter fires salvo after salvo after salvo of truth and reality broadsides squarely amidships into us. By the end of the book, I was physically nauseated. I am not ashamed to admit that I spent the next few days in a kind of psychic shock. I even began to question whether I still believed in income redistribution, affirmative action, and gun control. The only thing that saved me was when I realized that the answer to Ann Coulter and all the other right wingers wasn't to agree with them or become them, but to simply learn how to HONESTLY DEBATE THEM. And the reason that we haven't been HONESTLY DEBATING THEM, is that we have lost touch with our Democratic roots. Ann Coulter isn't our problem, WE are our problem.
We really, on a personal level, do not know the problems of young black children and because we don't, we rely on a PROGRAM to save them. LET THEM EAT CAKE, we say. And when Marie Antoinette first said that, it wasn't a mean thingshe just didn't understand the problems of the poor. And neither do we Democrats. The point of Head Start, for example, isn't to perpetuate the Head Start program. The purpose is to provide an educational boost to underprivileged children. If the program doesn't work, then we need to change the program. If the other side points out that the program isn't working, then we should thank them. What vested interest do we Democrats have in a program that doesn't work? None.
I have long thought that our Democratic leaders have lost touch with the grass roots. How else do you explain Democratic support for NAFTA, the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, the welfare program reductions, the increased use of the death penalty, tax reductions for the wealthy, and the Democratic failure to pass meaningful living wage legislation and the failure to provide for national health care.
In our impotent rage, we simply, well, rage. But that rage can be better utilized to accomplish some good. I believe that all of us need to read the Coulter book. I think it is almost a rite of passage for us. We need to come to grips with our failures before we can take back the Congress and White House. DON'T BUY THE BOOK, just check it out at the library, or borrow it from somebody. Pick up a copy on the $1.00 shelf at Books-a-Million in few months when the new has worn off. Do not support her, but do please read her. And after you finish, let's you and I roll up our sleeves and go to work. We need to return to our roots.
TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; groupthink; nazidemocratleft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-147 next last
To: parsifal
If you manage it, I'll invite him myself from afar. BTW, for anyone who cares, the site isn't really cut off, it's child's play to bore through the first two screens. I won't link it from here out of respect for JimRob, but if anyone wants it FReepmail me and I'll return the URL.
Does anyone but me love the irony of a "progressive" site cutting access to itself off from anyone but the Moneyed Classes? Heh heh...sweet...
To: For the Unborn
Yeah, I saw Dan Abrahms on network news telling GOP not to appoint ultra conservative judges to the court, but it is OK for them to appoint moderate conservatives. I could not believe the gall and cheek of the little lefty dweeb trying to control stuff from the minority position. parsy,
62
posted on
11/08/2002 9:04:33 PM PST
by
parsifal
To: parsifal
The R party has become the old D party because the D party has become the radical Gramcian Maxist party, which the old D as well as the new R party can't agree with, because the GM party is illogical and unreasonable.
To: parsifal
I got banned after Heston went public with his Alzeimer's. They were ripping into him as a racist hateful man and I defended Chuck. I think the breaking point was when someone said the NRA was a hate group and I said that was a stupid comparison.
64
posted on
11/08/2002 9:06:28 PM PST
by
Bogey78O
To: parsifal
btt
65
posted on
11/08/2002 9:07:53 PM PST
by
Cacique
To: coloradan
"90% of rangers airborne are liberals?" ROTFL! No, I am retired from the Airborne Ranger business- I work for private industry now, and real Conservatives are few and far between.
To: parsifal
A lot of polite freepers have been banned there for simply pointing out that Clinton is a piece of cr*p crooked liar. (And Bill is, too.) As a dem, I would like to be able to make constructive criticisms about my own party without excommunication. parsy the fool.Well............I don't think there are too many FReepers that could get by with alot of comments like that about Bush! ,,, (except for murrymom!) LOL!
Rational arguement is allowed(except during election season which I am in hearty aggreement with) as long as it is logical and decent.
DU is almost X-rated by comparison. Our Smokey Backroom is tame compared to the (expletive deleted) stuff on their front page.
They remind me of a bunch of unruley teenagers.
To: parsifal
This person nails it. In fact, I see some of what he or she writes about here on FR. It is easy and lazy to name call, and it happens a lot on this site. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. Everone needs to vent, but it is important to set aside the rhetoric and "demorats" and actually take a good hard look at ideology. Why do we think the things we think? Why are we not better at making our point of view understood? Why are we so commonly thought of as haters and racists? How much of this are WE responsible for?
This person laid it on the line and was banned from DUh. They couldn't deal with any soul searching. Can we? Can our party? If not, isn't it just a matter of time before we hand Washington back over to them?
I lurk on DUh and have an alias. I don't post because they'll spot me in a minute. I don't think I would do too well acting like a faux liberal. What I read there is often times irrational and hateful. Many of the people on that site HATE us. Hate. Why? For the most part we want to solve the same problems in society, but have different approaches. and then on some issues there is a chasm with no middle ground. Abortion has no middle ground. Capital punishment has no middle ground.
And then they have the tin foil hate people. Many of them think Bush is the same monster that we see Clinton. They really think Bush dusted Wellstone. We really think Clinton and Co. took out of Ron Brown.
Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes that cost the Democrats power last Tuesday? Do we know how to use the power we gained on Tuesday?
In all honesty, there are people who call Rush and sound like they couldn't hold an argument with a democrat because they would run out of Rush's talking points. How many people here really understand what it means to be conservative?
Will I be banned for asking these questions? I don't think I will. At least that's one think I'm confident we have of the hardliners at Underground.
Frankly, I think if would be interesting to have the debate that khangaskhan was looking for. I hope that person eventually finds his or her way over here. I hope that we would treat khangaskhan with more respect than DUh.
To: Billthedrill
I loved the "Achtung! Ist Verboten!" announcement from the *U mgt.:
For the last 21 months, we have tried very hard to keep this discussion board open to all left-wing points of view. It was one of our guiding principles, because we believed deeply that talking is better than not talking.
But now we have come to the conclusion that the current state of affairs is untenable. In the past few months I have become convinced of two things:
1) There is a small but outspoken group of liberals who simply are not our friends. Please be aware that I am not singling out Greens, most of whom are capable of participating on this message board in a productive and thought-provoking way. Rather, I am referring to people who are consumed with hatred and contempt for any and all liberals who don't share their exact point of view.
2) It is simple to disrupt this message board, and post the most vile and offensive propaganda if you simply declare yourself to be a liberal, Green, or even a Democrat. Some of the things posted by our "fellow liberals" would make a FReeper blush. In fact, some of these "fellow liberals" might even be FReepers. If they are, they've found a rich vein for disruption, because I let them get away with it. Well, no more.
Over time, the result has been an increase in postings by rude, anti-social disruptors, and a decrease in postings by thoughtful, productive members.
In case you haven't heard, there is a very important election occurring in less than three weeks. The stakes in this election are as high as they have ever been. You are being given a clear choice: Hand over complete control of all three branches of government to the forces of evil - or don't.
There is no viable third option. Choosing not to vote (or to vote for a third party) is a morally bankrupt decision during this time of crisis when the potential harm to our country is so great. You may claim you are standing on principle, but simply calling it "principled" does not make it so. Your stand on principle will have dire consequences, and you will share the blame when the Republicans in the House, Senate, White House, and Federal Courts undo a half century of progress.
As the administrator of this message board, I have the opportunity to have an impact on the outcome of this election. As an American, I have a moral obligation to do what I can to stop the conservative juggernaut. For the next three weeks, that is my greatest concern.
We still allow all points of view, but we have our limits.
For the next three weeks:
It is forbidden to use the DU message board in an effort to make our members withhold their precious votes from the Democratic Party, which is the only organization capable of stopping the Republican onslaught.
It is forbidden to use the DU message board to organize protests or other actions against members of the Democratic Party.
If the administrators of DU decide that the rhetoric of your posts would be more appropriate on Free Republic than on DU, then you are going to get banned.
We understand that many of you feel deeply disappointed with certain members of the Democratic Party right now. We wish to make clear that you are still free to criticize the Democratic Party, the Democratic leadership, or individual members of the Democratic Party.
But the stakes are too high to let DU argue its way to Armageddon. The stakes are too high to let a few angry partisans with dubious intentions hijack this message board.
I know what side I am on. If you are rooting against the Democratic Party in this election, then just let me know by posting in this thread and I will shut off your account myself.
To repeat: these changes are in effect until the election is over. At that point, we will review whether it is in the best interests of DU to remove these restrictions.
Thank you for your understanding.
Skinner
(I guess it is OK to be a thought-Nazi if you are a Dem. They must be good nazis and us right-wingers are bad nazis?-parsy)
69
posted on
11/08/2002 9:12:15 PM PST
by
parsifal
To: parsifal; TLBSHOW
That tlbshow,...er..I mean khangaskham can sure write a mean letter.
khangaskham...what is that?...Some kind of take-off on Gengis Kahn?
To: Billthedrill
They're out of touch with the mainstream... They are also out of touch with three-quarters of the people who pull that D lever as a conditioned response. I hope they don't wake up for a long time as the nuttier they get the more of those people conditioned to pull that D lever wake up.
To: parsifal
The Democratic roots are to support failed programs. It doesn't matter to them that the cure is worse than the disease. Ideology's fatal warcry is: "We must do something, anything!" To them, all that matters is feeling good about themselves. They are no better than the suburbanite who stops to hold her nose with one hand while handing over a dollar with the other to the professional bum about to drink himself to death, and walks away thinking: "I did good. I feel good. I am a good person." Charity is not measured by how good a giver feels about herself. Rather, it is measured in how much good the giving actually does. A person has to do the
hard work to decide who really deserves charity.
IMHO, the Democratic roots have become little more than cronyism and the taxpayer-sponsored employment programs for their friends and relatives.
To: San Jacinto
I think so. Either that or it should have been "kansas-khan" and the dude couldn't spell. Who knows? parsy.
73
posted on
11/08/2002 9:19:14 PM PST
by
parsifal
To: shadowman99
For the most part we want to solve the same problems in society, but have different approachesI think there is no longer a different approach to the same problem. What it now has morphed into is a genuine hatred! No longer is their a alternative answer, no longer is their real debate.
What there is now is obstruction, name calling, and general warfare!
They have totally lost it and are no fun to argue with anymore. They don't have a identity. It is just opposition without any other purpose. Thanks to Tommy Dasshole!
To: parsifal
... undo a half century of progress. Progressives?! What a nonsense word! Cancer and dementia are said to be 'progressive' at times.
To: Cultural Jihad
How true. I am watching a re-run of Tony Snow / Gebhardt interview and Little Dickie is saying dems need to come up with some good long term ideas. Gee, isn't that what Coulter said? Dickie is admitting that dems don't have any current ideas. Confusing. Wierd. parsy.
76
posted on
11/08/2002 9:22:11 PM PST
by
parsifal
To: Cacique
Liberal thought process.......
1. Killing people = BAD!
2. Guns kill people
3. Guns= BAD!
Now when he gets his philosophy planted, there is no turning back. He fails to recognise that he will have to ban knives, baseball bats, fertilizer, bows and arrows, etc. He will worry about that when he bans guns. This is why they can't win arguments,... because they are so wrong, any thinking person can show the stupidity of their arguement. They are programed to think and say that they are intelectual, and conservatives are bumpkins. This is why the age old argument on inteligent design and evolution is a liberal one. ID people give challenges, and the evoloutionist calls them a name. When ID people come back with a Nobel Prize winning scientist writings on ID, they pooh pooh it, because he can't be a REAL scientist unless he is an evolutionist.
Ergo evolutionist= liberal!
77
posted on
11/08/2002 9:25:21 PM PST
by
chuckles
To: parsifal; TLBSHOW
A BTTT for truth.
To: parsifal
The Dems apparently banned khangaskhan for his/her heresies. Wow. Those people really are hopeless. I suspect khanga would pretty much be able to stick around here.
79
posted on
11/08/2002 9:35:50 PM PST
by
Tribune7
To: Brett66
"It looks like he may turn from the dark side yet.....
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH HIM
80
posted on
11/08/2002 9:36:03 PM PST
by
webber
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-147 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson