Our brothers over at DU...


PDA






Kinsman
December 1, 2004, 07:33 PM
If this has already been posted, forgive me....and delete this.
Or, move to the appropriate forum:

An interesting thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1400320&mesg_id=1400320) over at democratic underground.

This is a long, emotional thread (as you might guess) and it's easy to see that of course most of 'em don't want us to have guns for protection; a few don't want us to have any guns at all, and some are actually staunch supporters of RKBA.

I peruse DU all the time, and learn lots: for instance, I was never aware that because I like guns, I am a bigoted, uneducated fool....

If you enjoyed reading about "Our brothers over at DU..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RavenVT100
December 1, 2004, 07:39 PM
Interesting.

Although I'm afraid I had to stop reading their thread right after they started claiming that the NRA is just a "step above" the KKK. If these people would like to advocate more and more legislation based on their hollywood, TV, and video game view of the world it is their right to do so, but I will spare myself having to listen to their whining.

Standing Wolf
December 1, 2004, 07:50 PM
Oh, my goodness! Other people's civil rights sure do hurt those individuals' feelings!

spacemanspiff
December 1, 2004, 08:27 PM
i can't read too much over there, get headaches from all the assinine arguments. that mr benchley is a real piece of work.

what would freud say about a person whose first response to a topic of weapons is something about masturbation?

Preacherman
December 1, 2004, 08:50 PM
what would freud say about a person whose first response to a topic of weapons is something about masturbation?
Just don't get them started on pump-action shotguns...

:D

MikeB
December 1, 2004, 08:55 PM
what would freud say about a person whose first response to a topic of weapons is something about masturbation?

Well Freud did say "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

I would say that fits nicely with the masturbation comment.

Mulliga
December 1, 2004, 09:07 PM
Those fools at DU aren't my brothers... ;)

BryanP
December 1, 2004, 09:13 PM
Why do I do this to myself? Every once in a while someone posts a link to a DU thread and I decide to go read it. Then my whole evening is ruined. I think I'll go watch an episode of Band of Brothers to cleanse my palate.

PinnedAndRecessed
December 1, 2004, 09:17 PM
"Our brothers over at DU... "

They might be your brothers, but they ain't mine. They are a bunch of mean spirited, foul mouthed semi-literate fascists who aren't concerned about anyone's rights but their own. They are a lost cause.

I read three posts before I decided I don't want to waste one more second with their drivel.

SDC
December 1, 2004, 09:24 PM
I once registered at DU just to try to counteract some of the mind-numbing ignorance they spew on firearms, and I lasted for all of 2 days before they banned me; if you don't buy into the "guns are evil and gun owners are inbred psychotics" party line, you're not welcome there.

ProactiveReactionary
December 1, 2004, 09:44 PM
who cares?

seriously, their views and ideas are extreme, VERY extreme and wont get very far, all they've really managed to do was temporarily have some weapons banned because of their appearance. banning guns entirely isnt going to happen and neither is a rewrite of the second amendment.

i read a few posts in that thread and simply had to close the tab, these people are knee jerk reactors. thats not isolated to liberals but what IS scary as hell is their attitude or mindset that THEY should set the standard for everyone else on what a person can and cannot do and base this on some unfounded idea that what they think is best IS best and everyone else who disagrees with them or has a differen view is wrong, ignorant, paranoid right wing extremist kook. i think such attitudes clearly put THEM on the far end of the liberal side of politics. in this respect they might actually be worse than hillary clinton but i cant say for sure.

these people IMO represent the most extreme views in liberalism today. i dont believe THESE views reflect liberal views in general (although it could, i'm giving all this a benefit of the doubt). i DO think that these people give democrats a bad name and IMO insult democrats and left leaning people who ARE in favor of guns and are pro gun in some way shape or form. i also find it insulting to pro gun democrats that they are basically being generalized as right wing kooks who are racist paranoid with a small penis/sexual dysfunction problem. or worse they are viewed by these psychos as betrayors to their party and its "bottom line" on guns or rather how they see it.

i have no interest in trying to change someones mind who is against guns. its their right to be against them, its a free world and they can believe whatever they want. however i DO have a problem when anyone, regardless of their view, A) spews it off as THE way to live or be AND B) tries to make others conform to their own private standard (and thats what it is, a proivate standard). this applies to pro gun and anti gun, pro vegetarianism/veganism and omnivore. i do generaly find its anti (fill in the blank) that does this more often than not. i dont see any pro gun people running around trying to make people own guns, i DO see anti gun freaks running around trying to tell everyone how bad they are for hunting for deer or for simply owning A firearm and basically being told/insulted they shouldnt be allowed to have a firearm.

for a bunch of liberal people they sure are restrictive when it comes to personal freedoms in this world. what gives? shouldnt WE be called true liberals since most of us believe in perosnal freedoms and letting people think and act for themselves?

let me show you why i say this:

Main Entry: [2]liberal
Function: noun
Date: 1820
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b : capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights


do they seem open minded? do they seem to be advocating individual rights?

they might be called liberals but they are more or less fascist in mentality than they are liberal.


Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality —J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often cap
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often cap
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often cap


they certainly seem to fit into definition number two at least in part.

their way of thinking at least based on the definitions above, is not american but totalitarian/fascist. they believe THEY should outline what freedoms a person should have rather than recognizing the rights/freedoms we are inherently born with.

these people are psychotic, i know they're just a bunch of extremists with extremist views and are not indicative of liberals in general or democrats but they certainly arent doing their side any favors with threads like this over there.

Coronach
December 1, 2004, 10:07 PM
Unlike THR, which will allow reasoned debate on issues as long as the posters remain civil and are not simply trolling (starting volatile threads and then just sitting back to watch the fireworks), DU is a self-professed echochamber for the left. It is a board by leftists for leftists. They don't want debate, they will ban people who don't think like they do. Frankly? This is their right. If I want to start a smug little club of like-minded people and ban everyone else, I can do so. So can they.

MOST of us gave that up at the end of summer between fifth and sixth grades, but not EVERYONE has.

Mike

rick_reno
December 1, 2004, 10:16 PM
Why waste your time perusing crap at DU? I can scratch my privates and have a more rewarding experience than going there.

MacPelto
December 1, 2004, 10:21 PM
I read three posts before I decided I don't want to waste one more second with their drivel.

Every so often, I follow a link in a thread like this and I always feel the same way after 3 posts. I hereby vow that I will never again waste my time on the Democtratic Underground Message Board, or DUMB for short.

Mac

ProactiveReactionary
December 1, 2004, 10:25 PM
Unlike THR, which will allow reasoned debate on issues as long as the posters remain civil and are not simply trolling (starting volatile threads and then just sitting back to watch the fireworks), DU is a self-professed echochamber for the left. It is a board by leftists for leftists. They don't want debate, they will ban people who don't think like they do. Frankly? This is their right. If I want to start a smug little club of like-minded people and ban everyone else, I can do so. So can they

absolutely right.

i find it ironic that they ban anyone who isnt some left wing extremist yet if you ask any of these people, they'll more than likely tell you a private golf course shouldnt be allowed to restrict membership.

you know, equal rights and all, but not parity when it comes to political views.

i personally dont care, it is their right to restrict whoever they want but it DOES lend an insight into their way of thinking. its scary to me, down right frightening to know that there are people like this in my country.

i've never been there but does freerepublic have a similar policy or do they only ban the trolls?

Wildalaska
December 1, 2004, 10:44 PM
That one dude over there that spews the same silly invective over and over has some seriopus psychological issues,,,,,either that or he is a 15 year old troll

WildslaveAlaska

Mulliga
December 1, 2004, 10:52 PM
On THR, we often have lengthy threads on gun issues, always with lots of evidence concerning court cases/rulings, statistics, and various laws. The debates are heated, but most of the time, useful.

On the DUMB, people like MrBenchley basically say the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect anything, all NRA members are KKK-loving bigots, and guns are used to kill little children all the time (and I'm not exaggerating, as anyone who looks over the thread can verify :P ). And all without any shred of evidence.

They question why anyone would need a handgun or semiauto rifle. The simple, sweet answer - "to defend themselves" - never comes up; after all, who needs to defend themselves? The government can do it. To me, that's scary.

Another says "no one should have an Uzi." Obviously, that person knows ZERO about the gun laws we already have in this country, and are basically arguing about something they know zilch about. To me, that's very scary.

One guy in that thread says he could "never shoot" anyone who broke into his house. To me, that's really scary. :(

Bruce H
December 1, 2004, 11:01 PM
Well according to the poll 48% thing gun control is a real loser. They are also starting to recognize that Feinstein, Boxer, and Shumer really aren't doing them any favors. Remember folks, KNOW YOUR OPPOSITION. Narrow mindedness will get you beat just as easily as falling for anything out there. Nothing happens overnight but it they start talking to their own politicians along with us maybe we can jointly accomplish something.

OpenRoad
December 1, 2004, 11:06 PM
I noticed Benchley sorta got owned at the bottom of the thread....

El Rojo
December 2, 2004, 01:54 AM
I am sort of amazed by these hard core Democrats. They just don't seem to live in reality. They are so bent out of shape about losing the election, but they don't want to analyze why they lost, they just want to bitch and complain about how everyone that doesn't agree with them are morons and then they continue to try and ram the square peg through the round hole. In a way, I hope they continue this strategy. We might be able to keep benefiting from it.

Part of it scares be though because there doesn't seem to be any real knowledge or thought in their positions. There really is no reasoning with them. They are the way they are and that is that. I at least have reasons for why I am the way I am. In a way it is all so depressing because when are things ever going to change? It all makes a big ole revolution seem peversly preferable.

djf
December 2, 2004, 02:08 AM
I read some of that thread. There ARE people on there who have really good insight into gun owners, and they are trying to pound common sense into the heads of people like that worthless asswipe MrBenchy.

As an example I give you this:



In this thread, there have been assertions of need to emphasise using terms like "common sense", "reasonable", and talk of packaging the gun issue differently. Hunting photo ops. Ad nauseum.

"We lose on this issue before we are ever able to explain what we mean."

Thats because people in the arena of firearms are not interested in subjective terminology. They distrust it. Period. The second you say "reasonable" or "common sense" you have lost half of them. Using terms like "common sense", if anything, just makes the issue more of a problem. You say "(insert subjective term here)" and the first thing a gun owner thinks is "whos common sense?". "Whos idea of reasonable restrictions?"


They will settle for nothing less than exacting specifics, reguarding ANYTHING proposed that might effect/restrict them. Nobody seems to get it, and I can't for the life of me understand why. All one has to do is look at a womans right to choose. The same dynamic applies there as well. Noone cares how its packaged (on the pro-choice side), instead, its exacting specifics we are interested in.

It makes no difference HOW you package it.




Theres something that desperately needs to be understood about this issue, and people who vote on this single issue.

The people who vote based on this issue, don't give a rats ass about packaging, or warm fuzzy terminology. They will look right through the fluff, and read any and ALL proposed legislation and decide for themselves. They will look at the voting record of ANY proposed candidate, and see how that individual voted on the issue of guns. Gun owners are not the knuckle draggers that so many think they are.

They are not interested in packaging. They are interested in whats IN the package.

You can package it any way you like, pretty colors and all, and use terms like "common sense" and "reasonable", but in the end, you only
help the opposing party with this line of thinking, and ultimately add to the divide, fostering further distrust.



"the cup is half full" or "the cup is half empty"...



Inroads will never be made with this group until it is understood that:

1) they see neither "the cup is half full" or "the cup is half empty", they just see half a cup.

2) the minute you try to package that "half cup" as anything other than a "half cup", they no longer trust you.

Stop trying to sell "this image" or "that image" to people who really don't give two ????s about "image".



"If we just try to tweak our party's position on guns to neutralize Republican criticisms, we'll be seen as shallow and valueless, which will be correct."

I disagree.

Standing up for choice, except for the sole issue of guns, is what makes this party seen as shallow and valueless.

"I'm not voting for them, they only stick up for the rights they like"

Being the party of inclusion, except for "gun enthusiasts" is what makes this party seen as shallow and valueless.

This one speaks for itself, and within this thread is evidence of it, if anyone really needs it.


Presuming from DC to tell people in "flyover USA" they don't "need" this gun or that gun is what makes this party seen as shallow and valueless.

People in "flyover USA" aren't interested in what people in DC think they "need".


This dude may not like guns, but he sure understands gun owners.

Or this, he sure hit the nail on the head for me. Since I own guns and don't give a damn about going hunting (not that I'm against hunting)...


I posted this response in another thread elsewhere, but it does more justice here. The people that think by being a "hunter" then makes them OK with gunowners at large, doesn't understand one thing about dedicated gunowners, thousands of whom own guns for a myraid of reasons besides hunting.

Let me explain to you how this works. John Kerry and his supporters think that by posing with a shotgun and a dead goose that he is then inoculated from the gun issue. Here's a clue to all hardcore gunbanning liberals:

"HUNTING" AND SIMPLY ADVOCATING HUNTING DOESN"T MEAN SQUAT TO 85% OF ALL GUN OWNERS.

Gun owners are inherently distrustful of people like John Kerry especially when advocacy groups present voters with their voting history. For anyone that thinks that this issue was not on rural folks minds...Read S.B 1431 that Mr. Kerry sponsored this last session. If passed it would have been the most Draconian gun law to ever have hit the books. The NRA made voters aware of the specifics of the bill, what it said and who advocated its passage, (in this case John Kerry). The Kerry and Gore methods of thinking,(in their minds), that by doing some hunting, that they are safe from the "anti-gun" label, shows their lack of understanding of the gun culture and rural and some suburban voters. They are RABID in their defense of their right to keep their guns. Many people DO NOT HUNT. These people may collect guns, like to target shoot, combat shoot, plink, trade, be amateur military historians, be an advocate of self defense, etc, etc..

Many, many thousands of voters don't give a damn about hunting, but love guns. Right away when they see Kerry hauling a goose out of the woods in his new camouflage, they think, "Fake bull????, he's trying to look like one of us, but he's far from it". Show me a Democrat that likes shooting and talking about his H&K MP5 and has a Senate record to back it up, and I'll show you a Democrat that will cut DEEPLY into the Republican ranks during an election.

When northeastern and California liberals can stop attempting to read rural voter's minds, then the issue can be resolved.

Here's the key to winning the white house. Shut the Hell up about guns PERIOD. The party should disown the issue nationally and thoroughly discourage anyone with the ????ty record,(like Kerry's), on guns from winning the nomination. Shut the Hell up about "reasonable restrictions". That may sound moderate to some. Most rural people here that and say "bye-bye".

Drop gun control totally and if you don't agree, then at least STFU about it, or I can promise you that we will lose more and more of the elections. Every election, more and more gun owners realize that Democrats= gun control. The more that realize that, we will NEVER get those people back.

Take it from me, I have saw this happening over the last 20 years and I have been screaming for someone to listen, but all the while, liberal people keep thinking that they mean well by moderating their tone with "reasonable restrictions". It's a loser folks, trust me

gunslinger308
December 2, 2004, 02:13 AM
I thought this might be something important about DUCKS UNLIMITED!

ProactiveReactionary
December 2, 2004, 02:34 AM
someone on the left who gets it, gun control is not a popular topic and not one most gun owners are willing to by any means.

yes by all means DROP the issue entirely, you simply arent going to win it.

they definitely need new platforms for their party, gay marriage (nothing wrong with it but if citizens say no, then they say no to it), abortion and gun control are HOT topic issues that are best left alone rather than handled in the way they deal with them. sorry, ramming anything down people's throats doesnt work, never has, never will.

i think their approach more than their issues should be reevaluated. telling the average person YOU know whats best for them and if you dont vote for them or the person they support then they're an idiot is a guaranteed method of psuhing them farther away from your side. but again, they dont seem like liberals and seem more like fascists wanting to play big brother for you because they feel they know whats best for you, as though you arent really an adult or somehow you shouldnt be allowed to make your own decisions.

Sindawe
December 2, 2004, 02:38 AM
Why waste your time perusing crap at DU? I can scratch my privates and have a more rewarding experience than going there.

DU does serves as a gathering point of breaking news and the like, simply due to the number of members and the post churn that goes on there. I've found the Science forum to be 'specially useful in that context. I will admit though, DU IS sorta like an grisly auto accident or the old time Freak shows, its sorta compelling to observe. And the members reactions to the recent was some GREAT comedy! :D

I read some of that thread. There ARE people on there who have really good insight into gun owners, and they are trying to pound common sense into the heads of people like that worthless asswipe MrBenchy.

So he's back eh? I had not seen his posts in awhile, figured that somebody had fogotten to re-run his very small shell script.

71Commander
December 2, 2004, 05:43 AM
That one dude over there that spews the same silly invective over and over has some seriopus psychological issues,,,,,either that or he is a 15 year old troll

That would be MrBenchly, I would venture to guess. He's a real work of art.

cracked butt
December 2, 2004, 06:00 AM
The people at DU spew the type of crap that the democrtaic party actually represents, but don't want you to know about. Voters are gradually catching on to this as seen by the waves of losses in pretty much every election in the last 10 years. :)

victory
December 2, 2004, 06:52 AM
frankly, i never see that kind of degrading of other people on gun websights...ok, maybe on glock talk, but not here is my analysis of democrats versus republicans when it comes to being whiny, arrogant, bullheaded ********.

Note: this post contains humor. if you lack a sence of it, do not read.

Personally, i consider myself a libertarian

I have no problems with democrats that support my rights and the rights of others, but they are few and far between. Same goes for republicans. My best friend is fairly left wing (often spouting marxist views), but libertarian in the issues where it counts. He is more pro gun than the vast majority of rupublicans. The large majority of my friends are left of center, however none of them are anti-gun (some may have started that way, but i fixed them).

Anyway, a good story about partisans, maturity and gun control. On election day i voted for Michael Badnarik, and in positions there wasn't a libertarian, i voted for an equal number of democrats and republicans. I had a long time to think about who i would vote for because i was serving as a PA state deputy constable (a volunteer position, though the county constable was so impressed by my work i might be able to weasel a job out of it) and was tasked with guarding the polling place from 7am until the vote was counted. My main tasks were enforcing rules such as those pertaining to keeping partisan postings, and pundits out of the polling place as well as people with cameras. Sidenote: Guns are ok though. I was asked by the judge because someone used a CWP as his second form of ID. Fortunately i'm very knoledgable on PA gun laws (the judge was not) so this responsible gun owner went unmolested.

Of course there was some friction as PA law forbids the wearing of campaign buttons or stickers inside a polling place. Seriously, you can't do it just like you can't hang a banner that says VOTE BUSH. The ruling from the state elections comittee was that no partisan political messages can be posted inside a polling place, whether on the wall or on a person, whether 40 feet wide or 4 inches around. Don't care if no one stopped you at your polling place, that constable wasn't doing his job, but, dammit, i was doing mine.

On average, more democrats gave me trouble than republicans, who, for the most part, complied politely without a fight. A good amount of democrats didn't put up a fight but gave me lip and started with speaches about how they were being oppressed. That's before i politely told them that a reasonable person would see the need to remove campaign material from a place where people are supposed to vote free of intimidation, even if that was not their intent, and that, frankly, they could save save their speach for someone that give a rats ass. Probably someone on DU that will claim i'm part of a vast right wing conspiracy, despite the fact that i enforced the ruling completely free of bias. How could i be biased? I hated the major party candidates and no one came in with a badnarik sticker (which i would have asked them to remove anyway). One democratic woman sent a lawyer to yell at me, who, despite the fact that i'm a NURSING STUDENT, i schooled hardcore on election law. I showed him the law, he told me that i was interpreting it wrong, so i got the state election board on the phone and they told him that his ass just got schooled by a 20 year old nursing student, and that he sould probably repeat his 100 level criminal justice course (ok, not those exact words.)

The worst trouble, although far less frequent, came from republicans. The first occured when moveon.org set up a table the leagal distance outside the polling place. This woman calls the RNC comes up to me and starts to complain then puts me on the phone with the RNC. The RNC person, who happens to know the law, listens to me for a minute then asks to speak to the woman. Her smile turns to a frown, then i tell her to hit the breeze. problem solved. The second was a towering man wearing a Bush hat. I got as far as "Sir, could you please remove...." before he pushed by me. I followed him continuing my sentence. He got right up in my face and barked that he heared on talk radio that he didn't have to. Ah, talk radio, the bastion of truth. I informed him of the earlier situation with the democratic lady's lawyer and even had the republican representative tell him. Meanwhile, holding on to his "voter approved" card (little slip of paper the clerk gives you after you sign in, to hand to the machine operator before you can cast your ballot) until he complied. He through the hat on the table and yelled "this is bull****" I handed him his voter approved card and wished him a pleasant evening. Sorry, i enforced the rules for everyone else, i just can't let this guy slide because he's stubborn. Before anyone gives me crap about it just being a hat, think about a cop fining someone for 5mph over. Will he just let you go if you give him crap about it just being 5 over or will he then cite you for that, then cite you for 16 other things he was just going to ignore if you were pleasant?

What can we learn from this? Democrats are probably more arrogant, immature and bullheaded on average, but republicans can be the worst. I have found this true. More polite right wingers, but the impolite ones are really, really bad. For instance, people who shoot abortion doctors. Really impolite right-wingers. Timothy McVeigh, really impolite right-winger. Conversely, the rioters at the RNC. A lot more of them, but at least no one got killed. I think the democrats were just trying way to hard to proove that they were somehow being oppressed by the vast right wing conspiracy. They'll probably go home and post on DU that some giant guy, who was probably some gun-owning, right-wing-nutcase, hired by the state: grabbed me at the polls, ripped off my kerry sticker, kicked my dog, and spit on me.

I'll further prove my point

The night went on and i chatted it up with some of the republicans. They were well dressed, well mannered. On points where they disagreed with my libertarian philosophy, they were gentlemanly and gave my point just consideration before disagreeing with well thought out arguments. Fortunately, the really impolite right-wingers were not among this group, so, to make sure my hypothesis still held true, i posted on of the statements they disagreed with on glocktalk and was promptly trounced, called a traitor and had it suggested that i be given a death warranting one.

I later began chatting with a group of democrats. It consisted of some well dressed and well mannered people. On points where they disagreed with my libertarian philosophy, they were polite and gave my point just consideration before disagreeing with well thought out arguments. The rest of them were shrieking women and this kid with a torn DU hoodie covered with anti bush/anti war buttons, most of which lacked any deeper thought than "F*** BUSH!" and "Lets not elect him again." They were polite enough until they disagreed with me at which point i saw fire in their eyes but they restrained themselves. I purposely held gun control until the end when i said, "so...who else is celebrating the expiration of the assault weapons ban...like, seriously, i just bought a dozen high cap magazines and started building an ar-15. Booyah! flash supressor!" i raised my hand hoping for a high-five...which i did not recieve. I was instead accused of killing children and being the cause of all that is evil, and that was just the begining. Although there are plenty of rational democrats, even some pro gun ones, nothing sets off the irrational ones moreso than gun control. I shrunk back to the republican side as they threw rotting vegetables at me (slight exaggeration).

"My god man! what did you say!" exclaimed one of the republicans.
"I just wondered if any of them were celebrating the death of the assault wea...."
"Hell yeah! i bought like, a dozen high caps and a collapsable stock for my AR-15! Booyah!" we high fived...i was among the sane again.

I finished off the night going to the democrats after party. Cheers and applause rang out evey time a state turned blue, sighs as others turned red. I watched the smiles turn to frowns, to bitter sobbing as the night went on. I laughed my ass off as i sipped on my Sam Addams Octoberfest (Which was damn good beer)....uh, did i say i was 20 earlier....i meant 21. It was hilarious knowing that these people were just now realizing that all hope was gone and that america was falling all to hell. As a libertarian, i had figured out ages ago that this was inevitable no matter who won, so i could be content sipping my beer and eating my free food on the democratic party's dime. No the democrats do not encourage underage drinking, i encourage responsible drinking regardless of puritan drinking laws. After all, i am a libertarian. Personal responsibility ring a bell? Anyway, it was nice to show the democrats all about the welfare state through example. I, as a libertarian, did nothing to deserve free food at the DNC's after party. But, despite this, i still got a free meal and it was out of their pocketbooks. Thanks for the handouts!

molonlabe
December 2, 2004, 08:54 AM
Great read. I was enjoying them attack each other like a pack of wild dogs. They seem to do that when someone doesn’t toe the party line. Fascism in action. :D

Black Dragon
December 2, 2004, 08:59 AM
DU = :barf:

Every time I look over there I feel like I'm :banghead:

Joe Demko
December 2, 2004, 11:15 AM
As is my habit every time one of these "DU is teh suXX0rs" threads starts, I must ask "Why do you bother to go there? After you go there, why do you feel the need to come here and complain about them?"

Kinsman
December 2, 2004, 12:22 PM
Yeah, I thought it was interesting, watching them basically self-destruct when one of the "high post count" members actually came out in favor of RKBA.

The place is definitely filled with hate and anger.

It's a good take on the hard-left in this nation though...you know, the ones pushing tolerance and all.

JohnBT
December 2, 2004, 01:27 PM
People in "flyover USA" aren't interested in what people in DC think they "need". - posted on DU.

I'd thank them, but I was banned a looong time ago. I think the person I complimented was banned too. ;)

John

Igloodude
December 2, 2004, 01:56 PM
It makes me wonder if I shouldn't start an account over there and play Democrat (essentially keeping quiet about 60% of my libertarianism and expounding enthusiastically about the other 40% of it) until I get some respect (or at least a high post count) and then unveil my RKBA stance. :evil:

From what everyone has said, though, the signal-to-flame ratio is too low for me to tolerate it long enough to matter.

ReadyontheRight
December 2, 2004, 05:16 PM
I thought you were talking about our brothers at Ducks Unlimited -- who can use a little dose of RKBA reality once in a while themselves.

This DU is more like an entirely different gene pool.

Jmurman
December 2, 2004, 08:35 PM
Its interesting that in their "rules" they specifically say that if you are not a Liberal Dem, then you're not welcome.

I looked at that site for all of a couple of hours and the hand wringing and whining just got to be too much.

Coronach
December 2, 2004, 09:17 PM
Great read. I was enjoying them attack each other like a pack of wild dogs. They seem to do that when someone doesn’t toe the party line. Fascism in action.Yeah, and we never do that here. :uhoh:

CoroAllergicToHyperboleNach

molonlabe
December 2, 2004, 09:58 PM
I've never seen it get that uncivilized here. Or people get foul or offensive if you're outside some established bell curve. :confused:

Fletchette
December 2, 2004, 11:59 PM
... is the motivation to dig a little deeper into my pockets and buy more ammo.

scromp
December 3, 2004, 12:08 AM
Yes, freerepublic bans people who disagree with them at the drop of a hat. I can assure you of that, having been banned from there more times than I can count. :-) Ever notice those "removed" posts? Nearly every one of those is someone getting banned.

This was before I ever heard of DU, though, or I'd probably have been banned from there, too.

Jeff K
December 3, 2004, 12:18 AM
As a DU member and frequent poster over there, I've found that most of the people over there are nuts, completely and totally nuts. I jumped into that gun thread and tried to stand up for the RKBA, and actually didn't get shouted down that bad.

I like to think of myself as a Jeffersonian Democrat, which I guess, in the current political climate makes me a "liberal". I can live with the label, I've been called much worse.

There are a lot more "liberals" that believe in the RKBA than many realise, its just that we tend to keep our mouths shut. Its not going to be that way anymore, I think this latest thread is the 8th or 9th in the last couple weeks. Those of us over there that 'get it' are going to keep pushing this because it's the right thing to do.

We're going to keep fighting for the Bill of Rights, every single one of them.

ProactiveReactionary
December 3, 2004, 01:13 AM
Yes, freerepublic bans people who disagree with them at the drop of a hat. I can assure you of that, having been banned from there more times than I can count. :-) Ever notice those "removed" posts? Nearly every one of those is someone getting banned.

i've never been to freerepublic so i dont know, thanks for the answer.

this was my first glance at DU.

i knew there was a reason to avoid such boards. now i know why.

yeah they're privately owned but that doesnt make it right, i keep saying but some just dont get it. this world would suck if we were all alike, but rather than accepting this and using it ones advantage, they decide to segregate themselves and have chosen to "be with their own kind". for a group of people who call others racist, they have some nerve since their mindset on banning those of a differing view is what racism and bigotry is based on. in fact it IS bigotry. such a sad state of affairs when all you know to do with a person of a differeing view is to bash them or ban them. obviously these people have mental problems.

Silent-Snail
December 3, 2004, 01:25 AM
Just finished reading the whole thing. My head hurts so much that I think I'm going to call in sick in the morning.

joe sixpack
December 3, 2004, 02:27 AM
I have not fully subscribed to the label of right wing, preferring to consider myself an independent. That being said, I stopped reading DU shortly after posting a response there to something I just could not let slide and was subsequently banned.

Like the mod said, the DU is not a place that you can do much debate, and when you consider that many of the posters seem so far afield from the norm
and that their comments can often incense, I find it better to spend what little free time I have these days in other ways and at other places.

cheers, js

SAG0282
December 3, 2004, 07:42 AM
DU members certainly aren't my brothers, and a large portion of them dying off probably wouldn't be a terribly bad thing. I have little sympathy for America-hating liberal elitists that mock the things I and America stand for.

I'm always livid after reading threads on that site.....

Coronach
December 3, 2004, 08:37 AM
I've never seen it get that uncivilized here. Or people get foul or offensive if you're outside some established bell curve.Well, ok, true. We tend to not allow threads to degenerate into that, and, in truth, we have less that get that way in the first place. I was speaking more to the tendency to pile on people who are not quite pure enough in their RKBA thought as others. Look up any lengthy thread about CC permits. Somewhere along the line, someone will take the POV that CC permits are good. Someone else will take the POV that they're bad. And often enough the discussion will turn to the purity of someone's RKBA support. You know, revolutionaries vs. counter-revolutionaries.

Not always, and very rarely as hysterically fun to watch as DU, but it does happen.

Mike

djf
December 4, 2004, 01:15 AM
I just read their rules (the long version).

I was laughing my ass off. They don't follow their own rules except the one about banning republicans.

HEiST
December 5, 2004, 11:32 AM
HAHA my buddies and I have warred with the freepers ever since they tried skewing one of my friends polls that he was using to *GASP* get a somewhat accurate count of people's opinions from a certain demographic. (SHOCK! HORROR!)

They're not too IRC smart, them freepers.

Moondoggie
December 5, 2004, 12:23 PM
Maybe this is a bit of thread drift, if so, I apologize.....but did anybody think to ask the folks at DU about what happened to Kerry's dead goose? Did he take it home and eat it? Doubtful. So what he did was simply wanton killing for a photo op. A fine example for a liberal "leader" to set.

Yeah, OK, maybe his handlers made sure that somebody that wanted it took the goose, but more likely it actually ended up in a dumpster.

Almost all "Responsible" sportsmen/hunters only kill game for a purpose. I know some folks hunt for trophies, which I personally disagree with, but I won't tell them that they are "wrong" for doing it. Conservation/population control are valid reasons for hunting, after all. The person who kills game just to "show off" is not someone I'd ever vote for. Indicates a lack of values IMHO. Keeping a trophy of a successful hunt isn't the same thing as simply posing for a political photo-op. I've never known anyone who would go to the trouble and expense of a taxidermist who wouldn't also have the meat processed.

I've hunted for many years, but have lost interest in killing animals as I grow older. I still strongly support the rights of others to hunt if they choose to.

If you enjoyed reading about "Our brothers over at DU..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!