Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Kos User Revolts--Election Eve!

This was the most interesting thing I have read on KOS in a year!

I'm Ashamed Of Kos!
by mostconsiderate (cross-posted at the Daily Kos)

I have given him every benefit of the doubt, but Kos does not represent The Daily Kos very well. On Larry King tonight, he seemed like a little kid, and frankly added to the "wimp factor" that we, socially liberal/fiscally conservative Democrats, have been trying to discard.

His inexperience at anything besides computer geekery and poll watching has shown consistently throughout this campaign. As he has totally ignored any race that had no publicly released polls and has spoken of nothing other than predictions without actually leading opinion, Kos has dropped the ball more often than my uncle who works in the butter factory.

He is afraid to talk about the blatant Republican conspiracy to suppress, steal and electronically reverse votes. It is clear, he absolutely wants to avoid anyone ever calling him a "conspiracy theorist" for fear someone will put a "tinfoil hat" on his head. Well, some conspiracies DO exist. Robert Kennedy, Jr's. diligent accounting of the stolen Ohio votes (180,000) in Rolling Stone was overlooked and understated by even those that call themselves "Liberals".

He is probably such a weakling that he will ban me or halt my commentary, so that I will not even be able to answer other's comments. He has done this to many others before and people just assume his critics have run away instead of having just been fascistically silenced. He has banned so many people for simply disagreeing with him that it makes me sick all in the name of “troll hunting”.

Sure, he started this site. And maybe I am out of line. But in the name of the free press, I feel compelled to ask him to stop pretending he represents me.

Even in such a clearly obvious vulnerable race as Mike McGraw vs Lynn "10 Commandments" Westmoreland, he has written off half of the races in the country. He will be embarrassed tomorrow to see that many races could have been won with very little extra help. I know for a fact that Mike McGraw's candidacy has been the most effective in the country, dollar for dollar ($70,000) against ($700,000). Based on my research, tomorrow will be close even though there was NO help from the Dems, who have clearly become overrun by the extreme. As a professional campaigner and writer for every network and a manager in every major newspaper chain since 1984, I am incensed to have such ignorance running such an organization that have so many hanging on its words.

Has Kos been bought? Is that it? Is it that all he cares about is selling a book or jumpstarting his own political career? I can tell you he can't possibly win a primary, much less an election, with his non-committal tone and clear fear written all over his face. He didn't even MENTION the projected voting irregularities and the dirty robocalls in VA while on Larry King. He needs to learn that you answer the questions they should have asked, not just the ones they did ask.

Sadly, he will probably be patting himself on the back for how great the Dems did after tomorrow, instead of self-flagellating over what we could have done. Personally, I will congratulate my candidate for his integrity and effort, either way the votes go. But, the geeky poll watchers should go back to the IRC, in some techno corner and let those of us with passion lead the nation again.

Note: there are no links in this post. No pics, no vids... just free speech.
334 Comments as of 10 AM Election Day

10 things I learned from the troll patrol:
by RonP at DearDemocrat (reposted from Daily Kos)
Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 09:00:03 PM EST

By this moment, mid-evening on Monday, November 6th, if we're not already talked-out and written-out about any and all aspects of Election Day that we have any control over... and if we're not taking a breather from posting on the subject until at least tomorrow evening when I hope and pray the celebrations begin ... then we're all just a bunch of trolls without a life!

I, for one, have learned a lot from the gang of fifty or so ... the ones out trolling on Friday, November 3rd just after 9:30 pm. And I, for one, am going to use this quiet time to be as untrolly as possible ... and share what I learned with you.

On Friday, I was inspired to write what I considered an "epilogue" piece on the John Kerry fiasco. I'm new to dKos--but big on playing by the rules or getting off the field. And although I knew much had been written on the incident, I believed I was within reasonable protocol as far as "not duplicating", and chose to write "one last piece".

I certainly did not want to be thought of poorly by fellow Kossacks. And as I'm cross-posting from my own new site, DearDemocrat.com--to which my heart and soul are dedicated to saving our Country and the Planet--I certainly did not want to piss or scare anybody off!

I read each and every comment two or three times, and where it seemed intelligent to do so, responded intelligently. Three dozen comments later, in less than 15 minutes after it all began, I found myself already distraught, distracted, frustrated, and embarrassingly, feeling sorry for myself--a professional, award winning writer, thinker, analyzer--when the twenty year-old college twit put in his or her two cents.

"Give me a fucking break," I thought. "I'm spending hours a day, sopping up as much news and opinion as possible, and using my four decades of corporate marketing experience trying to participate in what I believe is a bona fide program to help humanity, and this snot nosed kid is determining that I'm a fucking troll".

And then, the winds changed ... spirited discussion started rolling in ... and the tide began to turn.

Seven commenters spoke their piece. Fiercely. I spoke back. Passionately. They spoke back. Kindly.

Five hours had passed. It was now Tuesday, just past 2:30 in the am. I was beat to shit but feeling happier. Here's what I learned from the troll patrol:

1. Either I don't understand Kos' own words on "Dealing with trolls", or a large bunch of commenting Kossacks don't; I think, the latter. To wit: though I didn't read every diary posted re: John Kerry's botched joke, I certainly knew I was not duplicating, but rather adding an original premise to the mix. Any moron would have realized I hadn't "clearly intended to provoke an angry response" (Kos' own definition of what a troll is). I was NOT a troll.

2. Most of the comments were posted "simply to disrupt the conversation in a diary" (again, Kos' own words). Ergo ... nearly all of the commenters to my diary were mean, disruptive trolls ... and they deserved the frigging recipe.

3. When I spot an asshole, he's usually an asshole. And so is she.

4. Half of the commenters to my diary have no posted diaries; does this mean they spend all of their dKos time doing nothing but trolling and dropping comments? Get a fucking life!

5. People always have and always will sound off before they get a grip on what's really before them; usually, they should be forgiven; I always forgive two times.

6. There are a disproportionate amount of amateur Photoshoppers on the dKos. Do something good with the program or get a life!

7. You can tell genuinely good people after just a couple of sentences; seven of the commenters to my diary were really good people!

8. One very talented writer actually had the guts to recommend my diary.

9. Trollers will definitely disagree with me and not like this diary.

10. Though I have a degree in psychology, I still can't put a handle on what makes these big time "time wasters" tick.

All of the above aside, we all have something good in common. Our desires for tomorrow. I believe the only way we don't win is by criminal treachery. Unfortunately it's happened before. Hasta manana!

Hope to see you all here and at my new website, DearDemocrat.com

342 Comments by 11am Election Day

More hypocrisy from DailyKos
by vissud (reposted from Daily Kos)
Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 10:32:42 AM EST

DailyKos and Redstate.com really should just join forces. It's really all the same schtick. They could call it "PolticalGroupThink.org - Only one opinion matters".

Look at this nugget of "wisdom":

Good grief, is the magnitude of this screw-up somehow unclear? You do not post detailed classified plans for making the components of a nuke on the Internet, duh! As if this needs any escalating qualifiers, you most especially don't post it in Arabic in the middle of a war against well financed terrorists teeming with bug-fuck crazy, suicidal Jihadists.

Apparently, the information contained by Iraq's government is so dangerous to us, that Kossacks are having seizures over the danger. How is it that a country that supposedly never contained any threat to us, suddenly now contains the most dangerous information ever conceived by man?

Just plain election time politics is all. Again, $100.00 to the person with the first original thought. I leave you with all these Republican quotes about WMD:

Update [2006-11-6 11:1:43 by vissud]: Still waiting for the comments on all their Democratic brethren who fully believed in the WMD. Still, no one can seem to get it through their skulls, that if it was too dangerous to put on the Internet, it's too dangerous to have in the hands of Hussein. But, hey, give them a break. They're Kossacks. Breaking rank with the party line is the toughest thing thet could ever do. It's like quitting smoking for them.

Update [2006-11-6 11:13:55 by vissud]: Asinus Asinum Fricat, could you at least use something from the current decade? Jeesh.

Update [2006-11-6 11:37:49 by vissud]: Wonder why no one has noticed that I linked in Redstate.com in with DailyKos, and accused them of group think as well. Hmm, so I critique both sides, and yet the Kossaks take that as I must be some right wing nutjob. Interesting how group think affects reading comprehension.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."--From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."--From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities"--From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."--Madeline Albright, 1998.

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"--National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."--Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."--Robert Byrd, October 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."--Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."--Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."--Bill Clinton in 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."--Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."--Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."--Tom Daschle in 1998.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."--John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."--John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."--Dick Gephardt in September of 2002.

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."--Al Gore, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."--Bob Graham, December 2002.

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."--Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."--Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."--Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."--John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."--John Kerry, October 9, 2002.

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."--John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."--Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."--Joe Lieberman, August, 2002.

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, United Nations inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. Inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."--Patty Murray, October 9, 2002.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."--Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."--Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources--something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."--John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."--John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."--Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.


The fact is, Kos and his staff attack everyone who questions them in any way. They are called "troll hunters" and only they have a special button "Troll Rate" as they are "trusted users". When they see anything that questions their young prince Kos, they immediately attack with namecalling, recipes, tinfoil hats, and rarely---actual commentary, addressing the diary. Kos views himself as far more influential than he really is. He sits at his computer workstation and plays God, putting his name on all the poorly written superliberal pieces that his staff hands him. He is NO journalist but he has stumbled upon a geekdom with a little power, only due to his computer skills. Most at his site are equally geeky and exhibit more HTML than political SAVVY. They should stick to web-design.

Though all Democrats appreciate their votes, Kossacks by in large, are young, inexperienced, and just left of Lenin. They stick together, and mistakenly pretend to represent ALL liberal bloggers. The mainstream media mistakenly let Markos (Kos) speak on their shows on the left and it gives a false impression that Dems are rabid, communistic, and limp wristed wimps. Kos is all of the above, but Dems are not! It is time for the moderates to come back home to the big tent (in some cases--A Circus tent).

I found this rather refreshing. Oh well, time to read what the adults are saying at Huffpo.
---Editor, Duly Consider

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails