Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
djones520 wrote: I just want to say, reading through DemocraticUnderground, and watching them tear each other apart because people are talking about how their rates have more then doubled... It's hilarious.
djones520 wrote: I just want to say, reading through DemocraticUnderground, and watching them tear each other apart because people are talking about how their rates have more then doubled... It's hilarious.
It is, it very much is.
That bad?
It must be if even dogma highlights the infighting as hilarious
djones520 wrote: I just want to say, reading through DemocraticUnderground, and watching them tear each other apart because people are talking about how their rates have more then doubled... It's hilarious.
It is, it very much is.
That bad?
Anyone actually got a link? Generally I'd put Democratic Underground on par with Freerepublic - both terrible places to wade through, though it probably has less dog whistle headlines.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/27 02:33:45
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
Democratic Underground, also known as DU, is an online community for U.S. Democrats. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for political office.[2] DU was established on January 20, 2001, the day Republican George W. Bush was inaugurated president.
. . .
Criticism[edit]
Discussions from posters at DU have drawn criticism. One example of this was the dialog about the 2004 tsunami disaster, in which a few posts explored the possibility of "earthquake weapons". The posts were reported by The New York Times[6] and Fox News.[7] The DU administrators deleted these posts and the threads were locked. The administrators officially disavowed what they called "kooky tsunami conspiracy theories". They added, "One wonders why the author [of the Times article] did not spend five minutes over at Free Republic and instead write an article about how conservatives think the tsunami was some sort of retribution from God, or how Muslims deserved it."[8] The administrators also sent a letter to the Times, which was printed.[9]
Another example is the conspiracy theories revolving around the August 2006 terror plot to blow up airliners between the UK and the US, which received mention in USA Today.[10] Some posters felt that the American government's push to release the announcement of the plot[11] was a conspiracy to bump Joe Lieberman's primary loss out of the news cycle.[citation needed]
The site also saw criticism when, in 2003, a poster explained why he or she wished to see continued bloodshed in Iraq.[12]
The site was also criticized by the online Oregon newspaper Salem-News.com for a thread about a video posted by the newspaper in which a former Israeli soldier described what the newspaper called "the war crimes committed against the Palestinians back in 1948." Because some DU posters criticized the piece, the newspaper wrote that DU had "decided to take a stand for apartheid", although it described another post in the thread (one critical of Israel) as "absolutely correct".[13]
Controversies[edit]
Two posters to Democratic Underground were investigated by the Secret Service for posts that, according to David Allen, violated the DU policy stating "Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president or other high-ranking official in the United States government."[14] Neither the comments nor the posters' identities are public knowledge, but David Allen said that both members had been banned prior to DU being notified of the investigation, and that no subpoenas have been issued to date.[15]
Censorship[edit]
Democratic Underground has been criticized by some former members for an overly-broad censorship policy that extends outside the bounds of its stated terms of service, and for banning members with opinions perceived as unpopular among the membership.[16][17] The site's "jury system" of censoring posts that allegedly violate the terms of service has also sometimes led to arbitrary and capricious decisions by forum members, and subsequent actions by moderators have implied an approval for this type of member-initiated censorship.[18]
Copyright infringement lawsuit[edit]
Main article: Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC
In 2010, Democratic Underground was sued for alleged copyright infringement in a member's posting of a few paragraphs from an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The suit was brought by Righthaven, an entity that finds Review-Journal quotations online, buys the copyright for that story from the newspaper, and retroactively sues for copyright infringement.[19] In response to the lawsuit, DU asserted that the quoted excerpt (five sentences of a 54-sentence article) was fair use, and counterclaimed against Righthaven for fraud, barratry, and champerty.[20] DU is being represented in the case pro bono by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, attorneys from the firm of Winston & Strawn, and Las Vegas attorney Chad Bowers.[20] After Righthaven lost a similar suit against Realty One Group over 8 of 30 sentences quoted from a news article, Righthaven asked the judge in the case against Democratic Underground to dismiss Righthaven's claim against DU.[21]
In June 14, 2011, Judge Roger L. Hunt ruled that Righthaven be dismissed from the case because Righthaven had never owned the copyright of the article and gave Righthaven two weeks to explain in writing why it should not be sanctioned.[22]
I don't think I've ever been to that site, and I try to avoid any newsy sites that are so heavily partisan - lots of lies of omission - but that doesn't seem like a list of atrocities exactly. It's a private site that sometimes bans people who then feel like they shouldn't have been banned? The horror. Someone posted an inane, Alex-Jones-Style conspiracy theory and the threads were locked? What an... abdication of responsibility. Hell, that last paragraph seems more like GW-style shenanigans that shouldn't reflect upon them at all.
I mean, none of this extends to the levels of WND full throated adoption of birtherism, or in the other direction, DailyKOS's stories about how Sarah Palin wasn't really Trig Palin's mother.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
You mean the site that was busy trying to tell the world how Senator Cruz got his healthcare through his wife on the same day as the hearings about the ACA's website?
Seaward wrote: Is a market really free if a potential consumer is forced by law to participate in it?
Yes. In the same way that the food market is still a market, even when people are forced to participate in it because the alternative is starving to death.
That's actually a mirror of the old debate that used to happen between people arguing for market economics, and socialists. The socialists would argue that economics didn't work when the market was for a necessity such as food or water, and so those things must be handled by government or else exploitation. The market economists argued that as long as competition was strong enough it didn't matter. The market economists were, of course, completely right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/27 03:21:50
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Seaward wrote: Is a market really free if a potential consumer is forced by law to participate in it?
Yes. In the same way that the food market is still a market, even when people are forced to participate in it because the alternative is starving to death.
.
Oh come on. Not even remotely the same.
You will not die without health care. You will not go untreated without health care in the US. I don't know how you can even equate those two.
Ouze wrote: I don't think I've ever been to that site, and I try to avoid any newsy sites that are so heavily partisan -.
So I presume you avoid CNN, CBS, and NBC as well?
Sorry, we'll go back to getting all our news from Infowars, breitbart, Stormfront and Free Republic, the only unbiased news sites out there
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
It must be if even dogma highlights the infighting as hilarious
I also find it hilarious that you seem to think I am a Democrat.
Maddermax wrote: [
Anyone actually got a link? Generally I'd put Democratic Underground on par with Freerepublic - both terrible places to wade through, though it probably has less dog whistle headlines.
It isn't possible to link a single thread. I would recommend searching "PPACA", "ACA", or "Obamacare" if you wish to be entertained.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/27 03:41:46
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote: Yes. In the same way that the food market is still a market, even when people are forced to participate in it because the alternative is starving to death.
That isn't the only alternative.
And competition would not be strong enough in the new insurance market without the billions in federal money being pumped in, so, again, I'm not sure that referring to the current situation as a free market is entirely accurate, leaving aside the entire issue of many aspects of coverage being mandated.
You will not die without health care. You will not go untreated without health care in the US. I don't know how you can even equate those two.
Really? For real?
Suppose the following scenario:
Person A does not have health insurance, so person A does not go to the doctor unless he absolutely has to. Due to this, person A dies of cancer, because that lump in his back was too expensive to have checked before it became a problem. Would it be fair to say that person A died because he did not have health care?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
cincydooley wrote: You will not die without health care. You will not go untreated without health care in the US. I don't know how you can even equate those two.
Ouze wrote: I don't think I've ever been to that site, and I try to avoid any newsy sites that are so heavily partisan - lots of lies of omission - but that doesn't seem like a list of atrocities exactly. It's a private site that sometimes bans people who then feel like they shouldn't have been banned? The horror. Someone posted an inane, Alex-Jones-Style conspiracy theory and the threads were locked? What an... abdication of responsibility. Hell, that last paragraph seems more like GW-style shenanigans that shouldn't reflect upon them at all.
I mean, none of this extends to the levels of WND full throated adoption of birtherism, or in the other direction, DailyKOS's stories about how Sarah Palin wasn't really Trig Palin's mother.
Well, they do have an entire forum devoted to uncovering the truth behind 9/11. The LIHOP/MIHOP folks love it there. This thread is a personal favorite of mine.
The place is like FreeRepublic, but worse IMO with it's Gestapo Mods. It's fun to read, but if you have rationale thought, don't bother trying to post there. Unless you have several thousand posts, you will be labelled a "freeper troll" and banned for voicing any opinion that isn't in line with the hive speak.
In a just world, any forum that supported Troofers would direct you to a secret, real life conference that will "blow the whole thing wide open" with a special appearance by Alex Jones; but all the chairs would be irradiated to sterilize the attendees.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/27 11:59:36
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: In a just world, any forum that supported Troofers would direct you to a secret, real life conference that will "blow the whole thing wide open" with a special appearance by Alex Jones; but all the chairs would be irradiated to sterilize the attendees.
I was really enjoying that post, but that last little part really made me laugh out loud.
dogma wrote: I also find it hilarious that you seem to think I am a Democrat.
I thought that as well. Green or Socialist, then?
I think he is a moderate who sees value in several ideologies and votes according to which party has the best policies at the time I seem to remember him saying something like that.
You will not die without health care. You will not go untreated without health care in the US. I don't know how you can even equate those two.
Really? For real?
Suppose the following scenario:
Person A does not have health insurance, so person A does not go to the doctor unless he absolutely has to. Due to this, person A dies of cancer, because that lump in his back was too expensive to have checked before it became a problem. Would it be fair to say that person A died because he did not have health care?
Really for real.
Suppose the following situation:
Person A has nothing wrong with them. They don't have health insurance. They don't die.
Person B has nothing wrong with them. They don't have food or water. They die.
I thought from your prior posts that you campaigned for them, and had worked as a political analyst for them.
I work for a non-partisan political analysis firm. We have many clients from all across the political spectrum in the US and several other countries. I also independently consult for two environmentalist NPOs, not because I particularly like their work, but because they are run by friends and I am not one to turn down a paycheck.
The closest I have come to working for the Democratic Party is working for Greenpeace as a canvasser, and for the Fund for the Public Interest in the same capacity. In both cases my decision was based on necessity, high pay, and the attractiveness of my coworkers.
You will not die without health care. You will not go untreated without health care in the US. I don't know how you can even equate those two.
Really? For real?
Suppose the following scenario:
Person A does not have health insurance, so person A does not go to the doctor unless he absolutely has to. Due to this, person A dies of cancer, because that lump in his back was too expensive to have checked before it became a problem. Would it be fair to say that person A died because he did not have health care?
Really for real.
Suppose the following situation:
Person A has nothing wrong with them. They don't have health insurance. They don't die.
Person B has nothing wrong with them. They don't have food or water. They die.
Not the same thing.
"You will not die without health care." is an absolute statement. It's not always true.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
So you don't vote Democrat? I'm legitimately surprised.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, just because I'm enjoying the fact that so many news outlets suddenly decided to report on the actual effect of the ACA rather than what its peddlers promised it would do, another one, from the LA Times.
Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.
These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.
Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation.
“This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act.”
Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.
Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.
“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/28 04:03:23
Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else! 
