Tea baggers have infiltrated every major progressive site and I have to admit

[mfcorey1]

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 08:51 PM - Edit history (3)

that they camouflage themselves very well. I am just saying.......

[bitchkitty]

1. I don't think they camoflauge very well at all. n/t

[Andy823]

2. I agree

They seem pretty obvious to me.

[Decoy of Fenris]

3. Aye. They're the ones that act like caricatures of liberals.

The ones who act like the Republicans view us; blind, obedient putzes following our loyal masters.

[Nay]

28. Most employ hideous grammar and make grade-school spelling and punctuation errors.

And a couple of them act like caricatures of liberals as described on those sites I never visit.

Some ask dopey ingenuous 'questions' just to be shit-stirrers.

They're all pretty obvious.

[Logical]

31. Many of them are smart-ass grammar police! n-t

[backscatter712]

50. They don't have to camouflage. They just have to game the juries.

As long as Skinner allows these pieces of shit to stay on the board after their posts are left alone, 3-3, this place is going to be a cesspit.

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. Doesn't matter. They come off dumb no matter where they go. n/t

[Kahuna]

7. Ba da bing!

[Thinkingabout]

5. Do you think many do not realize lots of us have memories not tainted by conserative

Talk shows and other media. I am amazed about the lack of knowledge with the phone records cords, etc, then I think if they claim no knowledge of such it can become another scandal. Or just maybe it runs hand in hand with "I can see Russia from my back door so I have foreign experience" or in rape a woman's body shuts down a d she can't get pregnant.

[JHB]

6. Isn't casting suspicions on others a favorite form of camouflage?

I've been a DU member since 2001. I've seen plenty of trolls, including sophisticated ones. I've also salved some newbies who unknowingly walked right into flamethrower-fights.

As to your post, at best I have to say "So what?" We've had to deal with that sort since Day One. At worst? I'd note that your profile says you joined in 2010, the Teabagger heyday. Should I put on a tinfoil hat, purloin Glen Beck's chalkboard and "just ask questions"? Your post applies to you as much as anyone else.

Vague casting of aspersions helps no one.

[mfcorey1]

9. In your dreams. I entered blue and remain that way. Maybe you doth protest too much.

[JHB]

11. Think what you like

I'm not protesting, I'm reminding. There are real differences of opinion within the party about a number of serious issues. It serves no useful purpose to vaguely insinuate that others (presumably people you argue with) are simply teabag infiltrators.

If you're blue, great. Don't engage in "red"baiting.

[sabrina 1]

25. There are no real differences of opinion in the party, I mean the voters, elected officials are a

different story when it comes to Bush policies. But I agree there are some in the party who will support anything, even Bush policies, out of some kind of misplaced party loyalty.

[justice1]

36. That happened to me after I joined, and disagreed with some posters.

[xfundy]

16. "casting of aspersions"

It's "casting of ASPARAGUS," you rabble rouser! SPY!

Alert! Alert! Independent thinker!

[truebluegreen]

19. Drat...beat me to it!

[liberal N proud]

8. They pop up here all the time and don't last long

They very easy to spot and get the boot very quickly.

[Whisp]

17. some last very long.

they where teabaggers when teabagging wasn't cool.

[Inkfreak]

59. Hipster Teabaggers?? That reminds me of a joke.

Why did the hipster burn his mouth?
Cause he was eating pizza before it was cool.


Full disclosure. I read that joke on DU. Subscribe to the Humor forum folks. It'll help ease the tension around here.

[Fumesucker]

10. Disagree, they are blatantly obvious

Just welcomed one to DU a few minutes ago in fact.

[Paladin]

61. +1. They may have used camouflage in the past, but not any more. (nt)

[sweetapogee]

63. LOL!

We should start a list for those of us that are not as perceptive of these things.

[Fumesucker]

71. Stick around for a while, you'll figure it out

It's one of those things where experience makes a lot of difference in your perceptions.

[SidDithers]

12. DU rec...nt

Sid

[AverageJoe90]

13. Can't help but wonder....

If infiltration by covert cons in general may help explain a lotta things, including, perhaps especially, the Obama-bashing and climate doomerism that's been going around the boards lately(especially the latter when it comes to commentary. God damn, it's almost like every bit of that is some kind of intentional caricature of environmentalists.).....and perhaps, to a lesser extent, some of the gunnuttery, too.

[Pelican]

14. That must be it...

... an organized horde of keyboard warriors out to show you how wrong you are.... on the internet.

That or everyone doesn't agree with you.

either or...

[AverageJoe90]

15. So, what's this about? nt

[Kingofalldems]

32. Interesting post there.

Are you trying to tell us something?

[Pelican]

38. Indeed I am...

... but I have a sneaking suspicion that you've ignored it.

Remember what we talked about with the hobby?

[Kingofalldems]

49. That must be the royal 'we'

I have never discussed anything with you.

[Socialistlemur]

21. What's climate doomerism?

I recently got a copy of the draft IPCC report scheduled for release this year. The IPCC is a political body, therefore the report was ready last year, and they closed it for comments in November. The guy who gave it to me thought it would be a good idea if I read it because of my background so I could in turn give him my opinion.

Anyway, reading the report gave me the idea to research more about the topic. What I found was a lot of distortion on both sides of the issue. And in some cases it was so extreme I started to wonder if "green advocates" may not be paid by the nuclear power industry. The same applied on the other side, I think there's some effort by coal companies to back "science" to confuse people regarding anthropogenic global warming, and in particular the greenhouse effect. I also see a weird behavior: there's a lot of opposition by some actors to one pipeline carrying crude from Canada to the USA Gulf coast. But the competition to that crude is identical crude from Venezuela arriving by tanker. And then there's a movement to stop natural gas production...which benefits coal producers.

I don't want to sound paranoid, but I'm starting to triple check everything I read because I see hidden motives and secret agendas everywhere. And I see a lot of misdirection and even censorship when one tries to focus discussion on a purely technical basis. It's almost as if people had religious mania...or they are getting paid.

Anyway, this applies to just about everything. Again I don't want to sound like I got black helicopters coming after me, but I wouldn't trust anything unless you have checked and double checked, because there are hidden agendas everywhere.

[RobertEarl]

27. Well

If you were any kind of active environmentalist you wouldn't be so utterly confused.

See, the earth is being polluted. That pollution causes all kinds of problems. One problem is that co2 absorbs radiation from the sun. So that heat now resides in the atmosphere, warming the planet. Of that there is no debate.

Then there are the activists.... they pick an issue that has an impact on the environment and they attack that issue. They can't cover every issue, tho they may try.

Only someone who is clueless about the global environment would issue such anti-environmentalism as you have here.

I take that as a failure of we activists to have not educated you well. Take this as your first lesson.

[Pelican]

37. With friendly non-condescending posts like that one...

I can't imagine why you don't have a bigger following!

Weird...

[AverageJoe90]

43. There may be some truth here, though I do have a few caveats.

Climate doomerism, btw, is a difficult thing to explain fully, since it's kinda complex, but I'll tell you this: most of them seem to think that the IPCC is being "too conservative" about everything, and that humanity is at risk from extinction or short term(we're talking in two decades, maybe just one) total global civilization collapse due to AGW, ALONE(the truth is, the former isn't going to happen, and the chances of the latter happening are less than any one of us winning the Powerball lottery in any given year).

There are indeed plenty of questionable agendas around, though, from what I can see, the professional doomsday prophets, like Guy McPherson, David Wasdell, et al. are just a bunch of useful idiots, and well-meaning veterans like Jim Hansen who let loose every once in a while really just needed to vent; the latter group IS NOT even part of the problem, IMO.

Truth be told, in this regard, I'm a lot more concerned about professional deniers like Tony Watts and "Lord" Monckton. Where in the HELL are these guys getting all their influence from, exactly? Is it just Big Fossil, or is there more to it?????

[Abq_Sarah]

40. So are you saying...

If someone is capable of thinking for themselves and has no intention of going through life as a mindless cheerleader, parroting nothing but talking points, they're a "covert con"?

I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. And that includes people in my own party.

[AverageJoe90]

44. Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what climate doomers do.

Is mindlessly parrot talking points, like how we're supposedly at risk for extinction(we're not) or that civilization is going to collapse, etc.. I have seen this myself, OVER, and OVER again.

Many of them are just mindless parrots, but I seriously can't help but wonder if some of them may just be up to no good.....

I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. And that includes people in my own party.

And that's not really a problem, by itself. In fact, sometimes, it's actually a good thing.....and sometimes maybe not so much, depending on the situation.

[RobertEarl]

46. Money to be made, or lost

For doomers there is no real money to be made. And given the science establishing extinctions due to climate changes, they have an argument.

If somehow the world were to quit using fossil fuels, much oil money would be lost. So the potential losers will do and say any thing to protect their money supply. They do have a lot of money on the table.

All the doomers have to lose is the earth as we know it. And man does have the power to destroy the climate and cause extinctions.

That's the field of play. Which side are you on?

[AverageJoe90]

48. Not our own, though.

And I actually made quite clear that the majority of my concern is towards the deniers. As I've said before, the doomers may be fools but at least they don't have the money; they're just the useful idiots, while the deniers actually get shitloads of money from the PTB, making them the bigger threat. So, basically, I never argued against that point.

Which side are you on?

The right side, thankfully. My question is, are people like Guy McPherson, David Wasdell, etc., really on OUR side, or are they just a bunch of attention whores?

[hunter]

68. But I'm looking forward to the collapse of this civilization, Joe. It sucks.

Perhaps we can build a gentle and sustainable civilization before this one goes anaerobic and dies.

There's too much scum rising to the top of our pond, Joe. Eutrophication

It's time to stir things up. It's past time to abandon fossil fuels.

If we can't deal with the problems we've created then nature will, and it won't be pretty. The grim reapers will be set loose upon us. War, famine, pestilence...

I'm trained as an evolutionary biologist. This world has seen many innovative species experience exponential growth and then crash. I don't think humans are anything special. Our species discovered how to "eat" fossil fuels and our population exploded. The colors of our feathers, the size of our brains, those don't much matter. With life, any kind of life, it's always about the flows of energy and resources.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. I know, right? When I see people wanting to rape the Constitution, I wonder if they're infiltrators.

Some of the statements made really surprised me at first, since they're so cowardly, so unprincipled, and so goddamned Soviet. Then I started thinking, and it made perfect sense. Infiltrators, 'baggers and the like, are trying to play the part of those who would apologize for Obama no matter how many people he secretly spied on. I think it's an attempt by the TEA party to try to make others think that Democrats support the largest secret dragnet in history. I'm glad you brought this subject up. Heartily recommended.

[Socialistlemur]

22. Your statements are being recorded

As per the USA federal code, and in absolute compliance with all applicable regulations, everything you say and write, as well as any face gestures you make, are being recorded. Your tendencies to buy certain products, check the reviews for movies, and purchase deodorant (or not) is part of a data base. If you call a pizza parlor x times a month, the call is registered. Your bill is in the record if you use a credit card. Algorithms are programmed to discern your mental shape, and you are liable to be classified an enemy of the state. I don't think they will think it twice when they consider your case. They will act swiftly and you will be jailed, without having the right to call your lawyer.

[YeahSureRight]

20. Republicans have infiltrated the Democratic Party

Which is a bigger problem then infiltrating a meaningless internets website.

[RKP5637]

52. +1, n/t

[Downtown Hound]

23. Who cares?

90% of them are total morons who out themselves instantly. The other 10% are just losers with nothing better to do. There have been long term moles here that have eventually outed themselves (OperationMindCrime comes to mind, but I always suspected he wasn't a true liberal, he was simply too obnoxious), but it's not like they really accomplish anything from their efforts. In the end they just stir a lot of shit, cause some mischeif, and then go off and have a chuckle.

The sad and funny thing is they are actually stupid enough to delude themselves into believing they accomplished something worthwhile. As if being a pain in the ass on an anonymous internet board is going to help them or their agenda. Every minute they waste on here is time they're not registering voters, marching in the streets, or raising money. In fact, I'd rather they were wasting their time on here than actually going out and working on their agenda in the real world.

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

[BainsBane]

47. Because they influence debate on key issues

and many have been here a lot time.

[marions ghost]

55. Right

they are here to influence debate and nullify progressive positions as best they can. I don't agree with some of the posters in this thread that they are always obvious.

Their motive is always to inflict harm. You see the pattern after awhile.

[BainsBane]

58. Only the bad ones are obvious. nt

[pipi_k]

62. I think the appropriate

phrase would be that they TRY to influence debate.

At least here at DU.

To think otherwise would be to imply that DUers are so stupid that any dufus from the right can actually influence the way we think.

[Downtown Hound]

70. Let them

It gives us a chance to sharpen our teeth and practice destroying their propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

24. That's nothing new, they have always been around on liberal sites pretending to be democrats,

but their support for Bush policies, no matter how hard they try to sound 'reasonable' and their attacks on Liberal/Democrats which they find hard not to do, generally gives them away. I like arguing with them actually.

[Nye Bevan]

26. The worst are the ones who pretend to be good DUers.

They act all polite and civilized. They pretend to hold progressive viewpoints. They criticize Republicans and praise President Obama when appropriate. They donate to DU. They don't post anything that would justify clicking on Alert. They think they are so clever. But I'm on to them. Oh yes, I'm on to them.

[marions ghost]

56. Yep that's how it's done

you see the nefarious patterns underneath the facades if you pick up on the inconsistencies.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Sooooooo meta. Threads on DU about DU are super awesome, yo!

Tell us more about your little theory.

[TheKentuckian]

30. I don't know about well camouflaged. Most are pretty open about what they stand for

look at the embrace of Reich wing policy, corporatism, destruction of our civil liberties, education deform, constant defense of austerity, and on and on. Certain folks are pretty right wing and all is well as long as they recite their "hail Obamas" and a "hail Hillary" or two while avoiding open bigotry.

[Buzz Clik]

33. "I love how paranoid these freaks are, so now if you are a good DUmmy and don't poke the hive..."

... said the guy who brags about his DU moles and watches every fucking move at DU.

Jesus effin' Christ. Could you be a more hypocritical idiot?

[Buzz Clik]

66. ..

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. If they're so well camouflaged, how do you determine that they're teabaggers?

Just asking...

[Bobbie Jo]

54. Clue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2978563

[Xithras]

67. The post count?

Because if you're talking about the post text itself, the comment is 100% accurate. Libertarians have always been better on civil liberties (and military adventurism/spending) than Democrats. It's the Libertarian positions on business and capital,the environment, and their position on the role of government in promoting the welfare of the citizenry, that make them a real problem for most of us.

Ron Paul's position on civil liberties was far to the left of Barack Obama. His positions on EVERYTHING ELSE made him the enemy.

[randome]

35. Didn't the last thread like this get zapped?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[boilerbabe]

39. yes everybody who doesn't adore obama as much as you is a teabagger posing

as a progressive . shiouldnt this whacko shit be posted in creative speculation:?

why can't you and the rest of the defenders realize that many progressives but the issues over the personality . this is why we all call you guys a personal ,,..oh never mind.

[Bobbie Jo]

53. What?

[marions ghost]

57. LOL

good troll imitation.

[mfcorey1]

60. The incoherent ranting of your post proves my point. eom

[markiv]

41. sounds like it's time for a 'purge' nt

[markiv]

42. one does have to wonder about anyone who thinks.....differently

because they're probably....one of 'them'

they're not like us, and they must be exposed

[backscatter712]

45. Them and the authoritarian quislings. n/t

Oh, didn't you know, you can be a full-blooded civil-rights-loving progressive and cheerlead for the NSA's electronic Stasi system at the same time!

[ileus]

51. baggers don't even know what the internet is.

[Puzzledtraveller]

64. You don't really believe that.

[rdking647]

65. ive been called a teabagger here

because i dont agree with everything that some liberals say i have to agree with to be a true liberal. i dont have to prove my liberal credentials to anyone here. ill leave blind obedience to a label to the conservative whackjobs with their RINO labels. i like to think for myself.

i support gay rights
i support unions (in most but not all cases)
i support reining in wall street
i support raising taxes on the 1%
i support ending the war
i support reining in corporations that are strangling the country (like monsanto)

but i also support gun rights (within reason)
i support building the keystone pipeline

if that makes me a teabagger in some peoples mind then so be it. Im a liberal and i care about being called a teabagger by some on the extreme left about as much as i care about what the extreme right calls me

[Xithras]

69. It's the old "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

People who can't win their argument logically often resort to the old "...no TRUE Democrat would ever believe that" line. Of course, since they get to decide what a "true Democrat" really believes, the argument ensures that you cannot win.

In reality, the only objective yardstick of a "true Democrat" are your beliefs in the official platform of the Democratic Party. If it's not in the platform, it's merely your opinion.

And based on that platform, there are a LOT of people on DU, including myself, who aren't "real Democrats". I personally have an objection to the line in the party platform that advocates party support for maintaining the "Strongest Military in the World" (the party term, not mine). I believe that unchecked American militarism is the root of many of our modern problems, and would like to see our military budget and size slashed. That puts me in opposition to a party plank, and means I'm not a "real Democrat". So be it.

[Populist_Prole]

72. That makes sense: I notice that dynamic a lot

It's irritating when someone thinks they have the authority to determine just who belongs in what pigeonhole. I like your summation of them: "If it's not in the platform, it's merely your opinion"

Heck, back in the early 90's when I was still a republican ( ) I used be called out many times for not being "a true scotsman" so to speak, on a variety of issues. For example, because I wasn't anti-labor / anti-union; that was an absolute deal breaker to many conservatives. Same for my secularity and opposition to "free trade". In my case it only took a few more years to ditch the GOP forever.