Editorials & Other Articles

MADem

(135,425 posts)

46. Huh? I'm not "venting on you." You are bringing a wingnut source here and expecting us to take you

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:31 PM

Mar 2015

seriously. You've been told this --and not just by me -- and you double down. Your source is CRAP. Research them--it's like bringing the Koch Brothers to a Sanders Meet-Up, what you did.

This site is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND--not "far right freeper source underground."

In DU2 you'd have been sanctioned for using that source. Here, all I can do is tell you that your use of that source reflects very poorly on you. I took the best possible path, and assumed you did it unwittingly, but this post of yours suggests you knew what you were doing--and that is even MORE troubling.

Making this about "me" and "having a bad week" is a pathetic, sad, lame attempt to pivot and divert. I had a GREAT week, FWIW, and I'm not making you a "target." I am simply telling you that if you come here carrying conservative water you will be called out on it--and deservedly. And you know this.

FWIW, I signed up on the 2nd day of DU, and switched computers/lost my sign in in 2004. I've been here since the beginning, as well.

Peace to you, too.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Numbers Behind Maureen Dowd's 21-Year Long Campaign Against Hillary Clinton [View all] Spider_Mann Mar 2015 OP

Dowd is a vicious, mendacious tool. MADem Mar 2015 #1

Or else paid like Rush was. Same time frame she began attacking. Part of the huge RW con job. freshwest Mar 2015 #3

She has this bad habit of trying to portray herself as some kind of "sex goddess hottie." MADem Mar 2015 #4

She's stuck in the high-school "mean girl" mode. Very nasty and full of herself. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #6

Yes, that's it exactly--she reserves most of her bile for women. MADem Mar 2015 #9

very true, pnwmom. nt brer cat Mar 2015 #11

She's no Helen Thomas? ha ha!Very true, but very unfair DFW Mar 2015 #8

I posted that in tribute to Helen, DFW, not to compare her in any way. Thomas went after criminals. freshwest Mar 2015 #10

I figured DFW Mar 2015 #12

Haha! Score 1 for Hillary! delrem Mar 2015 #2

No. Maybe there's a reason only 8% of the statements were positive. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #37

Wish she'd be the nominee.... dirtydickcheney Mar 2015 #38

If she's in the whitehouse, the Senate will only become more Republican in response. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #40

A journalist critical of an elected official.. .. hmmm the_sly_pig Mar 2015 #5

Criticism is one thing. Personal attacks are another. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #7

She started when Hillary was not an elected official Spider_Mann Mar 2015 #13

She's not a journalist. She's a columnist, a pundit. MADem Mar 2015 #20

Ugh... Mike Nelson Mar 2015 #14

If this was a legitimate analysis, MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #15

sore-butt syndrome Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #16

I hadn't seen it - an amazing piece of work MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #17

"Media Matters" pushes hard for Hillary 2016, putting its nonprofit status in question... KoKo Mar 2015 #18

How special! OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #19

The Washington Examiner is a right wing rag. Now that I read it i Must take a shower. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #27

Eddie Scarry of the Washington Examiner...? MADem Mar 2015 #31

The point is..... KoKo Mar 2015 #34

No, the point is, your source is dreck, a wingnut, hyperconservative outlet that has one purpose-- MADem Mar 2015 #35

My reply to you still stands, though........... KoKo Mar 2015 #41

In what way is Media Matters "anointing Hillary as the ONLY possibility"? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2015 #42

My reply to you still stands, though........... KoKo Mar 2015 #43

You are using a right wing publication to defend a falsehood. You've screwed up, here. MADem Mar 2015 #44

Let us put it this way, again........ KoKo Mar 2015 #45

Huh? I'm not "venting on you." You are bringing a wingnut source here and expecting us to take you MADem Mar 2015 #46

So why don't you 'speak as a Democrat', rather than posting Washington Examiner hitpieces? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2015 #47

You want "legitimate analysis?" MADem Mar 2015 #21

Post #18.... n/t KoKo Mar 2015 #30

Post #31. nt MADem Mar 2015 #32

Lol, irony. nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #23

Your attention is flattering! MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #24

What is nonsense is that those who produce geek tragedy Mar 2015 #25

Exactly. She produces 'hit pieces' for a living. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #26

Media Matters seems a bit defensive. They did, after all, get a mention in Dowd's article. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #39

Dowd is a tiresome BORE. BigDemVoter Mar 2015 #22

Nah! See Post 18....about Media Matters........ KoKo Mar 2015 #29

Don't see post 18....see posts 27 and 31--they will explain what kind of "source" is at post 18. nt MADem Mar 2015 #33

She must think Hillary is something special, huh. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #28

Honestly libodem Mar 2015 #36