Democrats threatening Democrats into going to the polls

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The gripe was his that somehow I was not seeing how unbiased the article was because it says liberals do it to. Nothing like a token statement to make something look not what it is, a hit piece with a specific focus on the opponent(in this case Progressives against Republicans).
I'm just pointing out the obvious if you don't mind already. It's also obvious that when George Soros funds something it has a leftist spin to it. Do you mind if I note that ThinkProgress is that?
FrontPage actually says it's Soros' OSI, but Tides and OSI are both Soros

•Think Progress: This "project" of the American Progress Action Fund, which is a "sister advocacy organization"of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and Campus Progress, seeks to transform "progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world."
•Vote for Change: Coordinated by the political action committee of the Soros-funded MoveOn.org, Vote for Change was a group of 41 musicians and bands that performed concerts in several key election "battleground"states during October 2004, to raise money in support of Democrat John Kerry's presidential bid.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

So do you guys really want me to think that any article they post is going to be unbiased just because they tag on a little statement about both liberals and conservatives?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Siwwy BH, you should know that George Soros is not allowed to spend HIS money as HE sees fit; his money is NOT free speech.

Because, because, ... because ... uh ... COMMUNISTALINKSYNANNYSTATESPECIALRIGHTSFREEDOMLIBERTY!

Funny one.

I think the Ouroboros are busy en masse.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

So we are back to reading comprehension are we? We know that they made that statement, but everyone can see that they only posted what the GOP did. Where is their fair example of what liberals do? It isn't there and you know it.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Siwwy BH, you should know that George Soros is not allowed to spend HIS money as HE sees fit; his money is NOT free speech.

Because, because, ... because ... uh ... COMMUNISTALINKSYNANNYSTATESPECIALRIGHTSFREEDOMLIBERTY!

Funny one.

I think the Ouroboros are busy en masse.

How very arcane and important-sounding, Foxy!

Perhaps you would like to comment on how it affects our topic here, for a change?

I think the right-wing is simply stunned to know that not everyone agrees that they own American Values, that there are those of us who aren't deathly afraid, per se of terms like Progressive, Liberal, Leftist or Democrat.

They're convinced by having their head stuck up the Winger Media Echo Chamber every day that these terms denote evil, criminal, dishonest ideas and people, ... so when anyone disagrees with that evangel, why, why, *sputter* they just can't BELIEVE it!!!

I think that's an epiphany ... *tear*

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No, I guess it wasn't an accident because it is a typical response, no matter the issue.

It's really not usually - but it is in this thread

I can't speak for anyone but myself ThirdEye - but after so many years of arguing at ATS with the Red Queen - I've decided that humor, sarcasm, and complete nonsense are acceptable forms of communication

Logic doesn't seem to work in here - but, once you accept that - it's still ever so much fun :-)

From a campaigning standpoint, I have seen specific instances where Republicans don't go vote because they believe it won't make a difference.

Interesting that you feel so strongly about this - you've mentioned it several times now

I think fear and anger are what get out the conservative vote. You guys seem to be ahead in this midterm. I know it's still early - but what with immigrants, ISIS and catching the ebola (in addition to too many others to even mention) you guys got your fannies out the door on this one and are likely to win yourselves some prized positions

I wish the left was more afeared

:-)

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The gripe was his that somehow I was not seeing how unbiased the article was because it says liberals do it to.

I don't think so... Here's your first statement to sheep:

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
ThinkProgress acts all like it's only Republicans who do this.

When they said IN THAT ARTICLE, that both sides do it. They didn't "act like" anything. They said both sides do it. Yes, they're biased, but they did NOT say only Republicans do it. They didn't SAY that and they don't "act like" that. Yes, this story was about how the GOP does it. But they didn't act like Democrats don't. They said JUST the opposite.

It's also obvious that when George Soros funds something it has a leftist spin to it. Do you mind if I note that ThinkProgress is that?

Not at all. I said that myself. Don't give me a reason to jump on the 'reading comprehension' bandwagon.

So do you guys really want me to think that any article they post is going to be unbiased just because they tag on a little statement about both liberals and conservatives?

I don't. They are biased. Sheep didn't say they were unbiased. You started the WHOLE misunderstanding when you said, "ThinkProgress acts all like it's only Republicans who do this."

I'm done with this particular leg of this discussion.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

The article had nothing to do with the Dems

But you just told me it's about both liberals and conservatives. Do you mean it was just about the Republican Party? I doubt that's what you really meant.
So what you are saying is that it's allowable for the entire focus of the article to be only about what the GOP does because it makes a pretense about admitting that liberals do it too and that somehow makes it about both parties. Ok I guess that's fair. It's definitely not a compare and contrast though is it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is of course, when they're not being portrayed as Nazis, Communists and Heretics, but hey, how much do you expect out of one thread?

yah like conservatives are never portrayed as toothless inbred hicks walking around spouting bible verses and sawed off shot guns, or the Nancy Pelosi version of extreme tea drinkers in evil Brooks bros uniforms.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It was just my response to his indication that it was an unbiased article and it's not despite the disclaimer that both parties do it.

My point is that using reading comprehension is a useless tool for ridicule, when the real issue is something else. As I said the article is still a hit piece against the GOP and everyone here knows it. It is not a genuine compare and contrast.

There were also a number of typos and/or grammatical errors in the piece. They need a new editor I think.
Anyway, the article implies that it is only the GOP who specifically uses the tactic of making people believe that the way they voted will be exposed to the public, and that is just not true.

The Facebook ads at issue go beyond traditional “vote shaming” by strongly implying that their ballot will not be secret. Two Facebook

thinkprogress.org...

You know very well that Card Check is a specific attempt to publicize people's votes in the unions to make their members comply with union collectivist agendas.
And you know very well that is entirely a Progressive Democrat strategy and not a GOP one. That is why I said that it is "rich" that ThinkProgress projected that false concept. So if you are going to make it into some silly disclaimer in the article go ahead but everyone here knows whats really going on.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is of course, when they're not being portrayed as Nazis, Communists and Heretics, but hey, how much do you expect out of one thread?

yah like conservatives are never portrayed as toothless inbred hicks walking around spouting bible verses and sawed off shot guns, or the Nancy Pelosi version of extreme tea drinkers in evil Brooks bros uniforms.

Thank you ThirdEyeofHorus for another stimulating example of "I Know You Are, But What Am I?"

The "toothless inbred hicks" thing is your own issue. I very rarely see Cons at large categorized that way. Maybe Southerners and Appalachians but not Cons per se.

"Walking around spouting Bible verses" ... LOL ... REALLY? You really want to try to make the argument that the Religious Right has not virtually countermanded true conservative values in this country? Hoo-boy. That's a good one, Third, you're a regular conniption, you are.

"Sawed off shotguns?" ... well, since the wingers are very often known for their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that claims they can carry any and as many weapons at any time into any place their little hearts desire and THEY CAN DO IT NOW! *tamps foot* ... it seems like a reasonable assumption, particularly since that particular altered weapon has been against the law in the US for about 80 years with good reason ...

Bah. Why bother.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The sawed off shotgun was from a movie really, but it has to do with gun control. But I guess AR-15's are really a better example.
C'mon Gryph are you really going to pretend that "clinging to their guns and religion" didn't happen?
Here's a jog for your memory

Maybe Southerners and Appalachia

and small towns
oh ok so it's only a partial portrayal.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You make no sense. You made a general comment about how liberals characterize conservatives.

I responded.

Now, you want to quote a specific comment made by Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Primaries to prove your point somehow?

1. Mr. Obama did not then and does not now magically represent all liberals.

2. Mrs. Clinton, his opponent at the time, famously chastised the young Senator for the comment, so that's a least one liberal that didn't agree with Mr. Obama's opinion, eh?

3. Here's the quote:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

4. A candidate making a political speech is demonstrating that he, as opposed to "another Clinton" and the Republicans actually understands and sympathizes these folks.

5. So, except for your typical manner of taking material out of context and overt misrepresentation, I think your proof that all liberals criticize Cons as you claim is pure hogwash.

OK, I lied, I'm not done with this.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It was just my response to his indication that it was an unbiased article and it's not despite the disclaimer that both parties do it.

He did not indicate that it was an unbiased article. He said the article stated that both sides do it. That doesn't mean the article in full was unbiased. The article itself is biased against the GOP. (duh!) It's CLEARLY about the GOP doing it. But, to be fair, they mentioned that both sides do it.

No one claimed that the article was unbiased. You inferred that.
No one claimed that ThinkProgress is unbiased. You inferred that.
No one claimed that the article was a "compare and contrast". You... inferred a lot from a statement that implied none of that.

My point is that using reading comprehension is a useless tool for ridicule, when the real issue is something else.

Reading comprehension clearly isn't your problem. You're a smart person and you read and write well. The problem is that you added a whole crapload of meaning to sheep's simple statement that the article said both sides use these tactics.

As I said the article is still a hit piece against the GOP and everyone here knows it. It is not a genuine compare and contrast.

Yes, it's anti-GOP and no one came even CLOSE to suggesting that it's a genuine compare and contrast.

Anyway, the article implies that it is only the GOP who specifically uses the tactic of making people believe that the way they voted will be exposed to the public, and that is just not true.

The article does NOT imply that. In fact the article says JUST THE OPPOSITE of what you're charging. The problem is clearly what you READ INTO it and what you read into what others say here. No, the article doesn't give both sides, it's not a compare and contrast, but it CLEARLY states both sides do it.

You know very well that Card Check is a specific attempt to publicize people's votes in the unions to make their members comply with union collectivist agendas. And you know very well that is entirely a Progressive Democrat strategy and not a GOP one.

Don't tell me what I know... I don't know what "Card Check" is. Never heard of it. Don't know who uses it. I get offended when people tell me what I know.

That is why I said that it is "rich" that ThinkProgress projected that false concept.

If only they had... YOU added a WHOLE lot of meaning to what wasn't said, wasn't in the article and wasn't implied by anyone. I guess you would say that you "read between the lines", but from here, it appears that you WROTE a lot between the lines.

NOW, I'm done. I appreciate the debate, however.

To all the people griping about my reading comprehension, here's the deal.
The ThinkProgress article states that both liberals and conservatives use social media to get out the vote. Here's the mention:

The ad is a variation of a GOTV (Get Out The Vote) strategy called “vote shaming.” The tactic is employed by liberals and conservatives to use social psychology to increase the chances that people vote.

thinkprogress.org...
But it goes on to say that it's the GOP who is trying to publicly out their voting constituency to all their neighbors, which is what I said when I told Sheeps that the Progressives are projecting that it's only the GOP who is intimidating their constituency into voting or they will be outed.

It's really very simple. The Democrats just use letters to intimidate people specifically on their voter rolls.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

All this time and you still refuse to acknowledge how Tides works? It's a charitable trust, Soros (and other rich liberal, progressives and lefties) gives them money and they decide where it gets donated. But even if not, it matters because?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not one 'leftist' (which you default everyone in this thread that disagrees with you, as) in this thread has denied what the Democrats are doing, what's been said is that it's not threatening or intimidating... just like it's not threatening or intimidating when the GOP does it.

So which is it, reading comprehension or willful ignorance on your part?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now, you want to quote a specific comment made by Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Primaries to prove your point somehow?

That was his characterization of Christian conservatives yes. It specifically proves my point about the characterization of people who spout bible verses and carry guns around.

Now, how about we just bring our focus back to the OP, the article about how Democrats sent letters out and whether or not it's a subtle intimidation tactic.
Since the liberals here now have established they feel it's something the GOP does, then they should have a problem defending the letters the DNC sends out no?
Since ThinkProgress seems to think it's a bad thing for the GOP to intimidate, then they must also think that about the letters they send doing similar things?
Yes or no?

a reply to: Kali74

All this time and you still refuse to acknowledge how Tides works?

Are you trying to tell me that how Tides spends their money is no concern of people like Soros who donate to their causes? Are you seriously trying to use this argument?
I'm not even going to spend more time on this, since it's an obvious way to obfuscate what's going on here.
But for the record, here is how OSI works:Soros appoints people to run it

The very next month, Soros appointed former Clinton administration official Morton Halperin to the post of Open Society Institute director. Halperin, whom some State Department officials suspected of being a communist agent,173 had been instrumental in derailing America's war effort during the Vietnam era, when President Johnson put him in charge of compiling a classified history of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Maybe it's you who needs to learn how Tides works

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

All this time and you still refuse to acknowledge how Tides works? It's a charitable trust, Soros (and other rich liberal, progressives and lefties) gives them money and they decide where it gets donated. But even if not, it matters because?

I don't believe for a split second that Soros "gives" money to anybody he has no control over.

In fact, full control is an absolute requirement.