Saturday, July 3, 2010

Socialist, Silence Thyself! Liberal Blogs Censor Obama Criticism

This is straight out of TASS, Xinhua or IPS (Vietnam State News).  Liberal blogs (not just DU as noted below) are taking both passive and active measure to decrease and dismiss public criticism of Fearless Leader.


And a memo to all you left-brained windbags within the sound of my voice:

DU is just the beginning.  Watching the Huffing-glue Post and other blogs begin to reel in public criticism of the Colon-In-Chief.  Even the Daily Koz, although we will have to check with Research 2000 to get (worked) numbers showing the same.

With a Democrat in the White House whose approval ratings have fallen well below 50 percent, liberal websites are entering some new territory--how to handle users who are reliably liberal but are not fans of President Barack Obama.

Case in point is Democratic Underground (aka DU), a liberal discussion forum started in 2001 that, up until recently, was united in its hatred for former president George W. Bush. But now that many Democrats have withdrawn their support of Obama, DU responded last week with regulations on how its users may express opinions about the current occupant of the Oval Office and Democrats generally.
It turns out Democratic Underground is a safe haven for all Democrats too faithful to their party to say anything beyond "constructive criticism" of Obama or other Democrats in office. The last thing they need is another voice telling them that maybe Obama should have factored hurricanes into the oil cleanup plans. Oh, and don't you dare think about calling our president "Barry."
"Forget about criticizing Obama," warned PJ Gladnick, Examiner Opinion Zone blogger and operator of a blog called "DUmmie FUnnies" which pokes fun at Democratic Underground members.

So, if you suggest "that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive," call someone a conservative, make a comment that's "too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory," prepare to be booted

Here are some more samples of the ludicrous list of rules violations: 
  • "Telling someone to 'shut up,' 'screw you,' 'go away,' 'f--k off,' or the like;" "belittling someone for being new or having a low post count; "negatively 'calling out' someone who is not participating in the discussion."

That is just the beginning...
  • * Insensitivity, which includes "weight or other physical characteristics" and "use of insensitive terminology."
  • "Over-the-top assertions of bad faith" in Obama, or "advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates; broad-brush smears against Democrats generally; broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally."
  • "A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person; digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere; stalking someone across discussion threads or forums."

The final tally of new rules: 60. Whew.

The net effect of these overstated policies is to decrease discussion, Gladnick said.

He said it's pretty easy to tell what's been posted before and after the policies went into affect — before, there was a lot of criticism of the president, especially regarding the oil spill. Now, you can barely find comments implying a misdeed.

"Right now, you really see it about the Gulf," he said. "Whereas before the rules, DU was rife with criticism of how Obama has handled the oil spill, now, such complaints have ceased."

Only time will tell if DU defectors will return to the fold.

-via Washington Examiner


  1. Exhibit 6,584,932 that "liberals" are actually totalitarians.

  2. For a group that claim to cherish free speech, they sure have A LOT of restrictions on speech. If the anoited one and his party minions are so powerful, righteous, and strong, why do they need so much restrictions on their criticism? Because the truth is they're so sick, demented, evil and thin skinned, they would got insane with rage if the truth was allowed to be exposed.

  3. Exactly true on both accounts. Liberals do not want truth based in fact or morality, they desire truth as defined by their political and social agendas.

    Which of course, is not truth at all.


  4. Well, just for fun, I have infiltrated their "underground" and am using their new rules against them. ROFL. Since the immediate response to my post was a "F*#k off!" I sent an alert to the moderators demanding it be removed per their stated rules. Again, ROFL! Of course, I had to sell my soul to the devil in claiming to be a centrist democrat and made myself physically sick in the process. But, as I presumed, not one blogger responded to anything I posted with one fact or specific. In response to statements such as "I wish our Administration would focus on fixing problems instead of creating racial issues" and in reference to the Sherrod outrage,"after all things are taken out of context and misconstrued all the time, and wasn't it the mainstream media and the Democrats that accused Tea Partiers of using racial slurs against members of Congress without any audio/video evidence of such" , I did not get ONE response that was anything other than foul language, or telling me I was stupid, insane, etc. No intelligent dialogue, no discussion of valid points, no defense of their position. Surprise!I captured my posts while up, assuming they won't be left up for long. ;)