outdoor338 wrote: The left has been taken in and followed obama messiah's lies...these people can't even think for themselves..photo and kresspin have shown us that! Neither can debate, but spin like a top, and change subject right skippy?
All this BS in your posts about thinking for yourself etc.
I think anyone who thinks that the rule that the person elected president must be a citizen has bought into the cult of just "blindly follow the rules". Do we like to decide by voting. At a max you should require a rule where citizenship must be stated...but you depend on the media to keep most other info out there so you really don't even need this rule as if the people vote, who cares?
If the people vote and want it, what kind of person wants to over-rule the will of their society for such a subtle rule.
The debate in itself disrespects the will of the people and and their right to be dumb or care about things as they wish. I would think that anyone who was REALLY CONSERVATIVE and CARED ABOUT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS BEING STRIPPED FROM THEM would be pissed that their right to vote for a foreign president has been stripped. Anyone who cares either way should address why the could care less about the will of their fellow citizens. If you don't want to vote and follow it, come up with a better system.
I was talking with my mother about how the state of Maine wants to increase hours allowed for 16 and 17 year olds, cause it was making news about how another GOP gov was stripping child labor rights. I pointed out two things...1 that the laws proposed in Maine did not even come close to the hours allowed in Colorado, but still makes news...and two being allowed to work more hours by 16 and 17 year olds is in increase in rights by those citizens, even if everyone else does not want them to have that right. They are child labor laws, not rights....the rule about pres citz. is a law and outright restricts YOUR RIGHTS.
Liberal/Conservative Bullsh**....do you want freedom when it does directly hurt others...or don't you? I think anyone who whines about this polar crap - "You're no conservative"...whatever...you don't want rights, even for yourself, and disrespect the will of others around you even when they are in the majority...that's a conservative?
kresspin wrote: Well think about it. If you wanted to make the right look bad, you'd have people impersonating the right on forums posting crazy stuff to make it look like everybody on the right is nuts and uninformed. The daily Muslim hate posts, for example. They all may be one person posting under different right-wing nutcase personas. It's been done before.
Today a campaign on behalf of a public relations firm to skew online debate about the Canadian election was caught using Craigslist to recruit new writers to their cause. The series of job postings appeared in major cities across the country, and invited prospective writers to apply for jobs to post on newspaper comment sections, media forums, facebook pages, and other online outlets. The goal? To "help balance the left-wing bias of the major media outlets".
Though the ads were promptly flagged and removed from Craigslist, we scored a screen cap.
http://i.imgur.com/757PM.png
Ideally you can find or make up facts and statistics to stir up controversy. You are able to write comments tailored to new topics while always repeating key talking points.
The public relations firm charged on behalf of a political organization to recruit young trolls ennumerated the ideal skillsets of desireable candidates. Successful saboteurs of honest conversation were to be chosen based on strong writing skills, consistent tone, ability to find or make up facts and statistics to rouse controversy. The ability to use humour, sarcasm and personal insults was considered an asset, and bonuses were offered for particularly biting and provocative commentary that caused a stir.
Bloggers and commentators across the country have been scratching their heads wondering if the ads are bogus or not.
Here's the part of the article that has me concerned:
The report prompted others to wonder about the state of online democracy when online debate becomes a "bonanza for corporate lobbyists, viral marketers and government spin doctors, who can operate in cyberspace without regulation, accountability or fear of detection." ClimateProgress has similarly noted "the same arguments and phrasings keep cropping up in the comments’ section of the many unmoderated news sites on the web," particuarly when that discussion is about climate change.
George Monbiot is one of the most eloquent commentators on the subject of online astroturf. As he so potently phrases it, online astroturf "has the potential to destroy the internet as a forum for constructive debate. It makes a mockery of online democracy."
What I think makes sites like 285Bound head and shoulders better than most out there is that it's not one person spewing their viewpoint to the universe: it's a mish-mash of people from all walks of life with viewpoints that run the gamut. We take the crappy, biased, fact-lacking news articles and debunk each others points of view, get exposed to topics that we wouldn't normally search out ourselves, and become better informed voters in the process. I absolutely believe sites like this are essential to the health of our democracy - we fact-check for ourselves and become motivated to get involved with our reps. If we become infiltrated by corporate-paid bloggers then we will be as over-run with misinformation as the news media is now and no better off than when we started. I have no idea how to combat this problem, other than on a case-buy-case analysis of what individual posters say. Corporate shills, marketers, and gov't spin doctors will become obvious quickly, but will they lose their credibility quickly enough to limit the damage done?
Other comments? Observations?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Some of the misinformed think the party's pay for people to post GOOD things about a candidate. I believe their dirty tricks ops pay people to appear to be on the other side and piss people off against that party or candidate.
The one that comes to mind is the Nixon dirty tricks in the Muskie campaign, particularly the Canuck letter. But we're in the age of online forums now and it would be very easy for someone to say they are a Tea Party supporter, for instance, and constantly misspell stuff and make outrageous statements to give the impression that all Tea Party members are like that.
That's why I think some posters on here are plants to make that party look bad. And if you follow that even further, some of the so-called liberals on here could be conservative plants .. posting as liberals to make Democrats look bad.
In LJ's example, that post could have been made by a liberal, impersonating a conservative trying to make conservatives look bad. Do you actually think they'd be so open about that sort of thing by posting on Craigslist?
It comes down to other posters forming a belief about a poster, based on their posts and then reacting to that perceived bias without considering they could actually be the opposite of what they say. Some people on here are so quick to immediately label a poster and go from there without considering the bigger picture.
I've been accused of being a liberal posting as a conservative. But I could easily be a conservative making it appear I'm a liberal posting as a conservative. We're down the rabbit hole on that one.
As the saying goes, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
Science Chic wrote: [ I have no idea how to combat this problem, other than on a case-buy-case analysis of what individual posters say. Corporate shills, marketers, and gov't spin doctors will become obvious quickly, but will they lose their credibility quickly enough to limit the damage done?
Other comments? Observations?
What damage? Given the amount of money that is raised and spent to influence public opinion, I think it has been going on for years.
If someone is clever enough to craft a persuasive argument, does it mater if they are covertly paid for it.
As for posters paid to make one side or the other look bad again so what. There are enough sincere vile posters on both sides that a few more paid vile posts do not alter the equation as far as I can see.
Being easily amused, I enjoy identifying obvious and not so obvious plants. Yes, I know who you are.
Sidebar: This has been going on in stock message boards as long as there have been stock message boards. People have gone to jail for it.