patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
10,754 registered users, 1 online now: iwog

Paid Right Wing Bloggers Posting on Liberal Websites...

By kentm   2013 Jan 6, 12:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   8,655 views   42 comments   watch (0)   share   quote  

http://www.lipstickalley.com/f153/paid-right-wing-bloggers-posting-liberal-websites-440072/

"Paid Right Wing Bloggers Posting on Liberal Websites Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Ignorant, peevish, narrow-minded, misinformed, livid, intolerant, they are an army of everything that's wrong with America, denizens of..."

"Our only protection against such ersatz assaults is to use our heads and common sense: if someone is a little ‘too’ enraged at Obama and the Democrats, be suspicious, especially if they never talk about Republicans. Ask them a couple of polite intelligent questions on the comment thread’s topic; if they respond by condemning or insulting you for questioning them rather than engaging you, they’re likely a sock-puppet troll; it’s in their nature to consider any question or disagreement as tantamount to treason. Also, if they keep reposting basically the same idea in one comment thread, they’re probably a sock-puppet troll; they’ve been instructed by their masters that repetition works. And don’t be swayed if they accuse you of being a ‘shill’ or ‘troll’ for questioning them -- they are trained to do that."

...

#politics

« First     « Previous     Comments 3-42 of 42     Last »

3   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 11:09pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Pot meet Kettle.

4   lostand confused (29/29 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 11:12pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Wait, they actually pay for this?

5   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   2013 Jan 6, 11:34pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

What's the big deal? I get paid to represent the Quaker perspective on patent. isn't everybody on here getting a subsidy?

6   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 12:23am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

7   dublin hillz   2013 Jan 7, 1:38am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Why would someone pay someone else to post opinions? How does one measure/justify return on investment?

8   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 1:43am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

dublin hillz says

Why would someone pay someone else to post opinions?

Didn't Obama claim to be king of the social media, when he first came in office? I wonder how much of that Obama money Hussein got for coming here and blasting pro Obama threads while having a vested interest in damage control on threads he disagreed with.

Say something in a CNN article thread, against Obama, it's always the same 4 or 5 spin doctors that will flame you rotten, and then get 56 likes with two minutes. When Mark Twain him self would be doing well to get 3 likes out of your typical CNN reader.
Take 121212 for instance, is there really 2 people here that likes EVERY comment he posts?

9   dublin hillz   2013 Jan 7, 1:55am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

Say something in a CNN article thread, against Obama, it's always the same 4 or
5 spin doctors that will flame you rotten, and then get 56 likes with two
minutes

Why would someone have those 4 or 5 individuals on the payroll? What would be the measurable outcome that the money was well spent? I seriously doubt that opinions posted on blogs influence election outcomes. The more likely explanantion is that the same 4 or 5 "spin doctors" are simply politically charged folks who enjoy political opinion battles/confrontations.

10   iwog (223/223 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 1:56am  ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I'm not a bit surprised however my choice wouldn't have been Shrek. He was just so irrationally insane that he probably did the cause more harm than good.

My #1 candidate for paid shill has never changed and it is our old friend CaptainShuddup.

1. Has often pretended to support liberal causes while attacking those same causes. "I'm your buddy, listen to me!"
2. Couldn't come up with a single reason why Romney should be the president, even when asked by multiple board members. If I was training a shill, I'd tell him to avoid specifics at all costs.
3. Makes repeated emotional appeals which is the right approach to take when ALL intellectual arguments support the left.
4. Despite protests to the contrary, has always and without fault been spot on where it comes to Republican talking points. This is a common tactic from the right with people like Bill Reilly and Michael Savage claiming to be independent while simultaneously being slobberingly loyal to the party line. Not even Shrek was that accurate.

5. Is the only right wing nut that I've received an "atta boy!" from when taking the conservative side. It was back when I was against the nomination of Sotomayor. His technique is alternately skillful and retarded, which calls it all into question as an act.

11   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 2:02am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

2. Couldn't come up with a single reason why Romney should be the president, even when asked by multiple board members.

Well if I were, you better bet your bottom dollar that I would have had my talking points on why Romney should be president. Other than it's a broken system and since we only have two parties, and 38% of the American voting public has 0% say in the choosing the candidates in the primaries. Then I only give each rotten son of a bitch 4 years, then it's on with the next scumbag.

12   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 2:04am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

dublin hillz says

Why would someone have those 4 or 5 individuals on the payroll? What would be the measurable outcome that the money was well spent?

Because people like to be on the "Right side of History", just like all of those clueless Generation Whiners working the counter at the fast food joints. They are all on the right side of History, they voted in Obama. And this is how History rewarded them.

13   edvard2   2013 Jan 7, 2:08am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I actually recall watching a documentary that was along these lines. Yes- there are actually a rather large number of paid right winger bloggers. But to be sure, left wing ones as well.

I think what's sort of fascinating about the whole bloggosphere anyway is that people on both sides basically just talk past each other. I'd also wonder exactly how much time is wasted doing this: Those on the right or left will never-ever convince the "other side" that they are wrong.

14   iwog (223/223 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 2:08am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

Well if I were, you better bet your bottom dollar that I would have had my talking points on why Romney should be president. Other than it's a broken system and since we only have two parties, and 38% of the American voting public has 0% say in the choosing the candidates in the primaries. Then I only give each rotten son of a bitch 4 years, then it's on with the next scumbag.

I'm not saying you're a paid shill, in fact I'd probably bet against it, however you're the best candidate in my opinion.

Again you're taking an approach that has the most chance of succeeding on a board dominated by California liberals. They aren't going to stand for the shit that sells in Texas, so "they all suck so lets keep turning them over" is the best you can do.

Of course when it came time to vote for Obama and against Bush, you didn't do that did you. I remember your protests against Bush very well. It was part of the "I feel your pain, let me offer you McCain" strategy.

15   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 2:11am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

edvard2 says

Those on the right or left will never-ever convince the "other side" that they are wrong.

It's more about reinforcing the minds of those already on their side, or sitting on the fence.

16   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 2:14am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

Of course when it came time to vote for Obama and against Bush, you didn't do that did you.

NO Palin was a game changer, and there was not a debate from the Liberals on why Palin was a bad candidate. There was an all out assault on the American family and family conservative women. Which liberals then invented the War on Women to distract attention from their war on women.
I liked Palin because she scared the shit out of everyone in Washington.
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for anyone that sends Washington scurrying from the kitchen light.

17   121212   2013 Jan 7, 3:54am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Not paid, just prolific.

I could do that in quarter of the time with some effort

18   121212   2013 Jan 7, 3:57am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

Which liberals then invented the War on Women to distract attention from their war on women.

BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN IS WIDE AND HIDE!!

You poor delusional fool. States run by Republicans started the war on woman passing over 1100 new state laws restriction abortion, contraception and womans health care choices.

TRANS VAGINA ULTRA SOUNDS!!! Government in your Vagina was a forced Republican law.

19   121212   2013 Jan 7, 3:59am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

I liked Palin because she scared the shit out of everyone in Washington.

LMFAO!!!!! I don' think she could scare anyone in Washington. She is a lousy 1/2 term governor, she has spent more time being a FOX PUNDIT than any length of time in public service.

20   121212   2013 Jan 7, 4:00am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

IDDQD says

121212 says

Not paid, just prolific.

I could do that in quarter of the time with some effort

На воре шапка горит. ;)

Listen Ruski, there is a clear conscience here. No worries .

21   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 4:10am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

IDDQD says

Could be, could be...

In his earlier carnation his tag line was social media guru.

22   121212   2013 Jan 7, 4:11am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

social media guru

This is true.

23   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 4:14am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I was going to say but he sucked so bad at it, you got fired and lost your best account. Then you got a job for Politicofact.com then came back talking smack, I called them and threatened to sue them over your verbal abuse, then they fired you as well. The whole point of what you do, is to be incognito and remain anonymous.

24   edvard2   2013 Jan 7, 5:09am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

NO Palin was a game changer, and there was not a debate from the Liberals on why Palin was a bad candidate. There was an all out assault on the American family and family conservative women.

I liked Palin because she scared the shit out of everyone in Washington.

I will always have a soft spot in my heart for anyone that sends Washington scurrying

Palin was basically the reason McCain lost the election. There was plenty of discussion over Palin and her lack of clear qualifications. There was a sort of bafflement all around as to why McCain- whom many had some degree of respect for ( I'll go as far as to say before his campaign decided to go off the far right deep end, I was actually considering voting for him) why he made such an outright unsound decision. Palin had an appeal to the very fringy conservatives in the GOP and that was about it.

Lastly- let's not re-hash the old worn out fib that " ooooohhh Palin sure scared those liberals!".... because she didn't. As soon as she was named running mate most of us knew the race was over. To us she was a relief. McCain had no chance of winning after that point and we knew it.

But let me lend a piece of ancedotal reaction. My Dad, who at one time reliably always voted Republican wound up voting for Obama. The overwhelmingly large reason why he did so was based on McCain's decision to select Palin as his running mate. A LOT of people like my Dad did the same thing- hence yet another reason why choosing her was such a terrible decision.

25   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 5:21am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

edvard2 says

The overwhelmingly large reason why he did so was based on McCain's decision to select Palin as his running mate.

Sure it wasn't because she wasn't in Katie Couric's book of the month club?

26   edvard2   2013 Jan 7, 5:57am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

No.... it was because after the decision to choose Palin was made my Dad then seriously doubted McCain's ability to make good decisions in general.

27   Ironman (167/179 = 93% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 5:57am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

edvard2 says

There was plenty of discussion over Palin and her lack of clear qualifications.

At least Palin ran something, even if it was only a governor of a small populated state...

Tell me again, what qualifications does the current occupant of the White House have??... what did HE run ??

28   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 5:58am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

edvard2 says

it was because after the decision to choose Palin

You mean right after the decision was announced?

I rest my cases.

29   iwog (223/223 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:13am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

NO Palin was a game changer, and there was not a debate from the Liberals on why Palin was a bad candidate.

Are we supposed to laugh at this?

I can write a book on why Palin was a bad candidate starting with the fact she didn't even know what the office of the VP did.

However it's not necessary. Palin was a bad candidate because she lost, because McCain threw her under the bus and wrote she was an idiot, and because even considering how ridiculous the 2012 Republican primary clown show was, she STILL was too ludicrous to be included with the rest of the clowns.

Anyway my point still stands. You're not for throwing out the bums, you're for returning all the Republican bums to Washington. You're a fake non-partisan.

30   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:15am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

I can write a book on why Palin was a bad candidate starting with the fact she didn't even know what the office of the VP did.

Well in her defense Obama clearly has no idea what the function of any of his cabinet members are. And when the attorney general broke the law, Obama had no idea what his duties and responsibilities in response to a huge breach of duty and trust, were either.

31   edvard2   2013 Jan 7, 6:23am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

At least Palin ran something, even if it was only a governor of a small populated state...

Tell me again, what qualifications does the current occupant of the White House have??... what did HE run ??

I'll give you she "ran" something. Just not very well. Obama is doing his job just fine and dandy, thank you.

Let me put it to some of you who are still scratching your heads as to why the GOP lost. See, the thing is that yes- I tend to lean liberal. BUT... if the GOP would actually put up a somewhat more moderate candidate- aka- someone who doesn't go off into the weeds in an attempt to try and cater to the outer fringy-fringe right wingers and their increasingly antiquated stances , I might actually just possibly give them a consideration. Its not like the GOP at one time wasn't like this. They simply decided to become the "conservative party" and not the Republican party. As long as they continue down that road they will keep losing elections and interest from people like me and my Dad.

32   iwog (223/223 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:34am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

Well in her defense Obama clearly has no idea what the function of any of his cabinet members are.

1. That's not in her defense
2. Obama has done brilliantly with his cabinet picks. Leon Panetta even got Michael Savage singing his praises and putting Hillary Clinton in state was a genius move. I could go on but why bother? Like everything else you post here this was just pulled out of your ass.

33   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   2013 Jan 7, 6:37am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Palin failed to show America a side-boob shot worthy of the name and was rejected righteously as a tease. America really would have embraced the ticket if she'd performed a poll dance while reciting Mein Kampf which is what everyone expected from Frauline Talibunny.

34   HEY YOU (3/3 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:40am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Someone please make a short list of Right Wing blogs so I can give them hell.

35   iwog (223/223 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:45am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

The one I used to post on was the Sean Hannity site, however those people are running so bloody scared that they will delete you if you dare say Obama can shoot a basket from the free throw line.

36   David Losh   2013 Jan 7, 7:40am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

there was not a debate from the Liberals on why Palin was a bad candidate.

Yes there was debate about Palin. She was the final straw that broke McCain's back.

McCain lost the election to Obama because McCain claimed he could give us a victory in Iraq. Obama's campaign was based on getting us out of Iraq, sending troops into Afganistan, and targeting Al Quida.

McCain also claimed he cares about veterans when most people know he just talks about his own military career.

When McCain picked Palin the debate was how much of a distraction she was from the issues of the campaign. No one talked about the issues any more, it was all about why, or how, McCain could pick Sarah Palin.

I voted for Reagan, then Bush, but had to vote for Clinton, because Bush was a disaster, I had to vote for Clinton twice before voting for Bush Junior twice.

The Republicans just don't have canidates to put into a race. It's all smoke, and mirrors, like Mitt Romney.

37   edvard2   2013 Jan 7, 7:53am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

David Losh says

When McCain picked Palin the debate was how much of a distraction she was from the issues of the campaign. No one talked about the issues any more, it was all about why, or how, McCain could pick Sarah Palin.

Exactly. It even went both ways. Those who were Palin's cheerleaders drew attention away from McCain.

38   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   2013 Jan 7, 9:45am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

If McCain won, he would have died mysteriously in a hunting accident. Hours after the Talibunny would be sworn in, Todd would have been appointed Secretary of the Treasury so he could order the OCC to write charters for Willow and Track's national banks to park reserves for risk-free interest accrual at the Fed. Palin would have started her second administration as a widow, however, after Todd would have died in a fire fight with Capitol Police after kidnapping a number of female Congressional pages during a PCP rampage. Palin would resign halfway through her second administration after finding her "long-hunted love match," Tommy Habeeb, former host of the television show Cheaters.

39   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   2013 Jan 7, 9:55am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  


40   121212   2013 Jan 7, 10:13am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Shock!

41   Dan8267 (333/336 = 99% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 1:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

What's the big deal? I get paid to represent the Quaker perspective on patent. isn't everybody on here getting a subsidy?

I'm getting a cut from Hobbits for Second Dinners.

42   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   2013 Jan 7, 5:17pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

I'm getting a cut from Hobbits for Second Dinners.

As if you had to tell us! Ha!

« First     « Previous     Comments 3-42 of 42     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users   about   contact  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy   8 groups who lie about the housing market   37 bogus arguments about housing  
patrick's 40 proposals   thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   patrick.net on twitter   random post  
please recommend patrick.net to democrats