Love bombing- It’s not just for religions anymore. It’s a very powerful propaganda technique. Feel like you’ve lost one too many elections lately? Unloved? Ignored?
Be very, very careful:
Does OWS love bomb? From what I can tell, no. OWS is completely passive about who joins them. They do not recruit and they won’t flatter you or make you feel loved. If you ever feel that way at a OWS rally, leave. The only exception was the batsignal. But note that the batsignal was directed outwards to the world. It said “Occupy Earth” because the point is not to exclude anyone. The point of love bombing is to exclude everyone who does not belong to the group. You derive your self-worth and self-esteem from the group and seeing the world as your enemy, not potential friends.
Here’s another, more detailed explanation of love bombing from a former JW. CSTapostate takes you step by step through the process.
Note that the initial love bombing is not the thing that keeps people in the group. Love bombing becomes an effective cult retention technique when a new recruit begins to have doubts. Once you have identified with the group and have taken on the new personality because you have been praised and loved, the last thing you want is to lose that shiny new you and all of the love and acceptance that comes with it. You don’t want to become like the less special people, the less spiritual, less intelligent, less enlightened, less beautiful.
The point is not that you are or are not any of those things. The point is that if you feel that someone can deprive you of your self -worth because that someone gave you that personality in the first place, if you feel like that someone could deprive you of that specialness by deciding to exclude you from the group when you raise questions or express doubts, then you have been manipulated through love bombing.
If you have doubts about the movement or group you are in, one of the ways to discover whether you have been love bombed is to ask yourself if you are allowed to dissent or question and still remain in the group. If you can answer yes, then the group is low control and you’re safe. If your doubts are followed by accusations that you are no longer quite as shiny, creative and intelligent as they thought and that maybe you are secretly a bigot or something equally reprehensible, then you are in a high control group and you should do research about the group before you get in any further.
For example, if you are in the left wing media or blogosphere, do you feel obligated to bash Bill Clinton whenever you’re writing a column or doing an interview thinking that if you *don’t* immediately distance yourself from any sympathies to the Clinton administration you might not be invited back? Did you ever ask yourself why you feel that way? Go on, ask yourself.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions and exercising independent thought. If you feel uncomfortable making independent decisions in a group because you fear you will lose the love, get out.
Postscript: I watched that CSTapostate video again and something hit me that I hadn’t noticed before. He used the example of holidays. JWs separate new JWs from their families by forbidding holidays. CST goes on to describe the messiness of holidays. Families gather in one house and they end up sleeping on floors and everything is kind of messy but that’s Ok because the whole experience is bonding. It brings everyone together. One of the first things JWs tell new recruits is that there can be no family holidays anymore. If you as the new JW recruit can’t give up holiday gatherings, then maybe you weren’t the beautiful, highly spiritual, good association they thought you were. Maybe younger, more vulnerable members of the congregation should limit their contact with you until you’re ready to fulfill your obligations. The WBTS breaks up families and bonding experiences when they love bomb because the WBTS is a high control group.
If you don’t see the similarity to the violent evictions of OWS occupation sites, you haven’t been paying attention. The last thing a high control group wants is for us to get together in one big holiday sleepover where we can find common ground and bond. That’s why Occupiers are made to look dirty, crazy-radical, lazy, disgruntled, sexually promiscuous and indiscreet, and indiscriminate about where they poop. If you start to sympathize with the Occupiers, you will take on those characteristics and you will no longer be part of the group of clean, upstanding American citizens. The most important task that the media had to do during the fall was to make the occupiers as reprehensible as possible in order to discourage the average American who has doubts about the direction that the country is going in to actually go down to an occupation site and meet some occupiers. The high control elements in our society did not want any of us bonding over a campfire song.
If anything, OWS is underlining the seriousness of the situation we are in. The country is in the grip of a high control authoritarian cult.
Filed under: General | Tagged: cults, love bombing, OWS, political campaigns |
The Confluence 
How does The Crawdad Hole, Elliesmom and myiq look now?
Well, I already rechristened The Crawdad Hole “The Agnew Hole” because of their hippie-bashing. 😈
For a while, I was putting Uppity Woman’s site in the same category as TCH, but I’ve re-evalutated that site. I can’t classify it, or her. Her politics seem to be all over the map. 😕
Even if there were an Occupation in my area, I’m too prudent to go join one and thus risk bad encounters with Five-O–and too misanthropic to go join any crowd. However, I assume the criminal assaults were committed by opportunistic thugs who would prey on any gathering of people, whether or not the gathering was political in nature. They would have done the same things to people attending a concert or a parade. As for the poopers, I assume those were right-wing rat molesters. 🙄
*sigh* re-evaluated.
I can haz edit feechur, plz? 🙄
Why don’t you have an edit feature?? I have to go check the settings.
Agnew Hole it is.
I’d never heard of an Agnew Hole before. BTW, are you headed for DC on the 17th?
While I didn’t really develop a political consciousness until Watergate, I did read that Agnew was notorious for verbally bashing the hippies before he got busted for tax cheating. 😈
So, when the denizens of TCH took to bashing the Occupants, using much the same language that the original hippie-bashers used, I thought of Agnew.
You know, knowing the bit I know about myiq and how whip smart he is, I was genuinely surprised at his reaction to OWS. In fact, I’m going to bet he realizes they’re not who he thinks they are. But that’s the narrative he went with and now that his site is bumping and grinding, it’s hard to dial it back. That’s the good interpretation. The bad interpretation is that he’s doing what he’s doing for money. Whoever might be paying him knows just how talented he is.
He’s a bit like Sidney Carton but don’t expect him to go to the guillotine for you. He might do it but only if he feels like it. Heroics are for suckers.
Myiq2xu is dishonest at times, and at times rather dishonest about OWS, but I’m quite certain that he truly does see them as an astroturf operation, and frankly I myself am no less dubious than before.
If there was ever a time to make specific demands, it was the port shutdowns, and none were made. Further, the “shutdowns” were conducted in such a way as to not actually significanlty interfere with shipping, rendering them little more than a stunt. It really does seem like a way to blow off steam without significantly impacting any powerful interest.
Catfish, I can’t swear 100% on a stack of Watchtowers that OWS is not an astroturf operation but I have absolutely no evidence that it is one. And there definitely is no hand visible or invisible that is leading any occupier in the direction of the Democratic party or Barack Obama. I have never seen a politician at any of the Zuccotti park events I went to and have a distinct feeling that they wouldn’t get the warmest of welcomes anyway. The structure is not top down. In fact, that can sometimes be problematic and impractical but they work it out.
Finally, I’m not sure they are at the demand stage. I know that some people are impatient about that but that can come after the movement is solidified. Building a movement is not easy.
If OWS is more or less spontaneous and organic, and yes, I know all about AdBusters contribution to this, then it has to figure out how to go about doing what it needs to do.
If there is a consortium of people working behind the scenes to get this off the ground, they have to be careful about how they go about it.
It could be that the movement started more or less spontaneously and then was analysed by some thinkers who signed on to it and they are now working together. That’s kinda my feeling about it.
We are living in a different country than we were 40 years ago. Putting it back together to the way it’s supposed to work is going to be a difficult operation. That’s because what we are up against is very scary. All I can say is that you should have been there in NYC on Nov. 17 to see what I mean. Every protestor had his own riot cop. There were more police than you have ever seen in your life. If this is an Obama astroturf operation, it’s hard to believe he would sanction the kind of crackdown these people got.
Let’s just say that the time was right for OWS to happen. In fact, it was way overdue. It caught fire from other global movements this year, like the Arab Spring and the Spanish Indignados. But unlike those movements, the American version has its own unique set of challenges. And now we know the parameters of what we can work with as far as where protests can and cannot occur. That alone should be of great concern to you whether or not you think it is an astroturf operation.
No, I am staying local from now on – OWS or any other reasons. Too old for 8 hours in a bus (per day)
Who decides when it’s solidified? How can you solidify a movement if everyone participating now has a different idea of what it is? Doesn’t this just guarantee that the movement will splinter the instant some demand actually gets made?
Go find an occupation site and see for yourself. You either get the open source model or you don’t. If its not your cup of tea, fine. Nobody’s forcing you to do anything. If you decide to get involved, pull figure it out. As far as I can tell, the only thing they want right now is for you to stand with your fellow Americans. I guess you could call that an AstroTurf campaign but it doesn’t meet my criteria. Anyway, I’ve said enough on the subject. Go, stay, do nothing, whatever.
At the Agnew Hole, they’re still riding their hobbyhorse that OWS is an astroturf movement created to channel anger away from Obummer and the Dinocrats, while the Tea Birch Party, though also an astroturf movement, turned on its Reptilian creators. 🙄
Can anyone out there tell me WHY IN THE HOLY NAME OF HARUHI the A-Holers 😈 think that Obummer, the abject lackey of Wall Street, would organize a movement that BASHES WALL STREET?!? 😕
I don’t know whether OWS is really spontaneous or whether there are invisible hands guiding it. I suspect a little of both.
BUT, given that Obama did not raise a finger to stop the police crackdowns and evictions, I think we can rule his organization out as the source of AstroTurf. More likely, the Democrats are feverishly looking for a way to steer them or co-opt them. The SEIU endorsement of Obama just before the Nov 17 march was one example of this.
My best guess? I think some people who know how marketing and advertising works suddenly became very alarmed with what they saw and developed a conscience. That conscience developed at the right time in the right place. (how conveeeeenient).
I would say the cavalry arrived but whether they were in time or not remains to be seen.
I won’t say more because I honestly don’t know more. I just have an active imagination that likes to collect bits of data and try to come to some kind of workable hypothesis. Right now, I have to say that I am pleased with their efforts for the most parts. It’s very adaptable and learns quickly. To which I say, keep learning, OWS. There’s plenty left to learn. Applying that knowledge is the tricky part.
Alright, then let me ask again–who enforces the prohibition on “politics”?Who decides what constitutes “politics” and what doesn’t? If it’s self-structured then that information would have to be common knowledge.
First, ask yourself what you think OWS is trying to accomplish. Then, ask yourself how adding politics to this mix contributes to this goal.
When I first saw the ban on politics in the OWS chatroom early on, I wondered about it for about 2 seconds before I got it. This is not a difficult concept if you understand what OWS is trying to do.
Same with the prohibition on religion. Don’t get me wrong. Religious people show up there all of the time and as we saw last week, the bishop was the first one over the fence when OWS tried to occupy Juan Duarte park. But they are not there to proselytize or proclaim the one true religion. They are following their history of protest that was present in the beginning of their religion.
This movement is unlike typical protest movements that have formed in the past and what it is trying to do is hampered by different factions bringing their own particular flavor to the party. This is a movement about morality and independence and it would be killed if one political or religious or social interest group dominated. So, the ban makes a lot of sense in that respect. It also seems to refrain from pointless and flowery wordsmithing, which I appreciate.
All I can tell you is that you need to think big. Think outside of the box of your previous experiences. Forget your previous notions of structure, hierarchy and flavors. How would *you* go about creating a national movement? When you sit and think that out, you will come to understand why OWS operates as it does and why the authorities see it as such a threat even before it has issued one demand.
Another Conflucian…maybe you, RD…remarked sometime during the rapture of 2008 that breaking away from a fundamentalist religion had left her (him?) with a nose for happy horseshit. It was true in my case as a breakaway Mormon. I don’t pick up that odor from OWS either.
I think you’re right about that. There is nothing coercive about OWS. In fact, I think that if it is an astroturf organization it’s going to backfire.
On the other hand, DailyKos *does* smack of horseshit and it uses many cult indoctrination techniques. Take the ratings system for example. It is definitely a form of Love Bombing. Users who express the desired thoughts are rewarded with mojo. When you get enough mojo, you’re a trusted user. The TU status doesn’t give you a lot of privileges but your reputation goes up. Recommended diaries do much the same thing. Conversion diaries were featured prominently during the 2008 season. Testimonials are very powerful ways to set the reader on the road to an emotional conversion themselves, especially when the person writing the conversion diary is love bombed. Other readers see that converting is rewarded with status and acceptance. Resistence is punished and the user is associated with undesirable qualities. There are still users on DailyKos who accuse me of racism because I used the word “jihad” in my last post to describe the marauding Obamaphiles who put infidels to the digital sword. When I was kicked off DailyKos, well, the shock lasted about 2 minutes. I recognized it for what it was. It was cleansing of the site of undesirable elements who dissented. It’s a disfellowshipping or shunning routine.
I met a lot of really wonderful, smart people at YearlyKos 1 and 2 but I think I knew at YK2 that I was different from them in some major personality respects and that I couldn’t be coerced easily. I don’t know if YK2 has any videos online of the last session before it ended but I made a statement then and there warning them about manipulation and mob tendencies.
I think everyone likes the ego boost of getting mojo and recs. Even I was not immune to it. But when I started to see the site taken over and the rewards and punishments used coercively by people who I didn’t know, I started to be a problem for Kos and the other frontpagers. If you haven’t been brought up in a cult, you are extremely vulnerable to the techniques.
My question about DailyKos is was it set up to be coercive using cult indoctrination strategies? There were elements of addictive game-like features built in to the interface at a very early stage. It was clever of Kos to design it this way as it was a good reason to keep visiting. Whether he designed it to take advantage of what came later? I dunno. Maybe there was a mutual coercion going on with the party and money was hard to resist. Besides, the goal was to get a Democratic majority and that was important. Back then, that was a respectable goal. But I think the site was taken over by malevolent forces who have seen it as a recruiting device. And there can be no doubt at this point that Kos is in on it.
Often people reared in liberal traditions don’t acquire immunity to love bombing, it seems. I wasn’t reared that way, but I did rear both my children with liberal secular humanist values. I remember a conversation I had with another a-religious mother when our kids were small. She sent her kids to the Episcopal church…the least pernicious of churches, in her view…so they’d grow up calling themselves Episcopalians. Otherwise, she feared they might “become Moonies or something.” I didn’t agree with this strategy, but I could see some wisdom in it. It seems a lot of liberals became Moonies in 2008. I hope a few of them have acquired some immunity these last four years.
When I first saw the ban on politics in the OWS chatroom early on, I wondered about it for about 2 seconds before I got it. This is not a difficult concept if you understand what OWS is trying to do.
You didn’t answer the question. I asked who determines what constitutes politics and what doesn’t, and who enforces the ban. I trust you understand why I am asking this?
Then I can see only two outcomes, either there are never any demands made and the movement fizzles out having accomplished essentially nothing, or demands are made at some point, and all the never-resolved differences of opinion shatter it.
I didn’t buy any stock in pets.com.
I did.
I didn’t.
What can I say, myiq? You’re either so stubborn that you’re a threat to your own mental health or you’re not as smart as you think you are. I reject the latter so I can only assume it’s the former. In some sense, you sound like Fox Mulder. “I want to believe”. But you know as well as I do that religion is not the answer. This is not a matter of belief. This is a matter of deciding to do what is the right thing and to think independently based on what your core values are.
Go to an occupation and find out or stop asking.
Rest assured that I am not myiq. (Though I always did feel a certain affinity for Sidney Carton.)
You’re begging the question.
You’ve been with OWS for three months now. If you still don’t know then why would I have better luck in one day?
You didn’t answer my question. I asked who determines what consitutes politics and what doesn’t politics and who enforces the ban. I trust you understand why I ask this?
[accidentally hit reply while editing, and meant to reply to riverdaughter, please disregard.]
Maybe you ought to tell me what answer you expect to get? Because I get the distinct impression that you will not be satisfied with any answer I give you. I think I have answered you and given you the only reasonable explanation. If you can’t accept that answer, then I suggest you go to an occupation, if you can find one that hasn’t retreated indoors, and find out for yourself.
There’s nothing nefarious or deceitful about the no politics rule. If you want to argue about politics, don’t go to an occupation. Go to some other place where you argue about politics.
BTW, why are you so focused on politics? Why aren’t you asking about the ban on religion? Or the ban on discussing LGBT stuff or a myriad of other subjects? Shouldn’t you be curious about that as well? Singling out politics makes it sound as if OWS doesn’t want to entertain the Tea Party. But what you haven’t mentioned is that it doesn’t particularly like Move On either. That’s not to say that Move On hasn’t come to OWS events but no one is flocking to them. Also, you will find more signs legitimately condemning Obama and the Democrats than praising him. There are no OFA kiosks, no voter registration tables, no politicians glad handing and kissing babies. Religious people show up there. I’ve seen hasidic jews, muslims and christians as well as atheists. But there is no proselytizing. Likewise, I have seen lesbians, gays and transgendered people but they are not co-opting OWS to make it a gay rights movement. You can ignore the people who stand around promoting one particular special interest, whether it is political, religious or genetically modified, nuclear vaccinations. They don’t have any control over OWS. Draw your own conclusions.
Failure to do your own research does not constitute an obligation on me to give you explanations which you will choose to shoot down. You’re either paranoid or disingenuous and I’m not going to indulge you. There’s nothing better than first hand knowledge. Accept no substitutes.
You’re dodging. Who enforces the ban and who determines what constitutes politics?
Because the issue that they’ve taken up is a political issue.
You really don’t like that question, do you?
I don’t have a feeling one way or another about the questions you asked. All I can tell you is that you are the only one who can answer them to your own satisfaction.
If OWS is “self-organizing” then presumably the delegation of power would have to be transparent to all involved, correct? If it’s not transparent then would you agree that it cannot be “self-organizing”?
You are being voolish, RD. He haz vayz uv making you talk. 😈
OWS has causes, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it has causers.
For the same reason he would publically bash NAFTA and send his henchmen to Canada to assure them it was only campaign rhetoric. For the same reason that when his name appeared on a DLC list of members he demanded it be removed and declared they had placed it there by mistake while going to them in private and assuring them he was still their guy and Lieberman’s senator in training. Because with Obama you must always watch what he does and not what he says.
That doesn’t mean he started OWS, but he could have.
The little history I have read (what little has even been written so close to the event) is that OWS formed up in response to Kalle Lasn
writing months before in his Adbusters Magazine that an Occupation of Wall Street on a certain date would be a good symbolic action and might attract people. And Graeber and some other anarchists claim
for themselves some early organizational and inspirational influence.
I suspect Obama was as surprised as anyone else in authority.
If someone nourishes a decades-long cultural distaste for people who could be branded as “hippie” and has deep cultural grudges from the 60s, then someone could very easily hippy-bash OWS and not ever look deeper or wider.
I’ve read the same history, and I agree this was the likely spark. However, if there had been no tinder, there would have been no combustion.
TiP: I doubt Obummer would show the temerity to challenge his masters, and so endanger his lucrative post-presidential career.
Seems to me that TCH’ers have largely bought into one the Big Lies that has been pushed for the past 30 years. That is the economy of the US is like a household and we’re out of money, so we can’t do anything to stimulate jobs directly. We’ve got to get the so-called “Job Creators” to do it. The “Job Creators” are in fact parasites.
The US economy is only like your household, if your household has virtually unlimited credit and you can print your own money. We are borrowing now at essentially less than zero interest rates and should be spending like crazy to directly and indirectly create jobs and economic growth. It’s classic Keynes and has worked more than once in our history and would do it again.
For examples you only have to look to FDRs programs in the Great Depression or to Kennedy’s Space Program in the 1960s. Since the current problem is primarily one of a lack of aggregate demand. We know how to fix the problems in our economy but we don’t have the political will to do it.
One other thing is that I prefer to focus on policies and I imagine that’s true of most at the Confluence. I don’t see that tendency at TCH. Rather the focus is on personalities etc. After some time reading about how bad Obama is and how marvy it would be to have a certain former governor from the North Woods in office gets too boring for words. I consider that to be largely a waste of time and effort so I don’t spend time there now.
I’d like to talk about policy but my impression is that neither party is running on policy.
Always question. So what if it makes you sound paranoid.
I did not get *any* bad vibes from occupy wall street based on the times I visited Zuccotti park. As I said before, it felt like a big open air salon. There was no pressure to join anything. The structure of OWS is confusing to most Americans because it is self structured. You decide how much you want to get involved and with whom. The feeling of freedom in that regard can leave you feeling like there are no boundaries. It’s a bit unsettling at first.
Anyway, the more I experience it, the more convinced I am that it is not a party AstroTurf operation.
That’s the same way I felt after spending some time at Occupy Austin. I enjoyed the experience and hope to do so again. Whether I agree with all or most of those there isn’t that important to me. Those I spoke with were focused on real problems and not candidates for this or that.
Neither party is running on policy because the Big Lies are so pervasive nothing else is considered by the “Very Serious People”.
How about calling She Who Must Not Be Named “The Governess”? 😉
Or “The Cow Moose”? (after Teddy Roosevelt, “the Bull Moose”)
I Like The Governess.
I mean, I like the term. I am neutral about the person and negative about her politics.
I have little use, if any, for the Dinocratic Party apparatchik and ex(?)-Kossack David Atkins over at the Hullabazoo, but he did make one good point a few weeks ago:
The protests against the Iraq War back in the Chimperial Cheney years were much bigger than any of the Occupations, but the Malefactors Of Great Wealth did not send their Imperial Stormtroopers out to break up those protests.
Things that make you go “Hmmm…”
Whenever he does that, try to locate the stab wounds.
Those protests against the Iraq war had no chance of having any effect on what subsequently occurred. OWS may be a bit more effective in the end, thus douchebaggery against them.
The big difference seems to be that traditional protests are organized events, usually marches, while OWS is an open-ended . Sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, occupations are all more effective than marches.
s/b “OWS is an open-ended occupation”…
Uh…remember “free speech zones”?
Hmmm, I guess Atkins and I both overlooked those. OTOH, that approach did not dismiss the protesters altogether. It would still indicate that the MOGW felt less threatened by anti-war protests than by anti-plutocratic protests.
***************************************
I don’t know if the Occupants’ strategy will work, but I do know that if the traditional political system is broken–as the system of our failed state clearly is-desperate and angry people will try other things. At least the Occupation strategy is relatively peaceful.
I fear some of the other things that desperate people may try if this fails. 😮
Or that the protests were too large (remember some went into the millions) to risk a crackdown of the scale required.
Remember that there was some question whether the invasion would touch off WWIII, Cheney & co really couldn’t risk looking any more monstrous than they already did.
Cheny and Co. never gave a rat’s ass how monstrous they looked.
Free speech zones were for organized meetings like the WTO or conventions or Bush admin appearances. They weren’t used for the ordinary marches if I recall correctly.
A “free speech zone” is an oxymoron. If you are restricted to a zone, then you have no right to speak freely. For free speech to be effective, the intended audience has to be able to hear it.
Absolutely correct. I was merely pointing out they were used differently back then.
Me three.
Judging from his latest post, Teh Klown thinks OWS is phony because its primary focus is not the peaceful removal of Obummer. He still thinks politics is primary, even though Big Business owns the political system, lock, stock, and (pork) barrel. One thing I like about OWS is it doesn’t focus its wrath on the overseers–and Obummer is only the Chief Overseer–but on the masters.
A comment of mine is missing. Did Spammy get it, or did I just forget the posting step?
One of my comments seems to be in limbo.
I’ve now made three attempts to post it, and all are in limbo.
I clicked your link, and I didn’t see any of the triggers of which I know. 😕
I don’t think any blogger on WordPress quite controls Spammy… 😮
Tried reposting without the quoted next. Still in limbo.
I’m not sure why you were moderated but I released all of your comments. Not intentional.
Test repost:
Myiq2xu is dishonest at times, and at times rather dishonest about OWS, but I’m quite certain that he truly does see them as an astroturf operation, and frankly I myself am no less dubious than before.
If there was ever a time to make specific demands, it was the port shutdowns, and none were made. Further, the “shutdowns” were conducted in such a way as to not actually significanlty interfere with shipping, rendering them little more than a stunt. It really does seem like a way to blow off steam without significantly impacting any powerful interest.
Monster from the Id,
If you still read Hullabaloo, do you notice any difference in the general number of commenters since the addition of Atkins? Are there in general more commenters than before Atkins? Fewer commenters? The same number of commenters?
No, I won’t go see for myself. I don’t read where I have been sneakily banned without even an admission of its having happened.
The only times I will read Hullabaloo anymore is if I am at an unbanned computer where I can log on as Guest and shove my unwanted comments in through the mail slot.
RUR: Recently, I don’t visit the Hullabazoo often enough to determine that. I too have not been able to post for quite some time. I e-mailed Digby, and she said she didn’t know why I couldn’t post, but that I had not been banned.
I wonder if Bratkins could somehow stealth-ban both of us without Digby’s knowledge, or is Digby simply lying to me?
Digby has never once acknowledged any bans, even in rather indisputable cases like Che and Sarah B.
She still gets a lot of commenters. I’ve commented several times and usually do so as myself. I’m pretty critical of Atkins. From what I can tell, her commenters are no great fans of Atkins. Many of them are pretty rough on him and I notice that she has a fair amount of people who are no great fans of Obama and the Democratic party. And yet, she still intends to vote for him, as far I can tell. Don’t know how she’s going to persuade her audience that that’s the right thing to do but there ya’ go.
It’s not Obama criticism per se that seems to result in a stealth ban, but effective and repeated Obama criticism.
The apparent strategy since August has been to maintain the pretence of an open comment section, while systematically weeding out most of the strongest Obama critics, making Atkins look like the mighty champion Democratic party realist deftly making mincemeat of the legions of ignorant firebagger rabble.
Great post RD — Adbusters — I only know about them because of working in advertising for so many years — they started OWS. It’s an ad guy, who saw through things in a way. Hopes all had a fab holiday season (weeks) and looking forward to 2012, and that things can get better for the country!
I liked this content/ article. I would certainly recommend the same to others as well.visit:mumbaiflowerplaza dot com(send gifts and flowers to Mumbai).
Spam cleanup on aisle 4! 😛
Here’s a tabloid chuckle for the year’s end
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/tabloids-are-riling-the-bobots-with-funny-obscene-headlines/
I saw this on FB – Betty Bowers is an old favorite of mine. It fits somehow with the religious part of the entry