See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!
Source:
n/a
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: Jul 24, 2005
Author: Christine and Zipporah
Post Date: 2005-07-24 23:28:38 by christine
Keywords: censorship--Weigh, Debate
Views: 3455
Comments: 295
Because concerns by several members have been posted to us, both publically and privately, about the free speech "allowed" on 4um, we have decided to create three new categories. The primary hot button is that of the Israel/Jewish/Zionism topic. We do not wish to censor and we also do not wish to offend (in reality, unavoidable, as what
offends one may not offend another) anyone. With the availability of specific categories, each individual may eliminate an entire subject that he/she wishes not to view via his/her personal 'setup' page.
In the spirit of cooperation, and with the goal of working toward a satisfying and pleasant forum experience for everyone, we'd like to request that you avail yourselves of these specific category selections when posting your articles. The three new categories are:
Israel/Zionism
All is Vanity
Author! Author!
We hope that you all feel that this is an equitable solution.
Christine and Zipporah
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-185) not displayed.
.
.
.
#186. To: Bayonne (#176)
Agreed. The authoritarians almost always win, ultimately, because it is in their nature to incessantly impose their will on the will of others. The libertarian-types who subscribe to a live-n-let-live philosophy, by their very nature, are disinclined to join groups or collectivist organizations. As such, individually they lose out to the larger groups of authoritarians who must impose their will. There is something to the fact that the masses of people throughout history have never known real freedom.
#105 is keeper, Bill. Kudos.
The future is so bright I got to wear shades.
let me see if I can help you here. the appropriate response is, "if you don't agree, go away" see, tolerance is often used as a tool by those who want exactly the opposite....the more religious they are, the more likely this is to be true, as it is a function of tribalism, which is related to a very naieve, immature, and dangerous mindset to freedom. so, if they don't like it, they DON'T FUCKING HAVE TO LIKE IT. people have the RIGHT to NOT LIKE YOU for any damn reason they want. get the fuck over it, grow up, and shut the hell up. christ on a bicycle, already.
Whenever people ask me, 'hey, you know what you should do? I always say 'What? Buy a monkey?'
Thompson is displaying righteous anger (he HATES what the elites are doing to America). IMO, hate is justified when we're about to have CAFTA shoved up our back sides, not to mention our continued investment in Iraqi nation building. It’s economic treason. We've seen the result of NAFTA/GATT/Viet Nam and now this beast? It's pitchfork time.
people have the RIGHT to NOT LIKE YOU for any damn reason they want. get the fuck over it, grow up, and shut the hell up. Bravo, I must commend you on your debating style it is....ummm... par excellence. It's truly hard to believe after having read your response why anyone would have the attitude "if you don't agree, go away". Simply unfathomable. ;)
The future is so bright I got to wear shades.
The man read my mind.
there is no debate here. it's simple...if you don't like something, ignore it or go away. demanding everyone else conform to your dictates is infantile and absurd. the very concept itself is the essence of intolerance. so, when I say these people are very juvenile and naieve in their thinking, it's because they behave as teenagers do, thinking the world should bend to their whims because the desires are THEIRS. irony is lost on the emotionalist lackwit political knave. what they advocate, freedom, and what they do, demand it be restricted, are completely contradictory. they are walking madmen, literally...functionally insane, with some sort of sociopathic schism between belief and reality. the problem you people run into is thinking these nutcases deserve debate on principles like freedom. what the fuck? freedom is freedom. take it or leave it. sweet babbling jesus, these morons can't even deal with freedom in cyberspace...what the hell does anyone think they vote for? this country is fucked large. in a year I will be posting from South America.
Whenever people ask me, 'hey, you know what you should do? I always say 'What? Buy a monkey?'
Well I'm with you on that one... I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you there.
Even if it means the extermination of a few hundred thousand innocent Iraqis along the way?
Don't you find it rather amazing that people come to a forum and then demand that things go their way. Now I don't tell the Jewish people that own ABC,CBS and MTV and Fox News,etc. and Wolf Blitzer what to say or what topics to cover I wouldn't think of such a thing, yet they come over here and want to dictate to us what we may or may not have on this patriots' forum. That is chutzpah
And it's not like they posted on ANY of the threads discussing Israeli issues. They seemingly couldn't care less about the issues, then all of a sudden, they want all speech they deem hate speech, censored. And they press the issue for days. Whats up with that On a patriot forum, they're calling for the removal of individual rights from posters and the equivalent of giving rights to a group commonly known as Jews, while at the same time arguing that the Jewish group they are representing doesn't even exist!
The "insurgent" murderers and thugs who carried out Saddam's dirtywork are not "innocent".
Oh, I see. You're one of those "If we killed 'em they musta been bad guys" kind of people. So be it if that helps you sleep after quenching the blood lust.
That must make you one of those delusional "the American military deliberately targets women and children" fairys. I sleep well knowing that the men and women who serve in our military have much higher ethical standards than you.
It seems that the primary issue here isn't "seeing something offensive". I have gotten the impression that while that's spoken, the real issue is the pull between having a likeable forum but being scared of potentially being associated now or in the future with what on a wider basis would end up being know as "THAT site". I.e. at some point, member X is working a major contract, running for office, on the school board, etc... and someone else comes along and, cherry picking topics, states that X is a member at this place where [insert current favorite un PC topic here] is posted. Some folks here may be in a relatively public profession, or want to get into something like politics. It's a legitimate fear, but one that one can easily defend ones self against by making their position known. Wade into battle. Mow that line of reasoning down. Or meerly state in a single post that you don't agree with it and believe it's bullshit. Sure, you might have to put up with some dumbass making stupid comments at times, but your on the record and no one can claim you think or feel otherwise.
Hey, look at that cute little critter...Yaaaa! GET IT OFF! GET IT OFF!!!!
I know that in the opening days of the war we executed 80 plus "decapitation" missions against Iraqi leadership targets. These were 1,000 pound bunker busters up to 15,000 pound daisy cutters. They were dropped in the residential areas where the targets were thought to be. Exactly zero of them actually got the intended target. However, they did pulverize entire blocks of residential dwellings at a time when most people would be home. Did we deliberately target women and children? Damn right we did. You know for a fact that we did. They were considered to be acceptable collateral damage. Now, you can continue to pretend like what we are doing in Iraq is something less than a horrific war crime if you like, but there is nothing that can wash the blood of the innocents off the hands of the US military personnel and their chain of command.
Oh, and by the way... I've never killed an innocent person, nor have I smugly cheered it, as do you.
You sure? Please remember that a WHOLE BUNCH of those "dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', antiwar hippie 'Rats" are the same people who oppose Globalization. They riot and just really show their asses on this subject, especially. Watch for it. Why? Well, frankly they often oppose things for stupid, Marxist reasons. They hate McDonalds, etc, etc.. All kinds of reasons, and imo, many of them are stupid. Okay, so the hippies oppose it too and possibly for stupid reasons. Now, does that mean they are wrong in opposing Globalization or that you are wrong in tacitly agreeing with them? Absolutely not, because you're both obviously right.. However they are right, for the "wrong" reason. reasons we don't agree with, because they don't share our ideology. In this case, I submit: It's their motivation that's suspect, not their position on Globalization itself. This makes them temporary allies. Sort of like Russia in WW2. They're useful today, so we should join with them on this issue.. Tomorrow the issue may be something entirely different. At that point, we can oppose them without penalty. There's nothing hypocritical about it, as we were allied by circumstances in the first place, as opposed to ideology. (Did that make sense?)
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Thanks Jethro.
Beautiful rant.....I'm with ya.
"Collateral damage" is an unfortunate consequence in waging any war.
Give us time.. We're just gettin started. Saddam had decades do do his work. We're spring chickens in comparison. Further, we're taking the war on the road.. It's endless, remember?
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Definitely like your debating style. If you post from South America, many will be envious, whether they'll admit it or not.
You are free to believe whatever you like -- no matter how detached from reality.
Yeah sure. Report me to the SS and send me to the ovens.
You need to shut the fuck up before the whole entire board finds out exactly moronic and stupid you really are. Do you go out without supervision? I hope not or if you do, I hope you live far from me. In closing, if you are so gung ho and supportive of what we're doing in Iraq, ENLIST already!!
No, it doesn't make any sense.
Well "Amen" to that, anyway.
Bush has killed 10's of thousands. Under 8,000 graves have been found in Iraq and not all of them are attributed to Saddam.
They're useful today, so we should join with them on this issue.. Tomorrow the issue may be something entirely different. At that point, we can oppose them without penalty. There's nothing hypocritical about it, as we were allied by circumstances in the first place, as opposed to ideology. (Did that make sense?) It's makes a lot of sense. Well reasoned.
willie's another sharkfin--you know, kill all the GD "ragheads."
If I had to reject every position on issues that was embraced by people that I disagree with, there would be no position left to adopt. People who claim to reject the anti-war position because leftists are anti-war are as irrational as can be.
too late ;)
it's appalling, that mentality. really.
You are seriously deluded.
"But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the least touch of truth rubs it off, and then we see what a hollow-cheeked harlot we have got hold of." Lord Byron
In closing, if you are so gung ho and supportive of what we're doing in Iraq, ENLIST already!! Excellent point. I find it interesting how many of the gung-ho war-mongers spend their time posting safely on the internet instead of getting their asses to Iraq, where they could really act on their strong beliefs. Instead, they're like.... "let's YOU go kill them rag-heads."
In closing, if you are so gung ho and supportive of what we're doing in Iraq, ENLIST already!! Excellent point. I find it interesting how many of the gung-ho war-mongers spend their time posting safely on the internet instead of getting their asses to Iraq, where they could really act on their strong beliefs. Instead, they're like.... "let's YOU go kill them rag-heads." Age/gender are not a factor anymore. Remember the article on the short, 50+ year old woman that was sent to Iraq a few months ago. And, we've read other articles of men older than that being sent to Iraq.
Now you're splitting hairs.. Regardless: n : growth to a global or worldwide scale; "the globalization of the communication industry" [syn: globalisation] Many Leftists are most certainly opposed to Globalization. Look at the labor unions, for crying out loud. They're not upset about Industry at all. They just want to be overcompensated for the small role they play in it. Again.. even if you were right, it was an example to illustrate the utility of a temporary alliance. I know this bothers you, but we don't have permenant enemies and permenant allies. People and circumstances change daily.. We DO however, have permenant interests. If a temporary alliance would help us acheive those, I fail to see the harm. Admittedly, though.. it will take a change in thinking and a change in approach. I think this is fine. Far too many people simply use "the left" or the "liberals" as a reverse moral compass to avoid thinking for themselves.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Any guff from these geezers and they'll have a tough time looking for their heart meds...
You TEll 'em..!! "...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Comments (227 - 295) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#187. To: Freedom William (#186)
#188. To: Willie Green (#185)
#189. To: christine, freedomwilliam (#0)
#190. To: Willie Green (#185)
But this is by far the most invective rant I've seen him author.
#191. To: gengis gandhi (#189)
so, if they don't like it, they DON'T FUCKING HAVE TO LIKE IT.
#192. To: timetobuildaboat (#188)
Bush, in my opinion, is criminally insane, a pill-popping dry drunk whose erratic behavior and reckless actions threaten world peace and the future of this nation far more than any Islam-spouting religious fanatic. He is an enemy of the state, a mood-swinging despot who threatens the very freedoms that form the foundation for this country. He has created a police state where basic American freedoms have vanished under an politically-exaggerated threat to national scrutiny, milked the human tragedy of 9/11 for his personal agenda and ripped the Constitution to shreds through the USA Patriot Act, a rights- robbing piece of legislation put together by his former attorney general, the bible-thumping John Ashcroft, an inept former Senator who couldn’t even win an election against a dead man.
#193. To: timetobuildaboat (#191)
#194. To: Jethro Tull (#190)
IMO, hate is justified when we're about to have CAFTA shoved up our back sides,
not to mention our continued investment in Iraqi nation
"Lesser of two evils" excuse. Ain't no way I can side with the dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', antiwar hippie 'Rats...
Saddam was a malicious SOB who deserves to die, no matter what reason Dubya uses.
#195. To: Willie Green (#194)
Saddam was a malicious SOB who deserves to die, no matter what reason Dubya uses.
#196. To: Bayonne (#179)
#197. To: 1776 (#196)
#198. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#195)
Even if it means the extermination of a few hundred thousand innocent Iraqis along the way?
#199. To: Willie Green (#198)
The "insurgent" murderers and thugs who carried out Saddam's dirtywork are not "innocent".
#200. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#199)
You're one of those "If we killed 'em they musta been bad guys" kind of people. So be it if that helps you sleep after quenching the blood lust.
#201. To: Starwind, christine, all (#145)
#202. To: Willie Green (#200)
That must make you one of those delusional "the American military deliberately targets women and children" fairys.
#203. To: Willie Green (#200)
#204. To: Willie Green (#194)
I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you there. "Lesser of two evils" excuse. Ain't no way I can side with the dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', antiwar hippie 'Rats...
#205. To: Jethro Tull (#187)
#206. To: timetobuildaboat (#188)
#207. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#202)
They were considered to be acceptable collateral damage.
I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
I also believe that you greatly exagerate "collateral damage" to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
#208. To: Willie Green (#207)
"Collateral damage" is an unfortunate consequence in waging any war. I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
#209. To: gengis gandhi (#193)
#210. To: Willie Green (#207)
I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
#211. To: Willie Green (#207)
I also believe that you greatly exagerate "collateral damage" to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
#212. To: Willie Green (#207)
I also believe that you greatly exagerate "collateral damage" to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
#213. To: Jhoffa_ (#204)
a WHOLE BUNCH of those "dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', antiwar hippie 'Rats" are the same people who oppose Globalization.
(Did that make sense?)
They're not opposed to "globalization".
They're opposed to industrialization in any form: domestic AND international.
A bunch of enviro-whacknuts who think they can return to some kind of communal, 18th Century agrarian utopia.
#214. To: Lady X (#212)
I hope you live far from me.
#215. To: Willie Green (#207)
I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
#216. To: Jhoffa_ (#204)
This makes them temporary allies. Sort of like Russia in WW2.
#217. To: Jhoffa_, Willie Green, Jethro Tull, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#208)
#218. To: christine, Jhoffa_ (#216)
#219. To: Lady X (#212)
You need to shut the fuck up before the whole entire board finds out exactly how moronic and stupid you really are.
#220. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, gengis gandhi (#218)
#221. To: Willie Green (#213)
They're opposed to industrialization in any form: domestic AND international. A bunch of enviro-whacknuts who think they can return to some kind of communal, 18th Century agrarian utopia.
#222. To: Lady X (#212)
Lady X's post to Willie Green,
#223. To: Freedom William, Lady X, Willie Green (#222)
Lady X's post to Willie Green,
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#224. To: Willie Green (#213)
No, it doesn't make any sense. They're not opposed to "globalization".
globalization
#225. To: robin (#223)
And, we've read other articles of men older than that being sent to Iraq.
“Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild, a name famous in every capital of Europe, and every division of the globe." -Benjamin Disraeli
#226. To: Lady X (#212)
.
.
.