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: 3666
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
#1. To: christine (#0)
All is Vanity????? Author! Author??? what's this aboot???
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
Author! Author??? Author Author is for those who want to post things that they have written such as editorials..stories or things they've authored.. as opposed to editorials by other authors.. All is vanity is for personal posts..not like 4 play which are fun silly articles..
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
"All is Vanity" is for vanity/personal posts including blog screeds and "Author! Author!" is for the writers/journalists among us.
Much more clear Chris.. thanks!
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
"All is Vanity" - from a famous passage of Solomonic wisdom in Ecclesiastes. The catagory is for vanity posts that are personal or otherwise not pertaining to other issue catagories. "Author! Author!" is a special catagory dedicated to articles, columns, novel chapters, and other published writings by F4 posters themselves. That's the way I understand it, anyway.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
(not that I ever would...) Thank you all for the clarification - I need to get to bed as I start my new job tomorrow and for some reason I have insomnia..... go figure! gnith and tanks again! "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
(not that I ever would...) Thank you all for the clarification - I need to get to bed as I start my new job tomorrow and for some reason I have insomnia..... go figure! gnith and tanks again! HEY ... you can blog away .. One liners.. BUT good! :P
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
One liners.. BUT good! :P I ain't never blogged - how is it done??? and do I wanna know??? And I am so incoherent most days that I would confuse the general audience.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
I forgot to add.... BUT GOOD!
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
Zip's "Zaminin' Zionism" idea was so much better, I think. It had piZZaZZ. What do you think, CAPPS?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
m indeed in favor of as much pizzazz as one can dish out! Do you like thick crust or thin??? ;0)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
FYI
FYI
FYI
A Bozo filter for subjects. Good idea. We are at the point where many Americans think the truth is offensive when applied to special groups. They think freedom of speech must be limited to accomodate these special groups. There is only one way of thinking acceptable to them- that which is defined by the special group and reinforced by the State. They believe that groups have rights and individuals have limited rights. They are conditioned to flip out when a special group is under fire. They are so conditioned that supporting Marxism is important to them. And now, the Reps sre as bad as the Dems. Reps now openly support cultural Marxism, diversity, multi culti and all the other BS. Thank you for providing a forum where we don't have to worry about the above.
FYI
Thank you for your comment.
let's start a catagory for who gets hauled off to the Gulog
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
The new Bozo filter may not be enough for the poster who called for censorship. He likes to control, and he wants noone to be able to post about his special group. He probably will not use the Bozo because he is driven to see the posts he wants to control. He acts like an agent of Israel, and feels a misplaced responsibility to defend Israel. Because he feels that Jews are oppressed by people like us in the 'aggressor' Marxist group. He is defending what he perceives to be the victim group, rooting for the underdog, so to speak.
FYI
Very kind and accommodating of you guys for those among us who cannot read words and ideas that may differ from our beliefs without suffering heart palpations; and then running, crying, to the forum owners for relief instead of simply moving on to the next topic that might interest them. Cheers, and thanks again for the most free forum on the internet.
Bingo! Some of these
gutless wonders think 'hate speech' is alive and well here in the states. What
a courageous few, eh? IMVHO, we're far better off without such cowards. I still
recall how some scattered when Mertz and Brian S were 'reported' to the nazi
SS. Sorry, time is growing short. It's time to toss the useless ones
overboard, especially those who use religion as a guise to censorship.
A little guy is sitting at the bar just staring at his drink for half an hour when this big trouble-making truck driver steps next to him, grabs his drink and gulps it down in one swig. The poor little guy starts crying. "Come on man. I was just giving you a hard time," the truck driver says. "I can't stand to see a man crying." "This is the worst day of my life," says the little guy between sobs. "I can't do anything right. I overslept and was late to an important meeting, so my boss fired me. When I went to the parking lot, I found my car was stolen and I don't have any insurance. I grabbed a cab home but, after the cab left, I discovered my wallet was still in the cab. At home I found my wife in bed with the gardener. So I came to this bar trying to work up the courage to put an end to my life, and then you show up and drink the damn poison."
i missed you two
LOL!!! Thanks for the hoot, Jim.
Bump My thoughts exactly In the immortal words of Devo: Freedom of choice Thanks for the ping. I always supported Israel and still do in theory, but have learned a lot of useful facts about Zionism. Don't censor anything!
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
And, one for those who should be hung, or is that hunged? (Shortly after their trial or, is that after their short trial?)
we all know whom should be hunged
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
That's a good point. In my (humble) opinion and experience, Bayonne is exactly right. I would suggest watching for malcontents who are unsatisfied with the good faith effort you have made to find some middle ground between those who think these issues have merit and should be discussed and those who wish to see them quashed completely. In my mind, anyone who objected to being forced to view this kind of material should be thankful that you've voluntarily provided them an out. I think it was a very nice gesture on your behalf. It's commendable. Those who aren't satisfied with your (completely reasonable) solution likely just don't want the topic discussed at all, anywhere, by anyone at any time. Should they complain, IMO, you won't be able to placate these people and there's no use trying. They will attempt to force you into a position of having to choose between their patronage/participation and the content they disapprove of. If you don't side with them they will leave or threaten to leave in a very public manner and probably call you names. It's actually preferable to allow this, because should you concede, their demands will only increase and continue to increase until they are effectively controlling the direction of your forum, and your legitimate function would be reduced to some odd kind of proxy. FYI & IMVHO.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
It's such a shame these things don't happen more frequently in real life..
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Yeah, I'm waiting for someone to call for a nanny bozo. This function will allow the forum nanny to see the posted article, but will bozo it for everyone else. I know of several people who lust after this function.
LOL ... how can you possibly know any of this? Thanks, Christine.
How did you know they were talking about you?
He doesn't.. any more than I do. However, it's a reasonable assumption based on past experience. It works like a slippery slope. Here's an example: First, it's the "anti-semitic" stuff that has to be banned.. Ostensibly because it's offensive and hurts the site. It's not a hot topic of mine, but I do read the occasional thread Then it's the "Kook" stuff. Again, the reason given is it hurts the site and taints everyone by association. Not a hot topic of mine either, but then again, why should I, you or anyone care if someone thinks we never landed on the moon? So what? Then it's "Bush Bashing" Once more it ostensibly hurts the place and makes us all look bad. It's "divisive" etc.. Then "Party bashing" "Catholic bashing" On and on.. Etc, etc, etc.. Well, that's sweet of you. It's nice to see that someone so opposed to this kind of content appreciates her effort. It's allot more than some people would do and I think she deserves a thanks.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Is there any doubt?
Whatever ... I didn't appear here to start or finish a fight. Have a nice day, Jhoffa_, and thanks again, Chistine.
What are you talking about, Phaedrus? You and I have never corresponded privately and everything you have communicated regarding your feelings has been right on open forum! Ask Bayonne who he's referring to. I don't know. I can only assume just as you have!
No, no.. Don't get the wrong idea. It was a LEGITIMATE, no shit, compliment. I thought your thanking Christine was proper and very big of you under the circumstances. I just didn't want it to go unnoticed, that's all. You have a nice day also, Phaedrus
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Trying to pay bills today and feeling like stealing the little guy's beverage myself... Does anything suck much harder than "Bill-Paying Day"? Gak.
As I've said, you have this "fairness problem", Jhoffa_ ... ;-} Thanks.
..running a forum? :P
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Oh my gosh.. tell me about it.. It's been a slow month and both front windows are obscured by a product a customer destroyed himself and wants me to make good. Ugggh. Taxes are due for last quarter. Jack & Hemlock please!
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
:)
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
I'm not bothered by any of it, Christine. I do appreciate your efforts to be fair.
Thank you, I appreciate your saying so.
I just realized a few things about hate speech: The issue of hate speech, publicized often for all Americans to see, maintains the victim status of special groups and instills a sense of guilt in the majority that they are unaware of on the surface. Everyone in the majority that is not PC is a kind of criminal in our system. Not only that, Americans that abide by PC live with a subtle fear- that they will say the wrong thing or think the wrong thing. This is what totalitarianism does to individuals. There is a constant campaign of conditioning against individuals in the majority in our media- to instill guilt, reinforce certain govt powered groups as perpetual victims, and cement the majority as predatory and aggressive in its relationships with the victim groups. Guilt serves to neuter the majority when groups are working against them- which is always. The majority feels subconsciously that the special groups deserve the power they usurp. I say usurp, because the more power groups get, the less power the individual is able to exercise. Its no coincidence that the rampant collectivism present in the US coincides with the rise of the American police state. These groups claim they need power and rights to fight off aggression, hate. We are told that free speech deemed as hate by the tot Marxist-like system can lead to violence and even another holocaust. Mission accomplished. As these groups work against the majority and reinforce collectivism, the individual stands silent when being attacked in this Marxist inspired class warfare. At this point, he has accepted the Marxist doctrine as ethical and cannot even see the aggression of the special groups, backed with the full power of the fed govt. He has bought the argument that indiv rights are not only not important, but a threat that will lead to violence if freedom of speech is not ended. He believes the ADL is a defensive org, and that all they want is equality. What they actually want is superiority at the expense of the individual. The power source for the ADL, taken by the govt, is the individual. If you accept what I am saying, think about how are system has been hijacked. Think about the collectivism rampant in the US. Think of how are politicians serve groups and not individuals. Think of the fact that the ADL and other groups panned this whole mess we're in. The propaganda and conditioning we are subjected to by the media, systematically, is a crime. The propaganda is so massive that individuals in the majority accept the above. They think collectively now. They believe groups have natures and deserve power to 'protect' themselves. They lose their sense of individuality, their awareness of their God given rights. They have accepted collectivism over individuality. The exact opposite of the founding 'fathers' vision. This is because they have been conditioned to be slaves. BOTS place no value on individual rights. At this point they actually seem to be hostile to indiv rights. So, hate speech is a false issue, used by groups to gain power and weaken the rights of the individual. The issue of hate was carefully thought out before implementation- there was a plan- we have been lied to for years. Certain groups mask their aggression toward the majority by conditioning the sheeple to feel guilty and feel that the aggression is actually justice- to make their group equal to the majority. Groups have chosen to segregate themselves via definitions they come up with for their group. So, groups and the fed govt create all this group politics we see. They choose segregation while the claim the opposite. No two groups can be equal so that stated goal is not real. Groups, especially based on race, constantly seek more power. The evidence is our system. One groups has gotten everything they want fom the US govt in the last 5 years. They want their group to be the strongest. Again, they're claims for equality are false. If they truly wanted freedom and equality, they would not have segregated themselves in the 1st place- they would have sought total integration- with each individual, regardless of race, being equal and enjoying the same freedoms and rights. Instead, as they fought for integration publicly, they secretly employed segregation to fight for the collective group. The most successful group, out of many, in employing the above has been the Jews. They have used their victim class status, our predator class status, implementation of guilt thru the holocost, and very real political power that the fed gov gave them so that they are almost above the law in some respects.
Great names for the new categories! Does everyone understand how the Category Filter works? I did not until yesterday. You check the categories you do not want to ever see.
Since I'm still "in the system," my one little form of resistance is to defer making any "contributions" until October 15th of each year. Perhaps by this time next year, we will all have liberated ourselves from this voluntary system - I hope and pray. Cheers.
that's it in a nutshell! great post.
You wanted to remove my 1st amendment rights that I enjoy on this forum-
This is an act of aggression against me- an individual. I realize it is hard
for you to grasp this, because you are a conditioned Marxist. Groups have no
right to use coercion to stop my free speech. Only the individual has rights.
You can fight to change the Constitution, but until then my individual rights
to critize groups and individuals is primary. You attemped to control me by
getting the owners to remove some of my rights. Jewish groups have no
protection against my criticism. You assign a group rights and power and this
is wrong. You are saying that the 1st amendment does not apply when thinking
about Jews, because they are a special group that has the 'right', not to be
critised on certain grounds they dictate. If what you demanded came to pass,
the Jewish group would effectively have the power to remove my 1st amendment
rights. This is a form of tyranny. Jews as a group fight to gain power in our
system, so that eventually they can override the majority's will. We may be at
that point. We are at the point where I not only have to worry about groups,
now I have to worry about Americans like you that take the position of the
coercive group instead of that of protecting my rights- you fellow citizen.
The founders gave individuals the rights we enjoy because they protected us
from tyranny. The govt group, or any other group, could not get away with
aggression towards indivs and could not CONTROL individuals. Since all
individuals have the same rights, the system treats all like equals. Removing
rights from the individual and giving groups power over indivs is a form of
tyranny. My question to you is: Why did you sell me out, trying to remove
rights from me, a fellow American, to advance the agenda of Jewish groups that
work against me 24/7? You are a cultural Marxist in the way you approach
this situation. Certain things should not 'be allowed' Worse, you want the
State to ultimately enforce this. It is clear you support hate crime laws. You
have abandoned the founding principles.
It's not a hot topic of mine, but I do read the occasional thread Then it's the "Kook" stuff. Again, the reason given is it hurts the site and taints everyone by association. Not a hot topic of mine either, but then again, why should I, you or anyone care if someone thinks we never landed on the moon? So what? Then it's "Bush Bashing" Once more it ostensibly hurts the place and makes us all look bad. It's "divisive" etc.. It goes a little along the lines of that famous quote from Pastor Martin Niemöller, So, you see it is the same old crap that the Nazis pulled, and the Germans allowed by it their silence and acquiesence. We only hurt ourselves by allowing the persecutions for thought crimes and crimes by association and so forth. It is a vicious and never ending cycle. If we allow it, soon there will be no one left to speak out. I will resist this evil to my last breath.
"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 effect it is the ghettoization of information that profoundly affects the future of our nation. By default though, the Category Filter allows all categories to be viewed. The poster must choose to remove a category from being viewed. And there will be some overlapping that will "spill over" into World/National News. For example, if I post an article about the London Bombing that includes the amazing timing involving the warning given to only Netanyahu to stay put in his hotel room, that will be seen by anyone with the World News category viewable. OTOH, for example, an editorial that specifically examines how Zionism affects our national policy, that should be posted under the new Israel/Zionism category.
Each poster, I'm sure, has identified other posters whose ideology and posting style they find offensive. Should the posts of these individuals overlap into other categories, then the bozo filter can be utilized.
Good point. Between the Category Filter and the Bozo filter, no one need be offended ever. I'll have to try harder.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Look at it as a mission...;)
Is there any doubt? I thought they were talking about me!
"Besides the three usual brain functions: understanding, rationality, and the will, which together make up man's spirit and serve his life's interests, a fourth category of thinking evidently slumbers within man which, once started through deliberate re-routing of psychic functions, lets men act against their very own interest for the benefit of a foreign will. The better the mentors of such re-routing succeed in hypnotizing other people of a closed world view, the sooner they can be moved as Isms, to sacrifice themselves and others, so that their spiritual mentors don't lack any power and wealth." To be truly in balance one must be hated by both the German and Jewish variety of nazi, being called supremacist of any sort gets triple score.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Here are my reasons for why "hate speech" merits categorization separate from other categories and what I think "hate speech" is. There is to me (and others like me) a very clear dividing line between disent or differing opinion that ought to be tolerated and even discussed in 'polite company' versus 'hate speech' that has no redeeming merit for discussion purposes. Our constitution protects hate speech, and I'm not advocating we change the constitution or lobby for the author to be jailed. He had and exercizes under the consititution, his right to compose and publish and broadcast his viewpoint. But I do advocate that hate speech not be further imported via Freedom4um into my office/home, or otherwise shoved in my face. My reasons are twofold, one esthetic, the other pragmatic: I did inquire about fixing the bozo filter such that in the future " hate speech" articles might be hidden, as often is the advocated solution. As it is, the bozo filter does not filter articles on the "Latest" menu, the latest comments page, the headlines page, and doesn't even filter pings from bozo'd posters. Even if Neil makes the enhancements, one then becomes forced to bozo everything from a poster when only a few articles were objectionable, and even that will be circumvented should some other poster post the same or variant articles. Mandating the 'bozo' filter as the solution acts against the poster rather than the article. In my opinion, "hate speech" is any article wherein the object is to criticize, deride, or otherwise bash some person or group not based on what they have said or done (behavior or actions) but based on their genetic, racial or ethnic background (makeup or appearance). As a recent example, in The Biological Puzzle of Jewish Behavior the group being targeted was Jews (as happens all too frquently on Freedom4um, as it did on Freedom Underground and as it does on Stormfront), but not because of what Israeli political leaders did, or not because of some newsworthy event of something happening to Jews, and not even because of what a particular Jew did. From the article: Substitute "White" for Jew (or "male" for Jew) in that article and you'd have something closer to the truth regarding who has the control of our government. This article would be just as wrong directed againt Women, Whites, Blacks, Asians, Muslims, Christians, Buddists, or Rednecks. It was not criticism of someone's actions or goals, it was criticism of their background - the crime was being a Jew and the loose conspiracy accusations leveled against all Jews because they're Jews. In my opinion, any and all articles which target indiscriminatly all members of a group based on ethnicity, rather than on specific actions or status, is simple bashing and has no meritorious content and could be deleted (or proscribed) on the simple grounds of being hate speech. It isn't political speech, aside from it being the hate politics of white supremacists, and I see no reason Freedom4um *must* provide such hate-mongers with yet another outlet for their bile. I favor free political speech, dissent against the mainstream media and political establishment, and a restoration of constitutional government and conservative values. But I am opposed to all racism and hate speech without regard to target. Hating the Jew for being a Jew is just as wrong as hating a black for being black or hating a muslim for being a muslim...etc. As acknowledged above, while our constitution protects hate speech, our constitutional values are *not* to foster racist hatred of any given ethnic group. We recognize the right of forum owners to censor pornography from Freedom4um, but that is free speech as well. And the forum does not tolerate someone exercising their free speech rights to post pornography. And well they shouldn,'t. I'm glad they don't. But that same judgment call and ownership right exercised against pornography can be made against "hate speech" as well. This forum to me is like a "newstand" or a gathering place to discuss events, business, politics, even religion with like or even dissimilar points of view. It started with a lot more balance than is evident at present. It has noticibly changed and increasingly is racist in content. Do I have a right to demand that such views not be published? Of course not. Do I have a right to demand the forum revert to what it was when it started, or that such views not be posted here? Of course not. Do I have a right to not have "hate speech" pushed in my face? I think so, especially in light of mechanisms that permit it to be separated, much like pornogrpahy is covered and separated from otherwise disinterested consumers. Not suprisingly, such a move is met with accusations of trampling the constitution, knuckling under to the Jew power structure and the Illuminati and the RNC and ...whatever the kook conspiracy theory du jour happens to be. But aside from censoring "incite to violence" if no other line is drawn anywhere to separate even the most extreme hate speech from political dissent, where will the forum lead? If nothing is deemed too racist and hateful, if everything merits discussion, what distinguishes Freedom4um from Stormfront? Why would a rational thoughtful person avoid Stormfront and yet post on Freedom4um only to see the same content? None of us object to a course being steered toward free political dissent or even dissent in general. But there are many of us who would welcome a course correction away from the growing racism we all see. It is bad enough wading through the interforum wars, profanity and kook conspiracy theories, but the incessant racism (from some posters) puts it over the top. We have already lost some posters who choose to not associate with a forum that frequently appears to be a platform for racist hate speech. I say 'appears' because while I know that was not the original intent, the frequency of such articles being posted and the number of comments they draw stands out (both in view and in memory) from other news worthy articles. And the number of newsworthy articles and comments diminishes as the posters who are put off by racism depart. As they depart, the remaining posters exercise their tolerance or even proclivity to post further racist hate speech, and overtime the overall appearance of the forum shifts from news and discussion to hate speech. The solution proposed then (as the bozo filter was deemed inapporpriate) was simply a recategorization of the "hate speech" articles to " Israel/Zionism". I think that is a reasonable compromise that seems to satisfy the various viewpoints as I understand them. I would even suggest a couple further refinements: At present, it has not been explained what belongs in "Israel/ Zionism" and so one would assume it would be any and all articles discussing Israel/ Zionism both legitimate as well as 'hate speech', which to me seems overkill in that most of the articles posted about Israel/Zionism are not what I would consider hate speech and not in need of recategorization, but more problematic, the broad category doesn't separate the legitimate from the hate speech. There are many articles posted about Israel or even Zionism, many of which I can understand and accept the complaints of the authors while a few I might care to dispute the historical facts. But it would seem this one category would lump together these news reports or editorials which generally are not objectionable, with the occasional "hate speech" article I don't care to see. I think that is true for others as well. The objection is not against all or most articles about Israel/Zionism, but just against the few that seem to have no purpose other than to bash Jews for being Jewish (and in the future to bash Mexicans for being Mexican, Indian's for being Indian, etc. but all of them being not- White). So, standard news reports and editorials about Israel/Zionism could continue to be posted in the normal News, War, etc categories, so as to continue to give them maximum exposure to the entire forum and perhaps change the category name to "Bait'n n Bash'n" :) - that name alone explains a lot - " Ethnic Issues", or some such, and ostensibly the purpose of this category would be as follows: Articles that now belong in "Bait'n n Bash'n" ["Ethnic Issues" or whatever] are those that express a biased editorial opinion (as opposed to factual research), pro or con (to be fair), predominantly generalizing: As an example, the following threads (as explained for each) might then be moved to "Bait'n n Bash'n": The Biological Puzzle of Jewish Behavior.(editorialize about being Jewish) (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Are you living in Canada? Germany? Israel? You use the term 'hate speech' as if
it's a statute. Please, my friend, we’re doing all we can to keep that vile
form of PC away from these shores - we hardly need someone like you so willing
to concede it already exists. Why not simply walk past articles and posters
that bother you, or don't conform to your belief system? Why do you feel the
need to define other POV as ’hate’. If we’re going down that path, what I see
coming from you is censorship. If the compromise Christine and Zip put
together doesn’t satisfy you, I suggest it’s you who has the problem, not us.
Perhaps 4 is too free for you.
Are you a rapture monkey?
Thank you for your clarity and your courage.
Are you a rapture monkey?
You really don't want to hear from me, Flintlock. Play nice.
Sure I do. Now answer the question, are you a rapture monkey?
Say what? He's
labeling speech as 'hate speech.' These are the words of an Abe Foxman, or some
other censor. But thanks for the input. It's best to know where people stand on
issues, and you clearly have stepped out of the closet.
I would like to do just that. I'm not asking they be removed. I'm only asking that the filter solution actually work. I'm sure you understand the holes in the bozo filter regarding "content", Neil and Christine do. And I'm confident you also understand my view that most articles about Israel/ Zionism (as well as nearly all articles posted on F4) are worth my reading. And so I believe you therefore understand how filtering out the entire Israel/ Zionism category is overkill. Consequently you seem to implicitly accept the approach of moving Israel/Zionism articles into their own category, so why do not accept moving far, far fewer articles into an even narrower category? You seem to have accepted categorization as a solution. Why disagree with categorizing only those articles which raise objections? You seem to recognize that it isn't censorship. The articles aren't being removed. rather a means is being discussed as to how best permit their precise filtering, a filtering everyone seems to advocate. What would be the point in implementing a solution that is both overkill and doesn't solve the problem? The "need" to be precise in the definition is so to commmunicate to others what precisely ought to be filtereed so as to avoid overkill. And I wasn't so imprecise as to merely define all other points of view as hate, did I. No, I was quite specific. But, what problem do you have in categorizing as hate those articles that express a biased baseless opinion that targets entire groups as racially inferior or superior, or guilty of conspiracies by racial background, merely based on their race? We categorize everything else on F4, why not racial hatred?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I have heavy weather approaching and I'm about to loose my uplink. I'll be back later.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Those who would group everyone of any color, sex, nationality, or whatever or identifiable label into the same subset of individuals is weak-minded. There are more differences between any subset of a group than there are between the sets themselves - thanks for allowing me to go back to eight grade algebra for that one. My criteria are, is it good or is it evil?...is it true or is it false? It just keeps it simpler for me these days. Do continue your discussion, please.
There are more differences between any subset of a group than there are between the sets themselves - thanks for allowing me to go back to eight grade algebra for that one. My criteria are, is it good or is it evil?...is it true or is it false? It just keeps it simpler for me these days. Do continue your discussion, please. One question.. do you think that there are any groups that do depict themselves in one way or another ..if by any group or subset of a group, that do have a likeminded agenda?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
It just keeps it simpler for me these days. Sounds good to me, thanks for keeping it clear and concise.
.. I was thinking of groups like La Raza..
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Absolutely - most every group does their level best to appeal to whomever their target audience may be - it's PR, adverstising, spin, whatever you want to call it, and the same applies to any identifiable group of folks whether social, political, or religious - everyone pimps their point of view and tries to sell it. Some have honorable intents, and others may not...we have to look at the fruit of their actions, and not the promises of their words, imo.
I believe the "anatomically correct" term for them would be "assholes"
"If you're not cynical, then you're not paying attention."
True some do ..some dont...thanks.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
LOL!
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I'm sure you
understand the holes in the bozo filter regarding "content", Neil and
Christine do. Gee, here's an idea starwind. Why not fire
off a healthy check to christine or zip and let them bring in an IT consultant
so they can get this filter thing to your liking? Here's some advice. Your
mixing of an odd sect of Christianity & politics seems to produce this
disgusting desire to censor. I have every right to hate, people places and
things. To date it isn't a crime. Should enough folks like you achieve
political power, I'm sure it will be. IMHO, your request has already had a
chilling effect on the forum. Earlier today I wanted to post this article -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/25/world/main711454.shtml - but I
didn't know which pigeon hole to put it in. Thanks chum. Lord knows I wouldn't
want to offend anyone...
Recently, several members have expressed concerns about what they consider to be “hate” speech having been posted on freedom4um. Certain types of content both from posted articles and members’ replies have been criticized as offensive and worthy of censorship. The primary “hot button” is that of the Israel/Jewish/Zionism topic. This subject has proven to evoke strong opinions, reactive language, and emotional invective often from otherwise rational, logical, and reasonable posters. It appears to be the most divisive of all of the issues debated on the various political forums. From time to time at freedom4um I have observed the banishment of very few posters, after it became obvious that they were “disrupters,” whose mission was to debase and ultimately destroy the forum itself. This is quite different than censoring certain topics. I favor a forum where all topics are open for discussion and debate, as long as the language used does not personally threaten someone, does not advocate violence, or does not in some way threaten the continued existence of the forum -- and that can only be determined by the owner of the forum whose private property is at risk. Note, however, it is the language and “conduct” of the poster, not the topic that generally creates the problem. Serious debate using language and conduct that is appropriate should be welcomed and not censored. Members can post any type of evidence available to discredit another poster or to refute that poster’s “facts.” That is the recommended method for debate, rather than censoring a specific topic, even if some find it offensive. I am in favor of free speech. Hate speech is free speech. Political speech is free speech. Inaccurate, biased, or opinionated speech is free speech. If certain types of content are to be censored or banished, then who gets to decide? Each and every one of us has biases. All opinions are biased. Even conclusions based on sound, peer-reviewed research are biased. Let’s acknowledge that. The problem arises when we start allowing one member’s bias to be posted while censoring another member’s bias. Let all posters’ words speak for themselves. If they’re obnoxious, offensive, or hateful, they will be seen for what they are. Their stated facts, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions should be open for challenge, but should not be censored. Remember that the Mission Statement notices all members that this forum is private property. Those who do not agree with the forum’s policies, and who wish to have certain types of subject matter censored, are free to eschew this forum altogether. Alternatively, for those who want to avoid reading what they consider to be offending material, but do not wish to leave the forum, there is another option. The addition of the three new categories to the Content Filter will allow censorship on an individual rather than on a forum basis. In addition, the Bozo Filter allows for individual censorship of specific members. With the availability of these 2 features a member would have to make a deliberate effort to be offended by subject matter or posters. As such, I view efforts to censor certain topics on a forum basis, as authoritarian in nature and an attempt to abolish free speech. The problem with the suggestion of narrowing a category into sub-categories such as “hate speech,” “bait’n & bash’n,” etc is that this further classification system is, in-and-of-itself, a type of forum censorship. It requires someone, admittedly with biased opinions, to decide what subject matter goes into what sub-category. This methodology is burdensome and could create new types of arguments, for example, over the classification system itself. I do not see this as a viable solution. I suggest, rather than creating an onerous classification system, that each member use the Content Filter or Bozo Filter to individually censor, once you have become offended. Or, alternatively, leave the site if it becomes overly upsetting to you.
Yep, it's really that simple. Hate is a valid emotion given the assault we're under. In fact, I think we need more hate directed at those who deserve it, not less. That said, without a free flow of information and discussion we'll never know the truth. Filters and pigeonholes be damned. This free speech isn’t going to last forever, thanks to the ptb. Lets keep the light on till they pull the plug.
Good post, Jethro. Yes, we have every right to "hate." We can like, love, or hate different types of food, different color carpets, different types of movies, certain people, certain cultures, certain forms of government, ad nauseum. This is called having PREFERENCES -- and in a truly free society, we should be able to have and express whatever preferences we desire. It is not the expression of preferences (e.g. likes-&-dislikes, loves-&-hates) that is the problem. The problem arises only when our conduct trespasses onto someone else's right to their life, liberty, and property. PERIOD. I believe that it is impossible for an individual to be a racist. Yes, I said that. An individual can only express a preference. "Racism" is institutionalized oppression by government, or the power structure, designed to favor one individual or group at the expense of another individual or group. As long as you do not violate another's equal right to his/her life, liberty, or property, it does not matter if you dislike or hate. That is your preference and it is called FREEDOM. It has become obvious to me that most people do not understand nor want true freedom. That is probably why the masses have rarely experienced real freedom throughout history.
Good for you. The word racist is a contrived pejorative tossed about by the liberty censors in an effort to stifle free thought and speech. Unfortunately, the sheeple have been conditioned to cower when the word is hurled at them. With that degree of control, is it any wonder people remain mute as they are taxed out of their homes and businesses? Enough timidity. If we can’t openly communicate, it’s time to fold the tent.
That's the real problem. We that want real freedom are always struggling for it, while the sheeple just want a comfortable existence until they're slaughtered.
You articulated perfectly my position on the matter. This is exactly what would happen. We'd all be arguing about what posts belong in the "Bash'n n Bait'n" category and we'd be right back to square one. I'm not willing to be burdened with that responsibility when I have biases of my own and I certainly don't want to be Freedom4um's nanny. I don't think there's a person here who would appreciate that. I don't feel that any further "pigeonholing," categorization, or control is necessary. Darn, I'm feeling oppressed already!
Absolutely couldnt agree more. And thanks Bill for the input. Absolutely summed up my thoughts on this matter..
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Here's Starwind: In my opinion, "hate speech" is any article wherein the object is to criticize, deride, or otherwise bash some person or group not based on what they have said or done (behavior or actions) but based on their genetic, racial or ethnic background (makeup or appearance). There seems to be the implicit assumption here among many that "free speech" is the highest good, more important than any other good, and that "censorship" is the greatest evil, more base than any other. I'm exaggerating to make a point but the point, I think, is valid. Just because you (plural, generally) have heard it over and over, again and again, from the pols and the media (is there not a little self-interest there?) and professoriate that "free speech" must not in any way be diminished does not make it true. The owners of this forum have every right to "take out the trash" in order simply to keep the place clean. Judgement and maturity are required, in addition to a healthy dose of common sense and everyone's not going to be happy. So what? To exaggerate once again, if someone comes into my home and spits on the floor, I throw him out, in spite of his professed right of "free spitting". Now, throw your rocks.
What problem do you have in not simply skipping by such articles? Is that a problem for YOU? Turn the channel, so to speak. Or, better yet, try analyzing and taking to task articles that are IN YOUR OWN VIEW biased, baseless opinion. You can argue on the merits and substance, yes? Are you afraid you may find that some of these articles and opinions are not so baseless? After all, isn't that the essence of a politcal forum such as this--the give and take of polical discourse? I guess it needs to be remembered that biased and baseless is in the eyes of the beholder. I also know that the absent a full discussion on the merits and substance of an issue or arguement, the declaration of "biased and baseless" is a true sign of intellectual bankruptcy--a tacit admission of being on the illogical and unreasonable side--a short hop to the gratuitous name calling. But to some that is the objective--the avoidance of a free and open discussion on the merits and substance on particular issues and topics. It is SOP at many internet forums. No so, it appears, here.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
Well said, If I don't wish to read a particular article, I skip past it. Heck - sometimes I even read it even if I do not have anything to add. How can you learn things unless you study BOTH sides of an issue?
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
No rocks, here. I agree. Even if "free spitting" is a right, that right does NOT extend to your private property. Throw him out!
I assume that in this case "spitting on the floor" means posting ideas that conflict with your fantasy rapture monkey theology. This forum is as much mine as it is yours and I say you are spitting on my floor.
Thanks, Zip!
That's very true. And if an article or subject offends anyone, as some offend me, don't read that article. Then post articles you wish to discuss.
Yep!
That's so damn logical, it will probably be missed by many.
Night all. Good conversation and input!
Hate speech, as thus defined, may have a basis in reality. The criticism is invalid only if the former (what they have said or done) has nothing to do with the latter (genetic, racial, or ethnic background.) Correlation, of course, does not equal cause (though I think Hume had the right of cause and effect), but (to paraphrase Shockley), allows statistically valid estimates, objective and/or particular to a value system, to be made by the pragmatic man on the street. Furthermore, the fine-grained sorting and classification required by willfully ignoring "genetic,racial, or ethnic background", has costs.
I assume you are talking about groups. Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster. But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. I don't do that whether it's positive or negative (an individual from a favored group might still be a dumbass). So to me on the street a panhandler is a panhandler but a black person is a person. On this forum we are not on the street so posting facts about groups is ok although I will always try to do fact checking.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
Mature, balanced and fair. Kudos. The standard is always truth. Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.
Zionists agitprop agents will advocate some degree of
censorship or repression of their opponents and/or critics. This may include a
very active campaign to keep opponents from access to public forums, as in the
case of blacklisting, banning or "quarantining" dissident spokespersons. They
may actually lobby for forum policies against posting articles they deem
offensive, or banning forum members who post forbidden information. In each
case the goal is some kind of information control. They would prefer that you
listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges
their views.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Your opinion, of course, and for the most part, I agree, as I try very hard to judge people on an individual basis rather than collectively. The fact remains, however, that people have the right to post such articles here on 4 (and hold that view no matter who is offended by it), just as you and anyone else has the right to disagree/rebut/refute/criticize/discredit it should they choose.
Exactly.. We're adult enough to realize that if there's a serial killer loose, it's probably a white guy. A knocked over liquor store? That could be a black man, etc. For anything beyond this, you just have to accept that people are smart enough to know who posts what material and basically just trust people to weigh it and come to the proper conclusion for themselves. We do this every day with a wide variety of issues. I don't believe for a minute that most people aren't smart enough to be objective when it comes to Israel, Palestine and the Mideast.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
I think that much of the
consternation from those who argue against comparing entire goups of people on
any variable is misguided. Most research is accomplished in this manner by
statistically comparing group means (averages). For example, would it be
incorrect or racist if I said that National Basketball Association (NBA)
players have a higher verticle jump than do non-NBA players, or than do PGA
Golfers, or professional tennis players, or Olympic swimmers? It is a fact that
the NBA is made up of about 75-80% blacks, whereas golfers and swimmers are
predominately white. So, is this group comparison "racist"? It certainly
exposes and highlights the group differences. This group comparison does
not even begin to suggest that the results can be interpreted to mean that
every single NBA player has a higher verticle jump than every non-NBA player.
Certainly there can be more intra-group variability than inter-group
variability on many measures. But that reality does not negate or invalidate
observable and measurable group differences. Most research is accomplished
by measuring some variable and then comparing the values of the group means
(averages). If researchers did not do this, there would be very little
scientific research. Admittedly, it is okay to compare group differences.
It is also true that some variables are more difficult to measure precisely or
to measure at all than are other variables. Does that mean that these variables
(or issues) should be precluded from public discussion? We all know that any
individual within a group may be vastly different from the group norm. So
should this fact stifle discussion about possible group differences? If the
answer is yes, then we need to shut down discussions of 99% of the so- called
scientific research. Extending this reasoning, it is my opinion that
discussions and debates about group differences is valid and even necessary in
our search for truths. These debates should not be stifled or censored in any
way and those who engage in them should be entitled to their exercise of free
speech.
Excellent point.. and there are those that would do and have done exactly that, shut down discussions on the sciences.. PC has hit the scientific community as well.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
That line defeats the point of the classification. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. Maybe so. In my experience most people that profess such scruples so carefully arrange their lives that the cognitive dissonance fades into the background noise. But even Jesse Jackson was relieved once to find that the sounds of footsteps behind him were not being made by a group of young black men. It would be particularly foolish for me to try to follow your rule. I am of Irish descent; my father, grandfather, and one of my uncles are alcoholics. In consideration of these facts I choose to drink very little.
People need to get over being so damn sensitive. I'm a mixture, like almost everyone else. I'm pimarily Cherokee,Swede and German and yes...even some Jew. I've been called lots of names. You know what? I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says. That's just their opinion. If somebody says crap about Indians I don't care and the same with any other origins of my blood line. I don't give a shit about the stereo-types. I hate censorship and everyone has the right to their opinions whether I agree or not. If I don't like it,I just ignore it like many others have already said. Tribal fighting has always been human nature and nothing will change that, no matter how many laws are passed or people 'offended.' If I offended anyone with what I said...I don't give a shit so don't start balling to me about it.
Absolutely. It is the ruling elite class that funds much of the scientific research. Does anyone believe that the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, is going to fund research showing that civilizations have always prospered when using a freely chosen gold/silver/substance standard of money in comparison to when using an imposed fiat currency (legal tender) standard? The politicians, major media, academia, and even ecclesiastical entities have failed to escape the control of the elite money changers.
Come on. The issue has never been about the legitimate examples you cite and you know it. The issue is about whether it is legitimate to argue "Whites" are better than "Jews", or "all Jews are manipulating the world". No one has denied or asked that anyone be denied their right to post or publish. The request was to implement a way so that those of us who didn't want to read racist hate articles could "bozo" such. And everyone agreed bozo'ing or category filtering was the solution. But that solution doesn't actually work, now does it. As an experiment, bozo the author of the top article (whatever it is) on the "latest menu" and you'll see the article itself (as posted by the bozo'd author) is still displayed. Likewise being pinged to an article in an otherwise filtered category. Likewise opening any article (unawares as to its content) in any category. The point I made above, in view of these current limitations on the bozo/ category filtering tehcnology, was simply to narrow the categorization to actual racist hate speech. Nor more, no less. No one's right to post or publish has been infringed or even suggested. No one complains that their articles go into filterable categories now, so why complain about one more category? Why insist that, in absence of any other solution, those who don't care to read what we find offensive have a way to not have it pushed in front of us, at work or at home? Why does a request for a filter (that everyone advocates be used) be fixed so it actually works keep getting recast as a demand for censorship?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
very good points you made. preferences and awareness of DIFFERENCES is key to survival and, again, we must be FREE to be able to say so.
The politicians, major media, academia, and even ecclesiastical entities have failed to escape the control of the elite money changers. Exactly!! Follow the money.. there are sciences that have been either decried as not valid or changed due to political pressure.. such as psychology as you no doubt are probably well aware ..
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Can you show me an example of a poster here arguing that whites are superior to Jews? And that Jews control the world?
Sometimes it is untrue only in the sense that the statement "Ants love candy dropped by children" is untrue. Some ants cultivate fungus. The untruth might be resolved with the simple word "most". Would the inclusion of that word suffice? Note that most subjects of discussion are not held to a standard this high.
outstanding!
(sigh) avoiding the specific article (and the thread) is what is desired, not the poster himself. See my post #63
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
~chuckle~
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Are you then saying that the category "immigration" should be put into the new
category you have suggested?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
And my argument is, "Who gets to decide what is a legitimate argument and what is not? You? Me? Christine? Or some other biased person? We are ALL biased! So rather than have a biased individual or group start categorizing and sub- categorizing content, ad nauseum, in an effort to pre-determine what types of speech may or may not offend you, along with each and every individual poster or reader of this forum, maybe it would be better to just refrain from stifling, censoring, or categorizing and let a poster make a fool of himself or post valid observations, whichever the case may be. Otherwise, those who are upset by reading certain types of materials, may be better served to move elsewhere, rather than dictate the format and policies for use of someone else's private property; not to mention the added expense and burden of implementing your proposed system. BTW, have you donated any funds to help the owners pay the webmaster for the additional funds that will be needed to organize their website to your liking? I believe that the rest of your concerns were addressed in posts #82, 84, 87, and 105.
It's your forum and thus your call, Christine. I would not permit lies, bigotry or personal attacks. I would be wrong from time-to-time but would not get too exercised over it. In February 2004, JimRob would not permit anyone to post who might promote voting Democrat against GWB. I said "Goodbye". JimRob currently will not permit Justin Raimondo to be posted on his website. I think he goes too far but it's his website and his call. I agree with him insofar as he attempts to keep "a clean house" (no spitting on the floor).
Indeed, I am well aware.
Now how do you propose we do that? "...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Here is an interesting letter exchange to clarify the point: 1. From: Lanny Cotler to Joh I am a Jew who is totally against the Israeli occupation. Why assert anything about Jews in general? Any generality you might make would not, could not, accurately describe me. So what's the purpose, except to stir up emotions that do not broaden, but narrow, people's mind? 2. From Joh to Lanny, Contrary to what you suggest, we make general remarks about people all the time, even negative ones; Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Christians anyone. What is more, Jews make negative remarks about people in general constantly. So what is the beef about making general remarks about Jews? Why do you personalize it? Is this not taking a 'narrow' view of things? Far from 'narrowing' peoples' minds, the non-pejorative term is 'focus'. Focus is of course a powerful tool, and it is understandable that it be delegitimised in order to keep people on the straight and narrow track. If Jews were not so narrow-minded about anti-Semitism, we could pick the guilty bastards off one at a time. So, in a way, talk of 'narrow-minds' is an insult to our intelligence. You ask, why not call them 'chauvinists' instead of 'Philo-Semites'? Because I could not give two figs about chauvinists. 'Chauvinists', generally, are not planning to bomb an entire group of people - Philo-Semites are. Nor is it 'bigots', 'racists', 'imperialists' and whatever other cover may be put on it, 'philo-Semites' are the culprits. 3. From JTR: I had a similar argument with this very same Lanny Cotler online somewhere a year or two ago. With him and so many others, I learned that it is a colossal waste of time to try and educate him and his many clones. It is impossible to cure anyone of self-delusion. Cotler's bottom line is "Anything you say about 'Jews' will be a generalization and therefore you are forbidden from saying it." This 'generalisation ban' is an integral part of Jewish Stealth technology. Without some ability to generalise, we can't answer even an innocent question, say, how many apples are there on the desk? Otherwise, you will be answered: these apples are all different, and can't be counted. In order to count, you have to generalise. No political discourse is possible without generalisations. And people generalise without difficulty. For instance, the declaration Not In Our Name signed by a Rothschild and Rabbi Lerner, among others, claims that "The Bush government seeks to impose a narrow, intolerant, and political form of Christian Fundamentalism as government policy. It aims to strip women of their reproductive rights, to drive gay people from public life back into the closet etc". Is this generalisation? Yes, and a rather misleading one; among Christian Fundamentalists one can find Pastor Charles Carlson and his movement We Hold These Truths/Strait Gate Ministries, a great enemy of the Bush administration. Pastor Chuck supports the people of Palestine and Iraq in their defensive war against Israel and America; he is also against abortions. Joh Domingo correctly replied that " . . .the entire idea of singling out right wing Christians is intolerant in itself. Is it extreme to want to outlaw abortion, suppress the imposition of homosexual values and argue that there is scientific value to spiritual experience? That is intolerance in my mind, and a direct denunciation of any alternative worldview; dismissal even. In short, it is a sign of a bigoted mind." Well, but so what? One can argue against this generalisation until one is blue in the face, but I bet these guys won't dignify your objection with their reply. The ban on generalisation applies to Jews only, and only to negative assessments: you can write about wonderful Jews day and night, and no Lanny Cotler will waste your time with his objections. Ha! That's a great idea! Let's make a law against lying. Then to start with, we could rid ourselves of all the politicians and attorneys! Uh oh, did I just disparage an entire group? Can you come up with a subcategory for me to place this post? ;)
Great idea. YOU can pay to have everyone take a polygraph prior to posting. Or should the owners of 4um fund your fantasy?
Christine, and/or Zipporah, and/or whomever they choose to delegate. It's their forum and I'll accept their honest judgement. You keep pretending that my desire to avoid what someone else has already posted, somehow stifles their freedom to post. But then if they've already posted it, their freedom has been in no way stifled, now has it. Further, if others can set their filters (as they do now) to make it visible, their freedom to view it has in no way been stifled either, now has it. I believe the customary response at this point is "so bozo me if you don't want to read what I post". Comment was solicited. I wasn't the only one rasing the concern about how to avoid such content. I didn't propose, let alone dictate, the solution either, I'm only pointing out, upon specific request to me, what doesn't work about it. I'm only pointing out how what everyone thinks works, in fact doesn't work, and rebuting accusations of attempts to censor when the articles would continue to be posted and viewed, as they are now. You are mistaken.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I didn't say your job was easy. It can be done but perfection can't be the standard. We are, after all, only human ...
Great. They've already decided. They don't want to be
burdened with the added expense and onerous task of sub-categorizing content.
They've already stated that sub-categorizing will open up a new set (and sub-
set) of arguments over what category the content or post should be placed in.
End of discussion, huh?
Now.. if you filter all categories that somehow could be offensive to you, then is that not the solution?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
How about if we let you review everything before it goes up? This seems to be the solution that you're groping for. If you don't want to see something, bozo it. Otherwise you're being a thread nanny trying to control what the other people see. This is not a popular position.
Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends. :P
Not interested. I've got a life.
ROFL! Kinda like the daily affirmation? "Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggonit, people like me!" "I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am attractive person. I am fun to be with."
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I'm glad we're having this dialogue on open forum as I wanted input to your ideas and suggestions from everyone. So far, the concensus is that further categorization is not desired and that this has the potential to create more dissention and discord in the forum. However, I remain open to the points of view of any other members who wish to weigh in.
Too funny......and what a great idea. I'm going to start doing that, too.
Really? It seems a large part of your life is looking over the shoulders of posters, observing what you deem acceptable content. It's stuff for the Blue hair crowd.
Then what have you been yapping about for the past five days. Simple solution: If something offends you, don't read it. If someone else reads it, it's none of your business.
Anything from her can be placed in the "Rantings of a
Rapture Rodent" category. Would the inclusion of that word suffice? No. The Israel Uber Alles crowd will settle for no less than full-blown censorship, calling any mention of Israel/Jews in less-than-glowing terms, lies, spitting on the floor, racism, etc. They say they don't advocate censorship, but their circular arguments always end up back at the same place, demanding that posters be banned and the "offending" material removed and/or not allowed at all. It worked out wonderfully for Retard Central (FU), it's for the good of the forum, don'tcha know? I would suggest that posters that don't like the content of the forum go ahead and opus and call us all anti-Semites, and just get it over with. Better yet, they could opus from the country, putting their mouth where my tax dollars are being sent to, and move to Israel. They're sure not needed here.
LOL!!
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
WOW....Good one!
Yep, TBL rants, palo adds a comment and Todd doesn't answer. That's app. 50% of the forum content, give or take a few posts. The destroyers of FU did well....
Yeah, and maybe they're looking in to see what true FREE SPEECH is. Outstanding post, Esso.
Fine by me. Always would have been. But as long as I was asked, don't expect me to blow smoke. Fine. Then at least put an end to the fantasy that filtering is the solution, that I'm dictating your forum management, and that I'm trying to censor posters. If you ask me my opinion, don't be surprised when you get it, and please don't recast it into "demands".
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I've done some testing on the bozo filtering and I do need to revisit it. Starwind is correct in some of these filtering holes. The bozo filter apparently is not working in the title box, but the category filter is. Both filters work on the LC page, but not the Latest Article page (which I'm guessing Starwind meant). It does not work on the headlines page, though that page is not visited much so it's not been much of a priority overall. I am seeing that bozo'd posters are never displayed on the LC page so I don't understand the last item. One difficult programming decision is what should happen if you have a category filtered, but then get pinged from a non-bozo in that category. Should you not see the ping because it's in a filtered category, or should the ping from the non-bozo take precedence over the category filter? And again what if a ping list you're subscribed to is used on a filtered category? Should the subscription ping or the category filter take precedence? Some might want to get the ping, some might not. Perhaps what should happen is the LC page should warn the user that they've been pinged to a filtered category (?) I could have the preference be indicated on the user setup page, but that might make things a little complicated for many to understand. There are other filtering options I've thought of which could help. One would be an "Ignore Thread" feature where if you see one particular thread you don't like that perhaps is generating dozens or hundreds of posts (and dominating the LC page), you can filter out that particular thread for perhaps 1 week. Another possible option is a Title Word filter where you give list of words on your setup page. If any of those words appear in the title of a thread, it's bozod. (I.e. "Jews" or "Zionism"). But yes, Starwind is correct that the present filtering is not doing everything it should be doing. I'll turn my attention to that in the coming days.
Outstanding play-by-play analysis. You should be a sports announcer -- missed your calling.
Plain talk like that is what we need. It's not just Todd.. At the risk of offending some people, I'll just say it out loud: Regardles of the free speech claims, "Anti-semitic" (Whatever that means now) material has, at times, met with a sub-zero response there. The Zio-Censors can count the havoc they caused on FU as, at least, a partial victory.. While Todd's quickly taking of what remains. :(
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Good grief, Neil. This filtering and categorizing stuff is complex, cumbersome, and expensive -- all so some overly sensitive soul won't become offended and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from having laid eyes on some text.
Wasn't this post originally called "3 New Catagories" ? Now is titled "Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!" Could the "critisiums" or "comments" sent to Neil, Chrissy, or Zip be posted here (not revealing who made them)?
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Kind of like what she went through when she found out there was no Santa Clause
Book recommendation: Thinking About Social Thinking
Ha! A new career, eh? I’m actually working on one presently. It’s called vagabond.
Yes, I changed the title last night as I wanted to encourage comment by all members. The criticisms and comments are being posted here now as per my invitation to do so.
Perhaps, but at minimum, the existing filters should function as advertised. No debating that.
But then again, Jethro, what do you know? Post your petty, snide remarks to someone who's interested.
So true. The place has a mole in a key position. The place is NTBT (not to be trusted).
What about the complaints? Is it too "exposing" to reveal them to make a level playing field for debate?
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
We're done now, crack, thanks.
Provided a decision is made at some point to further refine the filters, I'd suggest just simplfying this mess and taking the patron at their word. When they de-select options, I'd say that puts the onus on them.. The ball is in their court. You choose "NO, I don't want to see that" just filter everything. Member Pings, Subscription pings, all of it. It would seem simpler to implement from the programmers point of view, and.. if you leave a loophole here then, IMVHO, you can expect a whole new thread complaining about it at some point in the future. Hyper-sensitive patrons who never wish to miss a ping, probably shouldn't be de- selecting categories to begin with.. Should they?
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
I think this "debate" then has been very productive.
Same thing.
I've heard you're already a vagabond virtuoso.
The *proper* response to "hate speech" is additional speech, engaging the person and winning a debate. A loser's tactic is censorship. Of course, there is always the "If you don't like what you're reading, don't read it." The First Amendment very nearly requires "hate speech" to be responded to with additional speech exposing the "hate speech" for what it is and challenging its author/speaker to defend it. Its a nicely self-policing system when used as originally intended.
There's been allot of speculation about that.. I know I saw something from a PM show up elsewhere, once. I like Bret, personally.. and I like FU. But to say it doesn't have some very real issues that remain completely unaddressed would be dishonest.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Thank you.....and very well stated.
I would too, but those are people that I have zero interaction with and it would be in DC where there are clear crime statistics pointing to more risk. It's not completely analytical obviously it's partly visceral, but I try to be more analytical once I have some interaction. On an anonymous crime-free forum it does not matter one iota what the race of any poster is. Unless they wear it on their sleeve. I choose to drink very little. If you told me you were Irish and didn't mention the alcoholic disposition of that race, I would assume nothing. But maybe that's just inexperience. Or too much experience, my GF died an alcoholic and my dad was borderline, but I drink in a few social situations without any problem.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
Ahhhh..... I see I struck bone. Ouch!
Personal attacks will not go endlessly unanswered, Jethro. Play nice.
I would just add that standard deviations are important as well. Some group with a lower IQ (for example) may have a greater range of IQ's than the overall population. Add in cultural tendencies and physical differences and you end up with musical geniuses or perhaps even basketball geniuses.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
Sounds very Randian.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
Indeed. A standard deviation is one of the primary statistical standards used to compare (analyze) group mean differences.
Yes, the bozo'd comment/article post is not listed on the LC page, but if one clicks on the article itself (via either the "Latest menu" or headlines page, or a ping, the body of the anchor article itself even though posted by a bozo'd poster, appears in full text (unlike a bozo'd comment). The anchor article body is not filtered the same as a comment. And a post (unsolicited and undesired) from a bozo'd poster to [me] (I'm in the recipient list) shows up in my search of posts "to [me]".
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
A loser's tactic is censorship. Of course, there is always the "If you don't like what you're reading, don't read it." The First Amendment very nearly requires "hate speech" to be responded to with additional speech exposing the "hate speech" for what it is and challenging its author/speaker to defend it. Its a nicely self-policing system when used as originally intended. Ideally, in a perfect world, yes. But we don't live in a perfect world. Though the ideals shouldn't be abandoned and should be targeted, there are practical limits to what any of us are willing to listen too, myself included.
The censors are always on the attack. An equitable solution was provided, and a day later it's not enough. The scary part is, many groups like the ADL won't stop at Christine censoring the forum. Only tight government control with an Orwellian enforcement arm will suffice. Then christine will have to answer to govt investigators. That is where censorship leads. And Americans will be comfortable about it, because citizens were censoring for years on their own because of coercion. Not 1 inch should be given on this issue. These censors assign rights to spec int minority groups, while removing them from individuals. Talk about a 1-2 punch, eh? Those groups gain power and we lose it, all in one move.
Yawn. The same innane respose I get everytime I point out something that you would prefer to keep under wraps. You're starting to sound like a broken record.
you are right,it's the net and if someone does not want to be offended, then skip over the content that offends you. You can't escape the forum insult factor here anyway. If I wanted to, I could ping "Shitwind" or "Buttcrack Monkey" (no insult intended). Whats to prevent you from seeing that? A ping filter? How? You would have to know in advance what someone was going to post.
"that meatball?" "Meatball with gravy, Val!"
The founders gave each individual a robust set of individual rights that protect us from tyranny. Why do the censors want to remove some of these after they have worked for hundreds of years? Think about the magnitude of this change. It will represent the end of freedom when enforced by the fed govt (hate crime laws). All to benefit special interest groups- especially Jewish groups. So, groups are being given rights that make sure indivs can't speak about them in certain negative terms. The indiv loses his 1st amendment rights, for what? To give groups deemed special by the govt more power than they already have? Why should we? Hate crime laws give groups rights. Minorities segregate themselves into groups Yet they claim that groups cannot even exist. Can't have it both ways. They define themselves as groups to take full advantage of our now collectivist sytem, but when analyzed as a group they say the group doesn't exist. Bottom line- they are groups and groups cannot have rights. When groups have rights and our full set of indiv rights is stripped from us, it leaves us vulnerable to tyranny from groups and the govt.
[Comment Pulled]
I read that earlier today, awesome article.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
After reading the thread, I see my last comments were a little off topic. The initial attempt was to change the content here, by censorhip. That was still on my mind, being a very important matter to me.
His righteous indignation is well deserved, but he could have left out this part.: "Having a President on the payroll of the family of the man who killed 3,000 plus Americans on September 11, 2001, raises a very real concern that Bush’s illegal and immoral actions are a lot more than just politics as usual."
The future is so bright I got to wear shades.
I didn't see it posted anywhere,
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..."
Hey! It's my old buddy Willie. Tell me Willie, what's the best part about
being a dimwitted bot & neocon stooge? Is it the buy-one-get-one-free dates
with Gannon or the ability to breathe with your head up your ass?
willie green = sharkfin (now i'm a jane fonda clone)
I feel bad that I swore at Willie but there are and will be heavy consequences of our actions overseas. We can no longer be arrogant and pretend that nothing is happening. Some people are on some sort of groove that this is a good idea. If it is a good idea then they need to state specifically in what way this has benefitted the United States. I am sure he will be hard pressed to explain this to a person who has lost a loved one in Iraq. For what it is worth I know a family that lost their 20 year old son in Iraq. They will never get over it. This boy was born on Christmas Day, from here on out the family will spend depressing holidays coping with his tragic loss.
Some people are on some sort of groove that this is a good idea. If it is a good idea then they need to state specifically in what way this has benefitted the United States. I am sure he will be hard pressed to explain this to a person who has lost a loved one in Iraq. For what it is worth I know a family that lost their 20 year old son in Iraq. They will never get over it. This boy was born on Christmas Day, from here on out the family will spend depressing holidays coping with his tragic loss. No need to apologize.. for this is a very emotional topic.. its SO easy for these arm chair warriors to make judgements about the COLLATERAL DAMAGE ..HEY it's war.. so what's the big deal? Well it is a big deal.. I lost a close family member to war.. and it never leaves you.. And Americans are losing young men and some young women and now middle aged men.. which is horrible but what of the Iraqis.. the innocent ones? They lose children.. babies.. they lose sons and daughters.. mothers.. sisters.. they SEE their families blown to pieces.. we see them MAYBE nicely tucked away in a coffin.. they see the pieces of their children on their walls and on the streets.. they see the suffering until their family members die.. of course the arm chair warriors dont care or perhaps they dont think that far outside their little worlds...for afterall its only collateral damage.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I can never get over looking at the image of 12 year old Ali who lost both his arms and legs in a bombing raid. That boy NEVER did anything to me or anyone else in the United States.
Right.. why do you think the administration keeps those photos out of the sight of the common American? IF most would see them, they'd see the inhumanity of all this.. and then they'd have to face the people.. one thing they dont want.. isnt a controlled media great?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I think the wheels are gonna come off when the sheeple see the effects of Depleted Uranium..I think that sh!t is gonna come home..
I read an article .. I'll see if I can find it .. I didnt post it.. it is saying that the soldiers who've developed brain cancer.. is due to .. sarin gas exposure.. which of course probably not the case even within the article it was reported that cancer is not a side effect of sarin exposure.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Actually I saw that. But I think when people come back from Iraq they are 'contagious' so to speak.
Well, given that argument, since most of Islam sees Bush as a madman, he likewise deserves to die in their eyes. And if they do manage to kill him, it's as justified as our capture and caging of Saddam. Right?
Sure seems so.
LOL! You too? Actually, I give Willie higher marks than Sharkfin. He makes a coherent arguement and he get's his point across. He's just a big grump, mostly.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Lady X posted on 2005-07-26 18:44:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply According to neo con "logic", we had to kill him because he might become a terrorist one day. You know, the "better to fight them over there than over here". As you may have noticed this justifies any killings anywhere. From Willie's comments, I suspect he is in agreement with this. Of course, like all such logic, it only applies one way. For example to say that the Pentagon is not a legitimate target, and that the 9-11 attack was mass murder, yet the destruction of non combatants in Iraq is merely collaterial damage.
You obviously are biased towards your own opinions. Seek medical attention immediately.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
And don't foreget that Saddam Hussein is responsible for 94% of tooth decay. Wasn't that on Fox News as well?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
Of course. But having been around this scene a little while, any thinking person realizes that most forums are a grouping of like minded people. NRA - people who support gun rights Free Republic - people who support conservatism and the various candidates Natural herb site - people who use nature to treat common problems Now, I could go on but I think you get the point. If someone was to go the NRA site and start promoting gun confiscation they would suffer your view of "fascist" treatment and rightfully so IMHO. If someone was to go to Free Republic and start discussing how socialism would be the best thing since sliced bread. Then, guess what? Yes, they would suffer the same fascism you feel a victim of. Look, I could go on but the reality of these forums is to share knowledge of events and things the group is interested in. A lot of it seems to be preaching to the choir but it is a great resource for those of us with similar philosophies. The bottom line is the core members of this group are here because they feel our government no longer works for us. They also feel the constitution should be strictly followed. They don't believe in socialism and support the right own guns. Now if you have a philosophy that differs greatly from the above then you will find conflict here. Because theses people (the core) have strong enough convictions that they will try to open the eyes of what we all view as sheep when their philosophy differs greatly or have bought into the government BS. You may not like it but guess what, that's reality. Not a tough thing to grasp. But test it out....Got the Earth first forum and start a thread about how wonderful it would be to open up logging to be unlimited. I bet they will attack you in the same way you feel you are attacked here. Sometimes a little reality slap is needed and this banter back and forth of the loons who seem to feel this site is something it is not got under my craw and felt like it they needed a little instruction.
The future is so bright I got to wear shades.
Ping.....
The future is so bright I got to wear shades.
ping..
The future is so bright I got to wear shades.
The Anti-Semitic Kooks are starting to make me miss BadEye.
Liberty Post -- it's only a click away. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi- bin/latestcomments.cgi Take Starwind and Pheadrus with you.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
Go post on Clown Posse. You'll fit right in with your closed-mindedness. You can rant about anti Zionism 24/7.
lol - free speech as long as you hate the right groups, otherwise take it elsewhere.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
...since most of Well the readers of 4 can do something very simple to ascertain which side is telling the truth. Read for yourself and then draw your own conclusions. NUKE THE RAG-HEADS There, that make you feel better?
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
"a" goes before the "e", Bud -- at least spell my name right if you're going to abuse me. LOL
Not a chance, your mother was a hard act to follow.
The religion of some here affects their judgement- they have to be shills. They won't acknowledge 1 point in any of your links. That's how you know they're fanatics.
I'm amazed how many people answer to the title "Anti-Semitic Kook". Hell, is other people. Some more than others.
Take Starwind and Phaedrus with you.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
And the horse you rode in on, Flintlock.
My horse rode in on your mother.
It's a keyboard--not a horse. Idiot. And why are you still here?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
You too, Idiot.
All mouth, no class.
Detail, exactly and specifically, the benefits to America and Americans from the American-Israeli relationship.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
100% braindead rapture rodent Remember: The Lord hates a fool, and you're as big as they come.
Ever since I was called that for opposing public funding for Kiryas Joel free school.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
You were not treated honestly or fairly, but I doubt I need to tell you that. Opposing public funding of projects that benefit Jews certainly does not make one Anti-semitic.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I know, that's what I've been trying to tell everyone. Everyone seems to agree. Why am I still labelled a kook?
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Where were you labeled a kook?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) You say "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news". Jews discount, discredit and mock Jesus Christ as the one and true son of God, yes??? Are YOU, therefore, being anti-semitic with that statement about Jesus Christ?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
I thought I was automatic kook for being against Iraq war. I see people with political beliefs similar to my midwestern libertarianism called kooks all the time, on every sort of website imaginable. Cool!
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Blame it on the public school system. They don't spend near enough time differentiating between kooks, circus freaks, and carnys. I guess that's why people keep getting us mixed-up.
That's right, always listen to cab drivers no matter what.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Not entirely, no. Some Jews do, some don't. Christ Himself is a Jew, so is Paul, so are most of the Apostles. Are they anti-semitic in their agreement that Jesus Christ as the one and true son of God?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Well, the evidence is in, and it appears the kooks are the ones who started the war.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Rapture Monkey / Zionist kooks? You with me so far?...
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Too much 'short hand'...you lost me now... explain please?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Would you feel more comfortable if I abandoned "Zionist" in favor of "Lansky Syndicate"?
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Put simply, I believe a radical pro-Israel syndicate has managed to grab hold of power no country in their right mind would grant.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
You're just using phrases I don't, and so I'm not sure what you mean. So, "Lansky Syndicate" went over my head also.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
If you have a position, state it. If you would like my response to that position, request it. You are not in a position to require of me that I respond to or justify anything to you.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Well in Israel that is not surprising but to be expected. In the US, yes the administration is pro-Israel, but I don't believe to the exclusion of all else, ie they're not "Israel-firsters", IMO. They're not terribly bright people (aside from domestic political intrigue) in exceedingly complex situtations, acting on typical motivations of fame, power, greed, ego... and they make a lot of bad decisions, some that favor Israel, some that don't.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Remember: The Lord hates a fool, and you're as big as they come. Yes, bullseye, all mouth and no class. You can call names. Can you think? Is name calling your sole contribution here? Well, you're Bozo'd, Bozo.
Smooch it, rapture rodent. With all due respect, I think you are full of squirrel crap if you believe that a bunch of idiotic cowboys are able to trash the ENTIRE WESTERN TRADITION, not to mention putting a huge strain on National Guard recruiters, without some sudden kink in the revenue stream were it some rogue hatchet boobery.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
But I didn't say there won't be economic consequences. You wouldn't know it because you don't know my posting history or viewpoints, but suffice it to say I've been arguing (preaching to the choir where the unUsual Suspects are concerned) that the US economy was headed for depression and in fact if measured by unadjusted economic indicators as used even 10 years ago, we never really climbed out of the last recession. And a large part of that is the deficit spending by the current administration & congress and the inflating of the money supply by the Federal Reserve under Greenspan. But the support to Israel, even the Iraq war, is a small percentage of those fiscal and monetary mistakes. Yes, Bush & Co, are cowboys, but the've had the complicit help of congress and the Federal Reserve and the world's other central banks. Did they trash the 'entire western tradition'? Well in some sense yes they have. But my point was "They're not terribly bright people (aside from domestic political intrigue) in exceedingly complex situtations, acting on typical motivations of fame, power, greed, ego... and they make a lot of bad decisions, some that favor Israel, some that don't.", and I don't see where your argument has contradicted me. It is complex, and they're not too bright and Israel didn't benefit from everything and the billions spent directly and indirectly on Israel is miniscule compared to the trillions that got misspent on everything else.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
You have to understand, I'm hateful about every cent stolen from my pocket that doesn't in some way benefit me. A million times so when my money is used against me.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
I agree entirely. The billion here and there that Israel does get is big bucks to you and I, and especially insulting when our own citizenry is hurting, our institutions crumbling, and Israel is selling our technology to the Chinese (assuming it wasn't trojan horse technology). But saying any of that doesn't make either of us anti-semitic kooks.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
You must have never run across "languid" on LP.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
If you have a position, state it. If you would like my response to that position, request it. You are not in a position to require of me that I respond to or justify anything to you. Pretty please. With sugar on top.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
Thanks for asking, I believe you want to know, and I will ignore the tone. I've had this lifelong "problem with authority" and I don't deal well with personal attacks, as is probably obvious. First, I agree with almost all or all of what Starwind has to say above, and second, I voted for Pogo, not George Bush, which should give you some idea where I stand politically -- I am Joe Sobran's "Reluctant Anarchist". Third, I am one of the "UnUsual Suspects" referred to by Starwind, although the quality of thought there may make me as much a camp follower as a contributor. I am pro-Israel but not thoughtlessly so and I am not their dupe. I am sympathetic to their 2,000-year plight and respectful of Jewish contributions to Western Science and Civilization. I am also pro-Christian but not formally Christian and you will thus not hear me arguing based upon the Bible. You won't find anything in my posts that contradicts any of this. Much of what America has done overseas over the past Century has been with the best of intent. We have not been empire-building, for example. What other nation would conquer a country, Iraq, then leave (hopefully, eventually). We are a great nation because, among other reasons, we have a track record of doing the right thing. That tradition if you will is itself justification for our support of Israel. But that support should not be blind or thoughtless. My initial opposition to the posted article was because it is anti-semitic. By that I mean there is a class of weak, twisted people who look for others to blame for their own sensed inadequacy or apparent misfortune. And there are those craven leaders who would scapegoat minorities to make themselves dictators, preying on these weaknesses. The Jews have been the "chosen people" for 2,000 in this sense. I believe we must not remain mute in the face of what I would consider to be such evil. I am concerned for our future. I believe we are on the cusp of economic times, and thus social times, so difficult as to be unimaginable to the almost all of those who are alive today. I may be wrong but while obviously thinking not, I'm hoping so. Great personal strength will be required to cope with the times and strength of character will be needed for us to avoid disintegrating into social chaos and blaming, and killing, the blacks or Jews or Muslims or whites or whomever. Overstated, but the point is there. Well, this is without a doubt more than you bargained for, but it is a fair representation of where I'm coming from.
Meant to thank you for your compliment, much appreciated.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
You're welcome ... The Reluctant Anarchist
Oh, yeah. You seem to have dealt this personal attack on Zoroaster with ease. #3. To: Arator, christine (#1) This is sick stuff. Like bad money driving out good, if 4um allows this sort of bigoted, twisted anti-Jew stuff to proliferate, the sickos will come and the good people will leave. An observation ... and a forecast, for what they are worth. Phaedrus posted on 2005-07-23 09:26:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply I could just imagine your repsonse should the posted article concerned Islam or Muslims: you either would not have responded OR poured on the accolades and agreement. Oy. And as to: "Detail, exactly and specifically, the benefits to America and Americans from the American-Israeli relationship." Your post could not have any more of a NON-answer.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
It was not against Zoroaster, it was in agreement with Arator's point that the National Vanguard (the source) was publishing sick stuff. See The Biological Puzzle of Jewish Behavior Not against Zoroaster, but against National Vanguard.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#2. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#1)
All is Vanity?????
#3. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#1)
#4. To: christine (#3)
"All is Vanity" is for vanity/personal posts including blog screeds and "Author! Author!" is for the writers/journalists among us.
#5. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#1)
#6. To: christine, Zipporah, Arator (#3)
Tanks a bunch - Can I post one line vanities???
#7. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#6)
Tanks a bunch - Can I post one line vanities???
#8. To: Zipporah (#7)
HEY ... you can blog away ..
#9. To: All (#8)
#10. To: christine, CAPPSMADNESS, Zipporah (#0)
"Israel/Zionism"
#11. To: Arator (#10)
#12. To: Astoria, AdamSelene, Arete, aristeides, Barak, Bayonne, Bill D Berger, Brian S, BTP Holdings, Burkeman1, Coral Snake, Dakmar, David, DeaconBenjamin, Diana, doclady, 1776, Dream, Bub, Dude Lebowksi, Dukie, D_Joyce, Elliott Jackalope, Eoghan, Esso, fatidic (#0)
#13. To: Ferret Mike, Flintlock, forester, FormerLurker, Fred Mertz, gengis gandhi, griper, Grumble Jones, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, headsonpikes, historian1944, honway, HOUNDDAWG, imawit, Indrid Cold, itisa1mosttoolate, Japedo, Jen, Jethro Tull, Jhoffa_, justlurking (#0)
#14. To: Kamala, Lady X, LeCroupier, lightmind, Littlelisa, lodwick, LostBody, markm0722, mars attack, Matt Giwer, Mekons4, mennyiben, mirage, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, MUDDOG, Neil McIver, NOLAJBS, OKCSubmariner, okisok, Old Fud, orangedog, Pissed Off Janitor, PnbC (#0)
#15. To: christine (#12)
#16. To: purpleman, Rabble Rouser, rachel, rack42, range, rattler, Red Jones, Refinersfire, RickyJ, RidinShotgun, robin, robnoel, Rothbard, rustyrale, Sam Houston, scooter, siagiah, SKYDRIFTER, Soda Pop, sojourner, soren, sourcery, Starwind, Steppenwolf, Tauzero (#0)
#17. To: Bayonne (#15)
#18. To: christine (#13)
#19. To: christine (#14)
#20. To: swarthyguy, Tet, The Green Goblin, timetobuildaboat, toddbrendanfahey, robin, tom007, TommyTheMadArtist, Critter, u-89, Uncle Bill, wakeup, wbales, who knows what evil, willyone, Yertle Turtle, Zoroaster, ALL (#0)
#21. To: christine (#0)
#22. To: Bayonne (#19)
The new Bozo filter may not be enough for the poster who called
for censorship. He likes to control
#23. To: Jethro Tull, all (#22)
email joke:
#24. To: Bayonne (#19)
#25. To: crack monkey, Axenolith (#0)
#26. To: lodwick (#23)
#27. To: lodwick, Christine, Dakmar (#21)
Very kind and accommodating of you guys for those among us who cannot read words and ideas that may differ from our beliefs without suffering heart palpations; and then running, crying, to the forum owners for relief instead of simply moving on to the next topic that might interest them.
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#28. To: christine (#16)
#29. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#18)
"et's start a catagory for who gets hauled off to the Gulog"
#30. To: wakeup (#29)
#31. To: Bayonne, Christine, Zipporah (#19)
The new Bozo filter may not be enough for the poster who called for censorship.
#32. To: lodwick (#23)
#33. To: Bayonne (#19)
The new Bozo filter may not be enough for the poster who called for censorship.
#34. To: Bayonne, christine (#19)
The new Bozo filter may not be enough for the poster who called for censorship. He likes to control, and he wants noone to be able to post about his special group. He probably will not use the Bozo because he is driven to see the posts he wants to control. He acts like an agent of Israel, and feels a misplaced responsibility to defend Israel. Because he feels that Jews are oppressed by people like us in the 'aggressor' Marxist group. He is defending what he perceives to be the victim group, rooting for the underdog, so to speak.
#35. To: Phaedrus (#34)
....how can you possibly know any of this?
#36. To: Phaedrus (#34)
LOL ... how can you possibly know any of this?
Thanks, Christine.
#37. To: crack monkey (#35)
How did you know they were talking about you?
#38. To: Jhoffa_, Christine (#36)
#39. To: Phaedrus (#34)
#40. To: Phaedrus (#38)
Whatever ... I didn't appear here to start or finish a fight.
#41. To: Jhoffa_ (#32)
#42. To: Jhoffa_ (#40)
#43. To: lodwick (#41)
Does anything suck much harder than "Bill-Paying Day"?
#44. To: lodwick (#41)
#45. To: Phaedrus (#42)
#46. To: christine (#39)
What are you talking about, Phaedrus? You and I have never corresponded privately and everything you have communicated regarding your feelings has been right on open forum! Ask Bayonne who he's referring to. I don't know. I can only assume just as you have!
#47. To: Phaedrus (#46)
#48. To: all (#22)
Bingo! Some of these gutless wonders think 'hate speech' is alive and well here in the states.
#49. To: christine, Zipporah, All (#0)
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#50. To: Jhoffa_ (#44)
Taxes
#51. To: Bayonne (#48)
Think of how are politicians serve groups and not individuals.
#52. To: Phaedrus (#34)
#53. To: Jhoffa_, christine, Phaedrus (#36)
First, it's the "anti-semitic" stuff that has to be banned.. Ostensibly because it's offensive and hurts the site.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me."
#54. To: Bayonne, robin, *Israeli Espionage* (#19)
The new Bozo filter may not be enough for the poster who called for censorship.
The information that shows our fellow Americans what has happened to this great nation of ours and how it happened and that identifies the pernicious and persistent 5th column that has executed a plan that goes back into, at the very least, the 1880s.
Nothing, repeat, nothing will satisfy those who attack 4 save the complete and utter censoring of information that exposes their crimes and their plans.
Unless, and until, 4 capitulates totally to the Jewish Lobby it will know no peace.
Aragorn : [In Elvish] Show them no mercy... for you shall receive none!
#55. To: 1776 (#54)
In effect it is the ghettoization of information that profoundly affects the future of our nation.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#56. To: robin, 1776, ALL (#55)
#57. To: christine (#56)
Each poster, I'm sure, has identified other posters whose ideology and posting style they find offensive. Should the posts of these individuals overlap into other categories, then the bozo filter can be utilized.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#58. To: robin (#57)
#59. To: Dakmar (#58)
I'll have to try harder.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#60. To: Phaedrus, crack monkey (#37)
How did you know they were talking about you?
#61. To: Bayonne, Eoghan, Diana (#48)
There is a constant campaign of conditioning against individuals in the majority in our media- to instill guilt, reinforce certain govt powered groups as perpetual victims, and cement the majority as predatory and aggressive in its relationships with the victim groups.
Prof. Dr. Werner Pfeifenberger, who was heavily persecuted in Germany and Austria for his revisionist views and who was finally driven to suicide, stated the following:
#62. To: tom007 (#60)
I thought they were talking about me!
#63. To: christine, all, *unUsual Suspects* (#16)
"Wherever any significant community of Whites begins to see the world well enough to understand why we must not race-mix, the Jews know the jig is up for them."
No, this was simple "white supremacist" Jew bashing. I am a middle aged white American male, a "mutt" for racial purposes. This was not directed against me or against my friends or even a cause I support. It was just one person expressing his hatred of another ethnic group because of who they are and the author's conspiracy fantasies about their control over his life.
(list to be amended as needed)
THE SEVEN jEWISH BANKING FAMILIES WHO OWN THE PRIVATE 'FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING CORPORATION (unsubstantiated conspiracy by Jews)
One More Hate Letter (racial superiority or inferiority)
#64. To: Starwind (#63)
#65. To: Starwind (#63)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#66. To: Starwind (#63)
#67. To: Phaedrus (#66)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#68. To: Flintlock (#67)
#69. To: Phaedrus (#68)
You really don't want to hear from me, Flintlock.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#70. To: Phaedrus (#66)
clarity and your courage.
#71. To: Jethro Tull (#64)
Why not simply walk past articles and posters that bother you, or don't conform to your belief system?
Why do you feel the need to define other POV as 'hate'. If we're going down that path, what I see coming from you is censorship.
#72. To: All (#71)
#73. To: Starwind, Flint, Ph, whoever else cares (#63)
Starwind makes some excellent points here.
#74. To: lodwick (#73)
Those who would group everyone of any color, sex, nationality, or whatever or identifiable label into the same subset of individuals is weak-minded.
#75. To: lodwick (#73)
My criteria are, is it good or is it evil?...is it true or is it false?
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#76. To: robin, lodwick (#75)
#77. To: Zipporah (#74)
One question.. do you think that there are any groups that do depict themselves in one way or another ..if by any group or subset of a group, that do have a likeminded agenda?
#78. To: Zipporah (#76)
.. I was thinking of groups like La Raza..
#79. To: lodwick (#77)
#80. To: orangedog (#78)
#81. To: Starwind (#71)
I would like to do just that. I'm not asking they be removed.
I'm only asking that the filter solution actually work.
#82. To: Jethro Tull, All (#64)
#83. To: Freedom William (#82)
I suggest, rather than creating an onerous classification system, that each member use the Content Filter or Bozo Filter to individually censor, once you have become offended. Or, alternatively, leave the site if it becomes overly upsetting to you.
#84. To: Jethro Tull (#81)
#85. To: Freedom William (#84)
I believe that it is impossible for an individual to be a racist.
#86. To: Freedom William (#84)
It has become obvious to me that most people do not understand nor want true freedom.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#87. To: Freedom William, Zipporah, All (#82)
The problem with the suggestion of narrowing a category into sub-categories such as “hate speech,” “bait’n & bash’n,” etc is that this further classification system is, in-and-of-itself, a type of forum censorship. It requires someone, admittedly with biased opinions, to decide what subject matter goes into what sub-category. This methodology is burdensome and could create new types of arguments, for example, over the classification system itself. I do not see this as a viable solution. I suggest, rather than creating an onerous classification system, that each member use the Content Filter or Bozo Filter to individually censor, once you have become offended. Or, alternatively, leave the site if it becomes overly upsetting to you.
#88. To: christine, Freedom William (#87)
#89. To: Freedom William, Starwind, All (#82)
#90. To: Starwind, Zoraoster, christine, Zipporah (#71)
But, what problem do you have in categorizing as hate those articles that express a biased baseless opinion that targets entire groups as racially inferior or superior, or guilty of conspiracies by racial background, merely based on their race?
#91. To: wbales (#90)
#92. To: Phaedrus (#89)
To exaggerate once again, if someone comes into my home and spits on the floor, I throw him out, in spite of his professed right of "free spitting".
#93. To: Phaedrus (#89)
if someone comes into my home and spits on the floor.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#94. To: Zipporah (#88)
#95. To: Freedom William, All (#82)
Note, however, it is the language and “conduct” of the poster, not the topic that generally creates the problem.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#96. To: Flintlock (#86)
#97. To: robin (#95)
"...if an article or subject offends anyone, as some offend me, don't read that article. Then post articles you wish to discuss..."
#98. To: all (#97)
#99. To: Starwind (#63)
In my opinion, "hate speech" is any article wherein the object is to criticize, deride, or otherwise bash some person or group not based on what they have said or done (behavior or actions) but based on their genetic, racial or ethnic background (makeup or appearance).
The Roman Emperors American people could have any single bureaucrat killed removed from office, but ultimately they required the cooperation of the bureaucracy in order to rule.
#100. To: Tauzero (#99)
statistically valid estimates, objective and/or particular to a value system, to be made by the pragmatic man on the street.
#101. To: purpleman (#100)
Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster. But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. I don't do that whether it's positive or negative (an individual from a favored group might still be a dumbass).
#102. To: CAPPSMADNESS, wbales, Freedom William, Flintlock, robin, Jethro Tull, Tauzero, purpleman (#91)
Well said, If I don't wish to read a particular article, I skip
past it. Heck - sometimes I even read it even if I do not have anything to add.
How can you learn things unless you study BOTH sides of an issue?
#103. To: Phaedrus, Tauzero, purpleman, Starwind (#101)
Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.
#104. To: purpleman (#100)
I assume you are talking about groups. Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster.
#105. To: Phaedrus, Tauzero, purpleman, Arete, robin, Diana, Zipporah, Jethro Tull, Neil McIver, Zoroaster, 1776, Eoghan, BTP Holdings, gengis gandhi, Arator, wbales, Starwind, Flintlock, All (#101)
The standard is always truth. Any article or post that slurs a
whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual
exceptions, sometimes glaring.
#106. To: Freedom William (#105)
It is also true that some variables are more difficult to measure precisely or to measure at all than are other variables. Does that mean that these variables (or issues) should be precluded from public discussion? We all know that any individual within a group may be vastly different from the group norm. So should this fact stifle discussion about possible group differences? If the answer is yes, then we need to shut down discussions of 99% of the so- called scientific research.
#107. To: purpleman (#100)
But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line.
The Roman Emperors American people could have any single bureaucrat killed removed from office, but ultimately they required the cooperation of the bureaucracy in order to rule.
#108. To: all (#104)
#109. To: Zipporah (#106)
PC has hit the scientific community as well.
#110. To: Freedom William (#105)
Extending this reasoning, it is my opinion that discussions and debates about group differences is valid and even necessary in our search for truths.
These debates should not be stifled or censored in any way and those who engage in them should be entitled to their exercise of free speech.
#111. To: Tauzero (#107)
But even Jesse Jackson was relieved once to find that the sounds of footsteps behind him were not being made by a group of young black men.
#112. To: Freedom William (#109)
Absolutely. It is the ruling elite class that funds much of the scientific research. Does anyone believe that the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, is going to fund research showing that civilizations have always prospered when using a freely chosen gold/silver/substance standard of money in comparison to when using an imposed fiat currency (legal tender) standard?
#113. To: Starwind (#110)
The issue is about whether it is legitimate to argue "Whites" are better than "Jews", or "all Jews are manipulating the world".
#114. To: Phaedrus (#101)
Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.
The Roman Emperors American people could have any single bureaucrat killed removed from office, but ultimately they required the cooperation of the bureaucracy in order to rule.
#115. To: Freedom William, lodwick (#105)
#116. To: Bayonne (#113)
Can you show me an example of a poster here arguing that whites are superior to Jews? And that Jews control the world?
#117. To: Tauzero (#114)
Note that most subjects of discussion are not held to a standard this high.
#118. To: Starwind (#116)
#119. To: Starwind (#110)
The issue has never been about the legitimate examples you cite and you know it. The issue is about whether it is legitimate to argue "Whites" are better than "Jews", or "all Jews are manipulating the world".
#120. To: christine (#103)
Your opinion, of course, and for the most part, I agree, as I try very hard to judge people on an individual basis rather than collectively. The fact remains, however, that people have the right to post such articles here on 4 (and hold that view no matter who is offended by it), just as you and anyone else has the right to disagree/rebut/refute/criticize/discredit it should they choose.
#121. To: Zipporah (#112)
#122. To: Phaedrus (#120)
would not permit lies, bigotry or personal attacks.
#123. To: Bayonne (#113)
The Jewish responses were expectable and they could be summed by one line: "You can't say anything valid about Jews because we all are different". Probably you have encountered this line. Without recognising it, the responders actually give you the Paradox of Zeno. This Greek philosopher 'proved' that Paris did not kill Achilles: at every chosen moment, the arrow of Paris was in a certain point of space, thus it did not move and couldn't kill. There is a branch of mathematics called Integral Analysis that helps to deal with the paradox and proves what we know anyway: while an arrow rests at every chosen moment, it actually moves and kills. Likewise Jews: while being different they are perfectly able to act in unison.
#124. To: All (#123)
#125. To: Phaedrus (#120)
I would not permit lies,
#126. To: Phaedrus (#120)
I would not permit lies, bigotry or personal attacks.
#127. To: Freedom William (#119)
And my argument is, "Who gets to decide what is a legitimate argument and what is not? You? Me? Christine?
maybe it would be better to just refrain from stifling, censoring, or categorizing and let a poster make a fool of himself or post valid observations, whichever the case may be.
Otherwise, those who are upset by reading certain types of materials, may be better served to move elsewhere,
rather than dictate the format and policies for use of someone else's private property; not to mention the added expense and burden of implementing your proposed system.
I believe that the rest of your concerns were addressed in posts #82, 84, 87, and 105.
#128. To: christine (#125)
Ha! That's a great idea! Let's make a law against lying. Then to start with, we could rid ourselves of all the politicians and attorneys! Uh oh, did I just disparage an entire group? Can you come up with a subcategory for me to place this post? ;)
#129. To: Starwind (#127)
Christine, and/or Zipporah, and/or whomever they choose to
delegate. It's their forum and I'll accept their honest judgement.
#130. To: Starwind (#127)
#131. To: Phaedrus (#128)
I didn't say your job was easy. It can be done but perfection can't be the standard. We are, after all, only human ...
#132. To: Zipporah, christine (#130)
#133. To: crack monkey (#131)
How about if we let you review everything before it goes up?
#134. To: 1776 (#132)
Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends.
#135. To: Starwind (#127)
#136. To: 1776 (#132)
Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends.
#137. To: Phaedrus (#133)
Not interested. I've got a life.
#138. To: Phaedrus (#133)
Not interested.
#139. To: christine (#125)
Can you come up with a subcategory for me to place this post? ;)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#140. To: Tauzero (#114)
The untruth might be resolved with the simple word "most".
#141. To: Jethro Tull (#137)
It's stuff for the Blue hair crowd.
#142. To: Esso (#140)
#143. To: Esso (#140)
It worked out wonderfully for Retard Central (FU), it's for the good of the forum, don'tcha know?
#144. To: Esso (#140)
It worked out wonderfully for Retard Central (FU), it's for the good of the forum, don'tcha know?
#145. To: christine, Freedom William (#135)
Freedom William: They've already decided. They don't want to be burdened with the added expense and onerous task of sub-categorizing content. They've already stated that sub-categorizing will open up a new set (and sub- set) of arguments over what category the content or post should be placed in. End of discussion, huh?
Christine: So far, the concensus is that further categorization is not desired and that this has the potential to create more dissention and discord in the forum.
#146. To: Starwind, christine, Zipporah, All, *Pinguinite Software* (#63)
As it is, the bozo filter does not filter articles on the "Latest" menu, the latest comments page, the headlines page, and doesn't even filter pings from bozo'd posters.
#147. To: Jethro Tull (#143)
#148. To: Esso (#140)
I would suggest that posters that don't like the content of the forum go ahead and opus and call us all anti-Semites, and just get it over with. Better yet, they could opus from the country, putting their mouth where my tax dollars are being sent to, and move to Israel.
The IF crowd hates clean and non-parsed speech, they flee truth like a vampire does a Cross.
#149. To: Jethro Tull (#143)
#150. To: Neil McIver (#146)
#151. To: christine (#13)
Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!
#152. To: Freedom William (#150)
all so some overly sensitive soul won't become offended and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from having laid eyes on some text.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#153. To: christine, All (#111)
The Roman Emperors American people could have any single bureaucrat killed removed from office, but ultimately they required the cooperation of the bureaucracy in order to rule.
#154. To: Freedom William (#147)
#155. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#151)
#156. To: Freedom William (#150)
Good grief, Neil. This filtering and categorizing stuff is complex, cumbersome, and expensive -- all so some overly sensitive soul won't become offended and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from having laid eyes on some text.
#157. To: Jethro Tull (#137)
Really? It seems a large part of your life is looking over the shoulders of posters, observing what you deem acceptable content. It's stuff for the Blue hair crowd.
#158. To: Jhoffa_, unamused, Ross (#149)
The Zio-Censors can count the havoc they caused on FU as, at least, a partial victory..
#159. To: christine (#155)
#160. To: crack monkey (#138)
#161. To: Neil McIver (#146)
One difficult programming decision is what should happen if you have a category filtered, but then get pinged from a non-bozo in that category. Should you not see the ping because it's in a filtered category, or should the ping from the non-bozo take precedence over the category filter? And again what if a ping list you're subscribed to is used on a filtered category? Should the subscription ping or the category filter take precedence?
#162. To: Neil McIver, Starwind, All (#156)
Perhaps, but at minimum, the existing filters should function as advertised. No debating that.
#163. To: Flintlock (#152)
Kind of like what she went through when she found out there was no Santa Clause
#164. To: Jethro Tull (#154)
Ha! A new career, eh? I’m actually working on one presently. It’s called vagabond.
#165. To: Freedom William, Starwind (#82)
#166. To: Jethro Tull (#158)
The place has a mole in a key position.
#167. To: mirage (#165)
#168. To: Tauzero (#107)
But even Jesse Jackson was relieved once to find that the sounds of footsteps behind him were not being made by a group of young black men.
#169. To: Phaedrus (#157)
Post your petty, snide remarks to someone who's interested.
#170. To: Jethro Tull (#169)
Ahhhh..... I see I struck bone. Ouch!
#171. To: Freedom William (#105)
Most research is accomplished by measuring some variable and then comparing the values of the group means (averages).
#172. To: christine (#111)
preferences and awareness of DIFFERENCES is key to survival
#173. To: purpleman (#171)
#174. To: Neil McIver (#146)
I am seeing that bozo'd posters are never displayed on the LC page so I don't understand the last item.
#175. To: mirage (#165)
The *proper* response to "hate speech" is additional speech, engaging the person and winning a debate.
#176. To: Freedom William (#129)
End of discussion, huh?
#177. To: Phaedrus (#160)
We're done now, crack, thanks.
#178. To: crack monkey (#177)
#179. To: christine (#155)
#180. To: Neil McIver, christine, lodwick, Jethro Tull (#175)
#181. To: Willie Green (#180)
#182. To: christine (#162)
#183. To: Willie Green, ALL Awsome article (#180)
Thanks Willie. I couldn't have said it better. We have to invite this guy over.
#184. To: Jethro Tull (#183)
Thanks Willie. I couldn't have said it better. We have to invite this guy over.
#185. To: Dakmar, Jethro Tull (#181)
I read that earlier today, awesome article.
and I gotta admit, I'm hesitant to post it myself.
I generally have a favorable impression of Doug Thompson from "back in the good old days".
But this is by far the most invective rant I've seen him author.
#186. To: Bayonne (#176)
#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)
#227. To: Willie Green (#214)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#228. To: Jhoffa_ (#224)
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.
#229. To: Zipporah, Freedom William, christine, robin, Willie Green (#226)
#230. To: Lady X (#229)
I feel bad that I swore at Willie but there are and will be heavy consequences of our actions overseas. We can no longer be arrogant and pretend that nothing is happening.
#231. To: Zipporah (#230)
#232. To: Lady X (#231)
#233. To: Zipporah (#232)
#234. To: Lady X (#233)
#235. To: Zipporah (#234)
#236. To: Willie Green (#194)
Saddam was a malicious SOB who deserves to die, no matter what reason Dubya uses.
#237. To: christine (#217)
willie's another sharkfin--you know, kill all the GD "ragheads."
#238. To: christine (#228)
(now i'm a jane fonda clone)
#239. To: Lady X, zipporah, diana, willie green (#231)
That boy NEVER did anything to me or anyone else in the United States.
#240. To: 1776 (#132)
Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends.
#241. 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.
#242. To: gengis gandhi (#193)
demanding everyone else conform to your dictates is infantile and absurd.
#243. To: Jhoffa_, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, 1776, Bayonne (#204)
#244. To: Flintlock (#227)
#245. To: Starwind (#63)
#246. To: AdamSelene (#245)
The Anti-Semitic Kooks are starting to make me miss BadEye.
#247. To: AdamSelene (#245)
#248. To: AdamSelene (#245)
#249. To: Jethro Tull (#236)
Islam the discovered universe sees Bush as a madman...
#250. To: wbales, robin, Bayonne, Eoghan, zoroaster (#246)
#251. To: AdamSelene (#245)
#252. To: wbales (#246)
Take Starwind and Pheadrus with you.
#253. To: Phaedrus, Dakmar, wbales (#252)
if you're going to abuse me.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#254. To: 1776 (#250)
#255. To: AdamSelene (#245)
#256. To: Starwind (#248)
#257. To: AdamSelene (#245)
#258. To: Flintlock (#253)
#259. To: Phaedrus (#258)
And the horse you rode in on, Flintlock.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#260. To: Phaedrus (#258)
And the horse you rode in on, Flintlock.
#261. To: wbales (#260)
#262. To: Flintlock (#259)
#263. To: Phaedrus (#262)
#264. To: Phaedrus (#262)
All mouth, no class.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#265. To: AdamSelene, robin, Zipporah, christine, 1776, Eoghan, Zoroaster, BTP Holdings, wbales, tom007 (#256)
I'm amazed how many people answer to the title "Anti-Semitic Kook".
#266. To: Dakmar (#265)
>> Ever since I was called that [Anti-Semitic Kook] for opposing public funding for Kiryas Joel free school.
#267. To: Starwind (#266)
#268. To: Dakmar (#267)
Why am I still labelled a kook?
#269. To: Starwind (#266)
Opposing public funding of projects that benefit Jews certainly does not make one Anti-semitic.
#270. To: Starwind (#268)
Where were you labeled a kook?
#271. To: Dakmar (#267)
Why am I still labelled a kook?
#272. To: Esso (#271)
#273. To: wbales (#269)
Jews discount, discredit and mock Jesus Christ as the one and true son of God, yes???
#274. To: Dakmar (#270)
I thought I was automatic kook for being against Iraq war.
#275. To: Starwind (#274)
Well, the evidence is in, and it appears the kooks are the ones who started the war.
#276. To: Dakmar (#275)
Rapture Monkey / Zionist kooks? You with me so far?...
#277. To: Starwind (#274)
#278. To: Starwind (#276)
Too much 'short hand'...you lost me now... explain please?
#279. To: Dakmar (#277)
#280. To: wbales (#263)
Detail, exactly and specifically, the benefits to America and Americans from the American-Israeli relationship.
#281. To: Starwind (#279)
#282. To: Dakmar (#278)
I believe a radical pro-Israel syndicate has managed to grab hold of power no country in their right mind would grant.
#283. To: Flintlock (#264)
100% braindead rapture rodent
#284. To: Phaedrus (#283)
Well, you're Bozo'd, Bozo.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#285. To: Starwind (#282)
They're not terribly bright people (aside from domestic political intrigue) in exceedingly complex situtations, acting on typical motivations of fame, power, greed, ego... and they make a lot of bad decisions, some that favor Israel, some that don't.
#286. To: Dakmar (#285)
that a bunch of idiotic cowboys are able to trash the ENTIRE WESTERN TRADITION, not to mention putting a huge strain on National Guard recruiters, without some sudden kink in the revenue stream were it some rogue hatchet boobery.
#287. To: Starwind (#286)
It is complex, and they're not too bright and Israel didn't benefit from everything and the billions spent directly and indirectly on Israel is miniscule compared to the trillions that got misspent on everything else.
#288. To: Dakmar (#287)
You have to understand, I'm hateful about every cent stolen from my pocket that doesn't in some way benefit me. A million times so when my money is used against me.
#289. To: Starwind (#288)
#290. To: Phaedrus (#280)
Detail, exactly and specifically, the benefits to America and Americans from the American-Israeli relationship.
#291. To: wbales (#290)
Detail, exactly and specifically, the benefits to America and Americans from the American-Israeli relationship ... Pretty please. With sugar on top.
#292. To: Phaedrus (#66)
Thank you for your clarity and your courage.
#293. To: Starwind, All (#292)
#294. To: Phaedrus, Zoroaster, christine, zipporah (#291)
...and I don't deal well with personal attacks,...
#295. To: wbales, Arator, Phaedrus (#294)
>> You seem to have dealt this personal attack on Zoroaster with ease.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest