Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sarah Palin - Again
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 1285302" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>You may very well have a legitimate griping point about favoritism in general being played, and/or this not supposing to be a political forum - I don't know, because I don't know which ones were deleted and why (since they were deleted), and whether it was a non-partisan reason.</p><p></p><p>But in any event, it *seems like* to me, for the most part, political discussions ARE allowed as long as they're kept civil for the most part - they usually only get shut down (I think) when people start personal attacking and getting out of hand. Are you sure that's not the reason why your threads were closed? Not a political bent, but just that someone (not you necessarily mind one) got out of hand in the thread?</p><p></p><p>[The sole and glaring exception to this is threads about LEOs and LEOAs, where everyone knows that <em>most</em> critical posts get removed (and the person likely banned for a time with a very vague reason stated by an anonymous moderator), even if presented in the most calm, civil, tactful, and factual way possible, whereas non-critical posts are allowed to stay. In fact, there's certainly a decent chance that I'll be banned for a day, week, or permanently, simply for typing out this truth in this paragraph you see here. Never know with the arbitrary and capricious way in which the banhammer is weilded. Chance I'm willing to take. You won't know though, because it will be deleted, I will be gone, and the message you receive when you try to PM me will be misleading because it will say "this user is not accepting PMs at this time", rather than telling you that the person has been banned, and that's why they cannot accept PMs. I have to say, this state of affairs is is truly a huge insult to our wonderful and esteemed LEO members, because it's essentially saying to them and others "Hey, we the moderators think and believe that you the LEOs, have no leg whatsoever to stand on in your arguments, so we're just gonna delete the person who is challenging or criticizing, and their arguments as well." - Very insulting to them and a huge disservice to them, because they do a fine fine job of arguing the counterpoints, when there are valid ones to be made; and they admit, for the most part, when there is a recognizable issue (particularly since everyone agrees that 99% of the time, those issues are the fault of the chiefs and the politicos who hire & fire the chief; NOT the rank & file represented here). But that's a topic for another day I guess. <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /> ]</p><p></p><p>In any event, I'm very glad that for political discussions, we have all types represented here: (a) the blindly-following-the-D-party-line folks, and (b) the blindly-following-the-R-party-line folks, and (c) those of us who you might term 3rd-partiers, who dislike a LOT about both major parties and the unassailable corrupt false 2-wing Replicrat Uniparty system we have in this state and this country; several of these free thinkers are represented here in this thread; and (d) perhaps a few other types who don't really fit into my a/b/c trichotomy here.</p><p></p><p>In my view, having this mix of all is a good thing, as we can hopefully eventually convince those here from camps (a) and (b) of the error of their ways! <img src="/images/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":P" title="Stick Out Tongue :P" data-shortname=":P" /></p><p></p><p>If you're not supporting third parties, you've not paying attention, and are part of the problem! IMO, YMMV, and all that. Love or hate Nader, he's doing a great service in promoting better ballot access for third party candidates. When there's just two choices, you generally get crap (Walmart & Target). When you go from 2 to 3 or more in the oligarchy, the choices get much more palatable. But the laws of ballot access have been intentionally tightened very tight by both wings of the Uniparty (that's one thing they agree wholeheartedly on), such that we cannot even GET a CANDIDATE to vote for in the general election that is not an R or D, in most states, most of the time. This is just fundamentally improper, seems to me. There ought to be just a minimal level of petition signatures and interest to throw someone on the ballot, in my view.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 1285302, member: 7123"] You may very well have a legitimate griping point about favoritism in general being played, and/or this not supposing to be a political forum - I don't know, because I don't know which ones were deleted and why (since they were deleted), and whether it was a non-partisan reason. But in any event, it *seems like* to me, for the most part, political discussions ARE allowed as long as they're kept civil for the most part - they usually only get shut down (I think) when people start personal attacking and getting out of hand. Are you sure that's not the reason why your threads were closed? Not a political bent, but just that someone (not you necessarily mind one) got out of hand in the thread? [The sole and glaring exception to this is threads about LEOs and LEOAs, where everyone knows that [I]most[/I] critical posts get removed (and the person likely banned for a time with a very vague reason stated by an anonymous moderator), even if presented in the most calm, civil, tactful, and factual way possible, whereas non-critical posts are allowed to stay. In fact, there's certainly a decent chance that I'll be banned for a day, week, or permanently, simply for typing out this truth in this paragraph you see here. Never know with the arbitrary and capricious way in which the banhammer is weilded. Chance I'm willing to take. You won't know though, because it will be deleted, I will be gone, and the message you receive when you try to PM me will be misleading because it will say "this user is not accepting PMs at this time", rather than telling you that the person has been banned, and that's why they cannot accept PMs. I have to say, this state of affairs is is truly a huge insult to our wonderful and esteemed LEO members, because it's essentially saying to them and others "Hey, we the moderators think and believe that you the LEOs, have no leg whatsoever to stand on in your arguments, so we're just gonna delete the person who is challenging or criticizing, and their arguments as well." - Very insulting to them and a huge disservice to them, because they do a fine fine job of arguing the counterpoints, when there are valid ones to be made; and they admit, for the most part, when there is a recognizable issue (particularly since everyone agrees that 99% of the time, those issues are the fault of the chiefs and the politicos who hire & fire the chief; NOT the rank & file represented here). But that's a topic for another day I guess. :) ] In any event, I'm very glad that for political discussions, we have all types represented here: (a) the blindly-following-the-D-party-line folks, and (b) the blindly-following-the-R-party-line folks, and (c) those of us who you might term 3rd-partiers, who dislike a LOT about both major parties and the unassailable corrupt false 2-wing Replicrat Uniparty system we have in this state and this country; several of these free thinkers are represented here in this thread; and (d) perhaps a few other types who don't really fit into my a/b/c trichotomy here. In my view, having this mix of all is a good thing, as we can hopefully eventually convince those here from camps (a) and (b) of the error of their ways! :P If you're not supporting third parties, you've not paying attention, and are part of the problem! IMO, YMMV, and all that. Love or hate Nader, he's doing a great service in promoting better ballot access for third party candidates. When there's just two choices, you generally get crap (Walmart & Target). When you go from 2 to 3 or more in the oligarchy, the choices get much more palatable. But the laws of ballot access have been intentionally tightened very tight by both wings of the Uniparty (that's one thing they agree wholeheartedly on), such that we cannot even GET a CANDIDATE to vote for in the general election that is not an R or D, in most states, most of the time. This is just fundamentally improper, seems to me. There ought to be just a minimal level of petition signatures and interest to throw someone on the ballot, in my view. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sarah Palin - Again
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom