What is LWP
Subject 50362
Pretty dead now, but it wasn't earlier in the history of this site. And the number of bans approached 100 before the new site eliminated pre-bans.
OTOH, I consider those bans legitimate and justifiable. There is no pretense of openness there; that thread is a political clubhouse like RWET.
Subject 50545
You don't agree with the political view of the club, you get banned.
Donkey's Inn
Subject 51755
An impressive number of bans even after the elimination of an impressive number of pre-bans.
Subject 53864
Another not fond of dissension.
You've posted there recently.
How about this wonderful liberal fellow?
Member 7227811
Do you agree with him that the US gov't was behind 911 and the DC sniper attacks were a plot to install a dictatorship?
BTW, he's again changed his mind about the Pentagon attack and insists a US-launched cruise missile did it. Do you agree?
Remote-controlled planes did 911. Rogue USAF.
Message 19107268
Unless, of course, it was the CIA:
Message 18390116
Duray: Rove behind DC sniper
Message 19109408
He also claims the US gov't was behind the anthrax attacks and that the people killed at the WTC were not innocent victims because they "traded against me every day". !???! That post has since benn removed - at his request.
This is as close as you can get now:
Duray's infamous post:
Message 17703379
Why is it none of you liberals never attack his idiocy?
I visit Grannie's site too and find it very interesting.Hers is book marked.
Do you agree with her that it is fine to shoot down in cold blood men are about to go deer hunting?
I consider her simply crazy. And totally lacking in ethics and morals. Certainly not someone I find "interesting".
And, BTW, I am an animal lover. We're currently taking care of a neighbor's 3 cats. I think she noticed we like animals and that influenced her decision.
Stockman Scott's site has no bans.
It's not moderated. He can't ban. But that fails to explain the well known and noted propensity of the left to shut up the opposition.
Yours has no bans.
Correct. It once hit a peak of five. However, the regulars prefer it have none. Fine with me; they've done a superb job of handling all the trouble that has shown up.
If someone doesn't like the politics of someone they can put that person on ignore.
Why? I consider banning someone for vulgarity justifiable; I'm sure I can listen to their political views if they back them. Rants are another matter.
But then how can you support tsifprofit, ChinuSFO, and Granny when they muzzle people for strictly political reasons?
I am on ignore by some people and I don't even know who they are.
Easy enough to find out if you have suspicions.
Guess I said something that they didn't like... Rather than discussing it they just BAN.
Their loss. Not yours. You are an interesting and rational poster.
This is anyone's privilege and if someone is really objectionable it would be time to exercise that right.
Banning? No, that's only a thread moderator's privilege. Ignore is open to everyone.
Don't you find that birds of a feather rarely criticize one another.
Yeah. Up to a point. CYBER crossed that line when he proposed all Democrats be interned for the duration. I told him he would have no trouble finding me. I'd be on the Democrat side of the barricades shooting at HIM if that were ever tried.
I do not find fault with a lot of posters because in some of what they say if not all there is truth. It's good to have that mix.
Mixing in falsehood is good?
I could read the Politics for Pros only and find very little difference from one post to another. They all agree on everything. Not one dissenter.... BORING... Don't you think ?
Try Donkey's In and tell me ow much dissension you see.
Diversity, differing opinions.. debating all basic to Democracy.
I don't see "diversity" in the way it is used now as at all necessary to democracy.
I worry that in this Country everyone is expected to think a like and support the policies of our current government which I cannot do in good conscience when I think they are wrong.
Are you serious? The Prexy and Administration are taken to to task on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis on this site and in our newspapers, magazines, and radio and TV broadcasts.
GEESUS, the danger is we will spin apart or a rebellion will start.
Some call this UnAmerican. I call it being true to oneself and ones ideals.
Under my understanding of the first amendment, they are fully within their rights in calling it unAmerican.
ALSO being true to the founding fathers of this great Country.
The Founders of this country believed the people should support the gov't, not the gov't the people. They also held that the confiscation of the property of one by the gov't to enrich another was simply legalized theft. Today we call it liberalism. |
