Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (23724)	12/27/2004 5:09:41 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

They all agree on everything Incorrect....

To: Suma who wrote (23724)	12/27/2004 7:02:27 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

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.

To: Suma who wrote (23724)	12/27/2004 9:47:34 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Our conspiracy theorists seem to have run into a bit of a problem. Message 20892114

To: Suma who wrote (23724)	12/28/2004 12:09:03 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

"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." Oh really? You have found lots of faults with me both publicly & privately. When have I ever been even partially untruthful to you? Name one real instance. "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 ?" Is this your personal opinion stated as fact? ABSOLUTELY! Is your personal opinion wrong? ABSOLUTELY! Do folks on the PfP thread always agree with kholt? And Mary Cluney? And Captain Jack? And CobaltBlue? And JDN? And kumar_rangan? And Nadine Carroll? And unclewest? And Agustus Gloop? How about LindyBill? He's a confirmed atheist. How do you explain all those so called right wing religious zealots who have flocked to the PfP run by a confirmed atheist? And how could they possibly be in complete agreement with him? Are you saying that I always agree with everything said on the PfP & everyone always agrees with me? Give me a break. "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. Some call this UnAmerican." Can you cite one legitimate example of someone noteworthy actually calling that behavior un-American? I didn't think so. I rest my case.

To: Suma who wrote (23724)	12/28/2004 11:32:38 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Stockman's thread is now moderated and has bans. And I likely will soon be one. I had the temerity to laugh at SOROS's declaration of his openminded evenhandedness.