Politics

[Wild Bill]

It's not out and out racial hatred most of the time. It's more subtle. I don't have time to go back through this thread to find examples. But I gave two examples of threads - you can take a look at those to get a sense of what I mean.

The "subtle racism" disturbs you but you have an issue with a mod confronting overt racism, huh?

 

[Black Irish]

It's not out and out racial hatred most of the time. It's more subtle. I don't have time to go back through this thread to find examples. But I gave two examples of threads - you can take a look at those to get a sense of what I mean.

No. I'm not going on a hunt for examples to back up your claim. I already follow this thread pretty closely, and I don't have a "sense of what you mean." If you don't feel the need to buttress your assertion, that's fine. I think its a disservice to the posters on this site to drop a claim of pervasive racism but provide no evidence. I don't want to derail this thread over the matter, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[autry_denson]

The "subtle racism" disturbs you but you have an issue with a mod confronting overt racism, huh?

Yes, the subtle racism disturbs me.

I have no problem w whiskey giving him a warning about the language that he used. I do wonder about the idea to ban him based on a pm and then post the pm while he doesn't have a chance to respond.

I have no idea what 95 alum's motives were - maybe he's a white guy who was just trolling everyone. I just think we might benefit from considering other reasons why someone might have felt pushed to that point. I think it's odd that he is apparently permanently banned, w/o the opportunity to weigh in again, b/c a mod didn't like a personal message he got.

 

[autry_denson]

No. I'm not going on a hunt for examples to back up your claim. I already follow this thread pretty closely, and I don't have a "sense of what you mean." If you don't feel the need to buttress your assertion, that's fine. I think its a disservice to the posters on this site to drop a claim of pervasive racism but provide no evidence. I don't want to derail this thread over the matter, so I'll just leave it at that.

check out the threads I mentioned.

 

[Wild Bill]

Yes, the subtle racism disturbs me.

I have no problem w whiskey giving him a warning about the language that he used. I do wonder about the idea to ban him based on a pm and then post the pm while he doesn't have a chance to respond.

I have no idea what 95 alum's motives were - maybe he's a white guy who was just trolling everyone. I just think we might benefit from considering other reasons why someone might have felt pushed to that point. I think it's odd that he is apparently permanently banned, w/o the opportunity to weigh in again, b/c a mod didn't like a personal message he got.

Did you read the response he sent whiskey? If he had any remorse or his original post was misconstrued, he had an opportunity to explain. Instead, he used his opportunity to take a cheap shot on an otherwise fair moderator.

 

[irishpat183]

ABSOLUTELY defund oil subsidies. I'm pretty sure the young guys (Cruz, Paul, Rubio, etc.) would agree with that. Boehner and his cronies don't represent the "little r" republican base.

EDIT: Online gun sales must be executed by licensed dealers.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Exactly. Besides....big oil does NOT receive "subsidies". they simply enjoy the tax breaks that every other company does.

Subsidies typically go to smaller companies.

 

[irishpat183]

I didn't think Pat was saying that no government employee works 40 hours a week or hard. What I inferred from his comment was that there's no device that removes the unproductive ones.

In the private economy, if you're not making you company money, you get canned or demoted...and you certainly don't get a raise. If you work for the government, there's no measuring stick with teeth. What is the firing rate for government employees?

Just to pick up on something else you said, about 'working 40 hours a week". Just because someone works 40 hours a week doesn't make them productive enough to keep. What was accomplished in those 40 hours? I have had this conversation with my "union worker" cousin who was a great helper but never liked to take the lead on a job. He seemed to get offended when I told him we needed to get more done; his comment was, to ask me if I meant we would work overtime...smh.

Thank you.

Why is it that we continue to fund these government programs/workers that are not productive?

Even worse, is then the left blames the public sector for it! Hilarious.


The problem is govenment and their inablity to admit failure. Take this bullshit "greeN' movement...how much money have we wasted on these start up compnaies that have no track record and were failing when we bailed them out?

 

[irishpat183]

Did you read the response he sent whiskey? If he had any remorse or his original post was misconstrued, he had an opportunity to explain. Instead, he used his opportunity to take a cheap shot on an otherwise fair moderator.

Yep. A PM is time to apologize (which I've done a few times...LOL). Not throw racial slurs.

 

[GoIrish41]

I didn't think Pat was saying that no government employee works 40 hours a week or hard. What I inferred from his comment was that there's no device that removes the unproductive ones.

In the private economy, if you're not making you company money, you get canned or demoted...and you certainly don't get a raise. If you work for the government, there's no measuring stick with teeth. What is the firing rate for government employees?

Just to pick up on something else you said, about 'working 40 hours a week". Just because someone works 40 hours a week doesn't make them productive enough to keep. What was accomplished in those 40 hours? I have had this conversation with my "union worker" cousin who was a great helper but never liked to take the lead on a job. He seemed to get offended when I told him we needed to get more done; his comment was, to ask me if I meant we would work overtime...smh.

Not that it matters, but I was replying to Wizards post, not Pats. I agree that the mechanisms for removing poor performers are burdensome within the government. I further agree that working 40 hours says nothing of efficiency. However, those points have little to do with what my post was replying to -- the notion that too many people "rely on the government" for employment -- which to me is a suggestion that a government position is akin to being a recipient in a government welfare program.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Interesting. A few questions for whiskey:

1) Is it standard for members to be banned for pm’s?
2) If so, should we pass on info about pm’s that we think are deserving of a ban to mods?
3) Or is it only pm’s to mods that can get you banned?
4) Given that his pm was published and then he was banned, should he have a chance to let us know what the context for the pm was? Or is he permanently banned, in which case his exit from the site comes after having his personal message published, in isolation, without a chance to respond or reveal what else was said or why he said what he did?

I don't visit this thread often, for reasons that should be self-evident. But 95s posts were getting reported by other members for racism, and I received several PMs asking me to address it, so I had to moderate. Several of his recent posts were offensive, but this one:

White, male, cracker, Honkeys are always right. Lucky there are less and less of you in America all the time. Can't wait till they are the minority and then they can be treated like other minorities in the past have been treated. Unfortunately I will long have passed but my kids or grand kids sure will be in a better America. The Tea Party and Republicans are sure helping speed their demise.

... was clearly over the line, and required moderation. I didn't want to be heavy-handed, though, so I only infracted him 1 point which would have expired after the season, and I sent him this message:

We're pretty tolerant of controversial takes in the political thread, but we can't let blatant racism slide.

And that wasn't a subjective call on my part. The terms of use for this site spell it out quite clearly that there's zero tolerance for racial animus. But, this being the emotionally-charged political thread, I tried to be lenient.

And then he responded to the infraction with the following PM:

Understandable coming from Arizona. Really hard to shake those confederate based origins. It is OK to slam on others but you mention anything against the white man and it is taboo.

So yes, if you do something ban-worthy, a mod tries to show you leniency, and then you PM back with "F*ck you", you're going to get banned. Putting aside for one moment the fact that he accused me of racism simply for (1) living in Arizona; and (2) deleting a post of his that was clearly against this site's terms of use, it was obvious from him response that he was going to continue making blatantly racist posts in this thread, so he got a permanent ban. It's hard enough keeping this thread civil without someone race-baiting here.

The PM I posted, by the way, included the entire context of our exchange. There was nothing else aside from my infraction message to him, and his PM back to me. As I mentioned in the post, I have never publicly posted a PM before, and I hope to never do so again, but in the interest of transparent moderation, I felt the board would benefit from knowing why exactly he got banned.

I gather you're upset because you feel like other posters get away with a lot of "subtle" racism against minorities here, and that 95 got banned rather quickly for some unsubtle racism against the white majority. All I can offer in defense is that: (1) this thread is a nightmare to moderate; and (2) blatant animism against any racial group will be handled in consistent fashion. Had someone else posted a racially explicit tirade against African-Americans, received an infraction for it, and then accused the infracting moderator of being a "n!gger-lover", I can assure you he would have been banned just a quickly as 95.

I'm sorry you feel that this thread isn't moderated fairly. I'm confident that isn't due to some insidious political or racial bias by the mods, but take it up with Jason if you disagree. When you see something offensive, help us out by reporting it. We otherwise tend to avoid this thread entirely.

 

[phgreek]

Interesting. A few questions for whiskey:

1) Is it standard for members to be banned for pm’s?
2) If so, should we pass on info about pm’s that we think are deserving of a ban to mods?
3) Or is it only pm’s to mods that can get you banned?
4) Given that his pm was published and then he was banned, should he have a chance to let us know what the context for the pm was? Or is he permanently banned, in which case his exit from the site comes after having his personal message published, in isolation, without a chance to respond or reveal what else was said or why he said what he did?

Let me float a couple of possibilities about what the now-banned 95 alum might have been thinking when he wrote that post. I have no idea who he is or what he had in mind, so these are all purely speculative:

Possibility #1: Maybe he just doesn’t like white people and it finally came out.

Possibility #2: Maybe he would have explained why he wrote that post, but didn’t get the chance b/c he was banned. There was a thread a month or so back in which someone posted a video of 3 black kids beating up a white kid, with no context, and titled it ‘racist beatdown…’ The poster then came out and said that his intention was to teach us all a lesson about the perils of making inferences about racism without explicit knowledge about the intentions of the individuals involved (or something to this effect). And he decided to teach this lesson by intentionally race-baiting. The logic of this idea was borderline comical—but the point is he had the chance to explain himself, even if the explanation was bizarre. If he had been banned without the chance to explain, everyone would have just assumed that the thread was blatantly racist. Is there any chance that 95alum was making a point about what it feels like to be treated with hostility on a regular basis, and he chose to do so by spitting out racial epithets for white people to provide a glimpse?

Possibility #3: Maybe there is so much racism and racial hatred on this site, and in this thread, that this guy had enough. Irishpat started a thread that was titled “If Obama had a son…” and that linked to a story about a murder committed by 3 black kids. If we are banning members for explicit racism, he should not be on this site. Most of it is more subtle. It is utterly remarkable to me how much subtle racial hatred shows up on this site, and particularly on this thread, on a regular basis. The conversations drift into a realm where it takes on the tone of a bunch of rednecks sitting in a booth at a bar with the knowledge that there’s nobody who’s going to call them on their hatred b/c they’re with ‘their own’. I am white, and I have no idea how a black guy would feel reading this stuff. But my guess is that the undertones of racial hatred would be difficult to read, over and over. The complete denial of the validity of experiences of other groups who are not well-represented on the site would get tiresome. After a while, it might get to you. It might cause you to suspect that the others on the site are not just trying to provoke, but hold deeply racist beliefs at their core. It might cause one to lash out in anger.

We won’t know because he’s banned. I hope it’s not permanent. I find it disturbing how there is so much subtle racism on this site, which I never expected to find when I started following the site closely in order to keep up with recruiting. I take some comfort in thinking that most of it is coming from people who didn’t go to ND, but I’m not even sure if that’s true. But the real irony is that with all of the racist posts and threads I’ve seen on here, the guy who makes a racist comment about white people is the one who gets banned.

lots of rope given to people on this site who say controversial things, or even some insensitive things...no conspiracy...

as pertains to Race...there is a difference between ignorance and hate...

You can anecdotally tally things you think insensitive, or ignorant as if there is some exchange rate in racism that offsets 95's hate with your citations of instances of ignorance or insensitivity...there isn't. BTW I can tally my own. For instance when people specifically talk about a kid having athletic limits because he's white...no hate there, just ignorance. Our own sensitivity defines how WE react, and how angry WE get...but we all know the difference between insensitivity and hate at the source.

I've not seen anyone throw around racial epithets, and show hate purely based on race...ever, since I've been on the site, until yesterday. No excuse.

He had a chance to explain and chose to burn it with a racially charged PM...

EDIT: And FWIW I was one of the ones who PM'd Whiskey. For the Record I've never even issued a red dot on here, and maybe PM'd a mod twice. 95s ban was a no-brainer to me.

 

[Cackalacky]

There would be no issues with either if we just stayed outta other countries and watched our own asses

We can't do that. Other countries have stuff we want. Isolationism is not the way forward. We already tried that and it failed.

 

[connor_in]

AP Buries Its Own 37 Percent Approval Number for Obama; When It Found 37 Percent Low for Bush, NBC Led With It | NewsBusters

The big talk in conservative radio on Thursday is Barack Obama’s 37 percent approval rating in the latest AP poll. Hosts are also making fun of how AP announced this number: buried in paragraph eight of a story headlined “Poll: No Heroes In Shutdown, GOP Gets Most Blame.”

Guess what? Brent Baker reported when an AP poll found President Bush's approval rating hit a new low of 37 percent on March 10, 2006, NBC's Brian Williams led the newscast with it. When an NBC News poll found the same number on March 15, Williams led the program with it again, turning to Tim Russert to say, "let's start with that all-important benchmark for presidents, the approval rating."

...but there is no bias in the media...

 

[ACamp1900]

AP Buries Its Own 37 Percent Approval Number for Obama; When It Found 37 Percent Low for Bush, NBC Led With It | NewsBusters



...but there is no bias in the media...

lol.. Like $2 a gallon gas is a disater... $4 a gallon gas ia a recovery...

 

[GoIrish41]

AP Buries Its Own 37 Percent Approval Number for Obama; When It Found 37 Percent Low for Bush, NBC Led With It | NewsBusters



...but there is no bias in the media...

Perhaps there are some news items of more importance going on right now. Having worked in the news business for years, I can tell you that the biggest story of the day gets top billing. I can't remember the Bush polling numbers coming out, and I certainly don't recall what the other big news stories were that day, but today there is an ongoing government shutdown and we are getting ready to watch our economy be dashed into the rocks, so if the results of the polling are not reported on the front page above the fold, it isn't that surprising and certainly doesn't provide concrete evidence of media bias. Reason #58 why the GOP's tactics are self-destructive -- the disasters that they created are overshaddowing a story that they could typically score some cheap political points from. Also not reported over the past week on the front page, above the fold is the poll that puts the approval rating of the entire Republican party as a group at 28%. Where is the outrage?

 

[phgreek]

lol.. Like $2 a gallon gas is a disater... $4 a gallon gas ia a recovery...

Had a buddy who saw Mathews on a vacation...pointed and laughed, then ran up to him like some starstruck tourist...and praised him profusely for being so much better than Colbert...and how his delivery was impeccable...said no one spoofs a cable news guy better...shook his hand the whole time real briskly/obnoxiously...

He actually caught on pretty quickly...WAY pissed him off...no shivers down his leg that day..tahehehehhe...

I think we should all follow that lead for all press people...regardless of their bias...just clown their asses every chance we get so they know what they are to us...

 

[autry_denson]

I don't visit this thread often, for reasons that should be self-evident. But 95s posts were getting reported by other members for racism, and I received several PMs asking me to address it, so I had to moderate. Several of his recent posts were offensive, but this one:



... was clearly over the line, and required moderation. I didn't want to be heavy-handed, though, so I only infracted him 1 point which would have expired after the season, and I sent him this message:



And that wasn't a subjective call on my part. The terms of use for this site spell it out quite clearly that there's zero tolerance for racial animus. But, this being the emotionally-charged political thread, I tried to be lenient.

And then he responded to the infraction with the following PM:



So yes, if you do something ban-worthy, a mod tries to show you leniency, and then you PM back with "F*ck you", you're going to get banned. Putting aside for one moment the fact that he accused me of racism simply for (1) living in Arizona; and (2) deleting a post of his that was clearly against this site's terms of use, it was obvious from him response that he was going to continue making blatantly racist posts in this thread, so he got a permanent ban. It's hard enough keeping this thread civil without someone race-baiting here.

The PM I posted, by the way, included the entire context of our exchange. There was nothing else aside from my infraction message to him, and his PM back to me. As I mentioned in the post, I have never publicly posted a PM before, and I hope to never do so again, but in the interest of transparent moderation, I felt the board would benefit from knowing why exactly he got banned.

I gather you're upset because you feel like other posters get away with a lot of "subtle" racism against minorities here, and that 95 got banned rather quickly for some unsubtle racism against the white majority. All I can offer in defense is that: (1) this thread is a nightmare to moderate; and (2) blatant animism against any racial group will be handled in consistent fashion. Had someone else posted a racially explicit tirade against African-Americans, received an infraction for it, and then accused the infracting moderator of being a "n!gger-lover", I can assure you he would have been banned just a quickly as 95.

I'm sorry you feel that this thread isn't moderated fairly. I'm confident that isn't due to some insidious political or racial bias by the mods, but take it up with Jason if you disagree. When you see something offensive, help us out by reporting it. We otherwise tend to avoid this thread entirely.

Cheers, thanks for the explanation. My three concerns are:

1) what led this guy, who seemed to me like a pretty thoughtful poster, to decide to post that all of a sudden? on this question I still don't know the answer, and the fact that he's banned permanently means we won't know if there was some other explanation other than that he just went off the handle.

2) should a pm ever be grounds for a permanent ban? b/c if so, then one would think that it should be all pm's, not just those sent to mods. if he had sent that pm to me, for instance, would he be banned? if not then we are in a somewhat awkward situation where you can get banned not for what you write, but who you write it to.

3) the racial undertones in many of the posts on this site continue to surprise me. maybe it's just a reflection of discourse on the right more generally, but I am shocked at how often it emerges and goes unchecked or unnoticed. I know it's difficult to moderate explicit versus subtle racism, so perhaps there's not much that can be done. But I wonder about the fact that someone is still an active member of this site after posting a thread which had the title "if Obama had a son...," and which linked to a story about 3 black kids who killed a white guy. that seems about as explicit as one could get.

anyway, it's not a general complaint about how this thread is moderated. just some discomfort about how this went down.

 

[phgreek]

Perhaps there are some news items of more importance going on right now. Having worked in the news business for years, I can tell you that the biggest story of the day gets top billing. I can't remember the Bush polling numbers coming out, and I certainly don't recall what the other big news stories were that day, but today there is an ongoing government shutdown and we are getting ready to watch our economy be dashed into the rocks, so if the results of the polling are not reported on the front page above the fold, it isn't that surprising and certainly doesn't provide concrete evidence of media bias. Reason #58 why the GOP's tactics are self-destructive -- the disasters that they created are overshaddowing a story that they could typically score some cheap political points from. Also not reported over the past week on the front page, above the fold is the poll that puts the approval rating of the entire Republican party as a group at 28%. Where is the outrage?

R's suck too...DC sucks period, but denial of bias is akin to denial of gravity dude.

 

[GoIrish41]

R's suck too...DC sucks period, but denial of bias is akin to denial of gravity dude.

What denial of bias? ... that isn't what I said at all. I said that if it weren't for the bigger news stories of the day (those manufactured by the GOP, no less) that this would have been made a bigger deal in the media. The GOP only has itself to blame for that.

 

[GoIrish41]

Government shutdown: Republicans offer plan to postpone default - chicagotribune.com

 

[phgreek]

What denial of bias? ... that isn't what I said at all. I said that if it weren't for the bigger news stories of the day (those manufactured by the GOP, no less) that this would have been made a bigger deal in the media. The GOP only has itself to blame for that.

...Sorry, seemed like your submission of rationale for how we see things once trumpeted from the rooftops ...ie w's approval...buried was inferring there isn't bias...

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...this guy, who seemed to me like a pretty thoughtful poster...

Really? I thought he was doing a Drunk Uncle impression.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Report: Obama brings chilling effect on journalism
Oct 10, 3:20 PM EDT

By BRETT ZONGKER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. government's aggressive prosecution of leaks and efforts to control information are having a chilling effect on journalists and government whistle-blowers, according to a report released Thursday on U.S. press freedoms under the Obama administration.

The Committee to Protect Journalists conducted its first examination of U.S. press freedoms amid the Obama administration's unprecedented number of prosecutions of government sources and seizures of journalists' records. Usually the group focuses on advocating for press freedoms abroad.

Leonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post, wrote the 30-page analysis entitled "The Obama Administration and the Press." The report notes President Barack Obama came into office pledging an open, transparent government after criticizing the Bush administration's secrecy, "but he has fallen short of his promise."

"In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press," wrote Downie, now a journalism professor at Arizona State University. "The administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post's investigation of Watergate."

Downie interviewed numerous reporters and editors, including a top editor at The Associated Press, following revelations this year that the government secretly seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 AP journalists. Downie also interviewed journalists whose sources have been prosecuted on felony charges

Those suspected of discussing classified information are increasingly subject to investigation, lie-detector tests, scrutiny of telephone and email records and now surveillance by co-workers under a new "Insider Threat Program" that has been implemented in every agency.

"There's no question that sources are looking over their shoulders," Michael Oreskes, the AP's senior managing editor, told Downie. "Sources are more jittery and more standoffish, not just in national security reporting. A lot of skittishness is at the more routine level. The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention."

To bypass journalists, the White House developed its own network of websites, social media and even created an online newscast to dispense favorable information and images. In some cases, the White House produces videos of the president's meetings with major figures that were never listed on his public schedule. Instead, they were kept secret - a departure from past administrations, the report noted.

Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief who is now director of George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs, told Downie the combined efforts of the Obama administration are "squeezing the flow of information."

"Open dialogue with the public without filters is good, but if used for propaganda and to avoid contact with journalists, it's a slippery slope," Sesno said.

In the report, White House officials objected to findings that the administration has limited transparency or information. Press Secretary Jay Carney said such complaints are part of the "natural tension" between the White House and the press.

"The idea that people are shutting up and not leaking to reporters is belied by the facts," Carney told Downie.

National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said there is still investigative reporting about national security issues with information from "nonsanctioned sources with lots of unclassified information and some sensitive information."

Downie found the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were a "watershed moment," leading to increased secrecy, surveillance and control of information. There is little direct comparison between the Bush and Obama administrations, though some journalists told Downie the Obama administration exercises more control.

"Every administration learns from the previous administration," said CBS Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer. "They become more secretive and put tighter clamps on information."

Shortly after Obama entered office, the White House was under pressure from intelligence agencies and Congress to stop leaks of national security information. The administration's first prosecution for leaking information came in April 2009 after a Hebrew linguist working for the FBI gave a blogger classified information about Israel.

Other prosecutions followed, targeting some government employees who believed they were whistle-blowers. The administration has rejected whistle-blower claims if they do not involve "waste, fraud or abuse," according to report. So sources exposing questionable or illegal practices are considered leaks.

To date, six government employees and two contractors have been targeted for prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act for accusations that they leaked classified information to the press. There were just three such prosecutions under all previous U.S. presidents.

By 2012, an AP report about the CIA's success in foiling a bomb plot in Yemen further escalated the Obama administration's efforts, even as the White House congratulated the CIA on the operation, Downie wrote. The disclosure in May that the government had secretly subpoenaed and seized AP phone records drew sharp criticism from many news organizations and civil rights advocates.

In September, the Justice Department announced AP's phone records led investigators to a former FBI bomb technician who pleaded guilty to disclosing the operation to a reporter.

"This prosecution demonstrates our deep resolve to hold accountable anyone who would violate their solemn duty to protect our nation's secrets and to prevent future, potentially devastating leaks by those who would wantonly ignore their obligations to safeguard classified information," the Justice Department said last month.

Kathleen Carroll, AP's executive editor, said the report highlights the growing threats to independent journalism in a country that has upheld press freedom as a measure of democratic society for two centuries.

"We find we must fight for those freedoms every day as the fog of secrecy descends on every level of government activity," she said in a statement. "That fight is worthwhile, as we learned when the outcry over the Justice Department's secret seizure of AP phone records led to proposed revisions intended to protect journalists from overly broad investigative techniques. Implementation of those revisions is an important next step."

In its report, the Committee to Protect Journalists recommends several reforms, including ending the practice of charging people who leak information to journalists with espionage and preventing secret subpoenas of journalists' records.

News from The Associated Press

 

[GoIrish41]

...Sorry, seemed like your submission of rationale for how we see things once trumpeted from the rooftops ...ie w's approval...buried was inferring there isn't bias...

it would be hard to find a news outlet without a bias one way or the other these days. That said, the biggest story is the biggest story -- at least in media sources not called Fox News and MSNBC.

 

[phgreek]

it would be hard to find a news outlet without a bias one way or the other these days. That said, the biggest story is the biggest story -- at least in media sources not called Fox News and MSNBC.

Yup...I can accept that for the most part. I do think network news inflates bad R news and Good D news...disproportionately...just not to the level of cable news...In fact Cronkite copped to it many years ago...albeit he justified it as "rooting for the under dog".

 

[irishpat183]

We can't do that. Other countries have stuff we want. Isolationism is not the way forward. We already tried that and it failed.

Then you make economice deals and keep tanks off their soil.

And we have oil...tons. And I don't need anymore fireworks or plastic toys.

 

[irishpat183]

Cheers, thanks for the explanation. My three concerns are:

1) what led this guy, who seemed to me like a pretty thoughtful poster, to decide to post that all of a sudden? on this question I still don't know the answer, and the fact that he's banned permanently means we won't know if there was some other explanation other than that he just went off the handle.

2) should a pm ever be grounds for a permanent ban? b/c if so, then one would think that it should be all pm's, not just those sent to mods. if he had sent that pm to me, for instance, would he be banned? if not then we are in a somewhat awkward situation where you can get banned not for what you write, but who you write it to.

3) the racial undertones in many of the posts on this site continue to surprise me. maybe it's just a reflection of discourse on the right more generally, but I am shocked at how often it emerges and goes unchecked or unnoticed. I know it's difficult to moderate explicit versus subtle racism, so perhaps there's not much that can be done. But I wonder about the fact that someone is still an active member of this site after posting a thread which had the title "if Obama had a son...," and which linked to a story about 3 black kids who killed a white guy. that seems about as explicit as one could get.
anyway, it's not a general complaint about how this thread is moderated. just some discomfort about how this went down.

That was me.


How is that "racist" when the pres said it himself in reference to another high profile case? My point was to simple point out how the Pres picks and choooses who he wants to associate himself with and he didn't really give a damn about TM (or black americans for that matter) it was all about the coverage.


Again, maybe YOU need to check YOUR way of thinking. Sounds like you're the one with the problem. By the way....just call me out if you're gonna take shots. I can take it.

 

[irishpat183]

it would be hard to find a news outlet without a bias one way or the other these days. That said, the biggest story is the biggest story -- at least in media sources not called Fox News and MSNBC.

True that. But when you go to the internet, everyone calls you a wacko and says your sources are bogus...LOL.

So everyone admits the MSM is bias....but shuns anyother outlets because of crediblity? LOL

 

[autry_denson]

That was me.


How is that "racist" when the pres said it himself in reference to another high profile case? My point was to simple point out how the Pres picks and choooses who he wants to associate himself with and he didn't really give a damn about TM (or black americans for that matter) it was all about the coverage.


Again, maybe YOU need to check YOUR way of thinking. Sounds like you're the one with the problem. By the way....just call me out if you're gonna take shots. I can take it.

Read my posts, I have absolutely no problem calling you out by (screen) name. I didn't want to make the issue entirely about you, so I left off your name in this post alone. But yes, I think you are the source of a lot of ugliness on this site. Just my opinion, and I'm willing to consider whether I have read too much into some posts that have been made in this thread. In others, like the one mentioned here, I don't think there's much room for misinterpretation.

 

[Circa]

HOWARD STERN: Jesse Ventura wants to run for President & wants Howard as his VP - YouTube

Ventura/Stern Ticket 2016!! The crazy part is they would make a run for the popular vote!