Loading Loading
Just for optimization

Politics.comblogPerso

freecreditcheck.com |  creditreports.com |  whois.domaintools.com |  bookclub.com

Good Ole Boy's Blog

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots" Thomas Jefferson

Crybabies and Liberal Bias Crybabies and Liberal Bias

Visit Good Ole Boy's Blog | 9 months ago

 Recently a member has taken issue with comments(3) I have made that he somehow thought were nasty to him, like a little kid he went crying to the Politics people and had them deleted. Contrary to the terms of use they were deleted, they were not profane or abusive, one member who was in the conversation even said so. I have been on this site since Dec. 08 and have not seen this occur before. I think I can safely say, most all have seen conversations get pretty rough but we are adults and just plod on.

 

 Many members have had articles that were not posted or took as many as 20 hours to post and then were taken off in 4 hours. I know sites that have not been submitted from are held up but have never seen one take an hour as they say. It is odd that the articles that are not posted are critical of the administration. A few members and I have noticed the frontpage, big picture article is nearly always from a few individuals and never critical of Obama s far as I know. The top users was changed when conservatives were predominate.

 

 This site has the stink of liberal bias. Politics.com should be a site of free speech,but since Obama was elected it has hardly been one. There is not much we can do about the actions of Politics.com as I have never gotten a reply from any questions submitted. But the Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives can take a stand on our speech being silenced, our comments being deleted. If it happens to one it can happen to others and steamroll to the point that many who take issue with a post have it deleted  no matter the merits.

 

 Jeremy86 is the one using this tactic of deleting comments, I ask all members to ignore his comments and posted articles. If he wants' to silence speech, give him silence.

Tags: hypocrisy

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Rosetteismyname (Centrist) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (3 messages)
Reply to hepsy
Why do you say, just one person? I'd say more than one. Tech is needed for the database, someone fo … Show full comment

You don't think that one person could do that?

Yes, it appears to be one person....maybe a few but really, one.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to hepsy
I agree. This is a privately owned site. If it is censored, it is the owner s right. The owner(s) c … Show full comment

Not to bright either had a constitutional party tag which didn't make sense and didn't know there had been more than a dozen women run for the VP post with a good number on the final ticket, Geraldine Ferraro the latest.

Missed that exchange but it proves my point, much worse has gone on a the site and usually other members let the person going to far know it is frowned on. Apparently this guy figured it out.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

amnestymyazz 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to hepsy
LOL Yes, Grim was funny! Wasn't at the time, tho, I wasn't expecting his immaturity. Not all the com … Show full comment

POTUS really seemed to throw Grim. It was funny to watch him chew on that. Reading his posts reminded of watching a documentary on porn that was on HBO. A little 18-year old girl was talking about how she had achieved so much by her 18th bday. She was starlet of the year. It wsa sad to watch.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (3 messages)
Reply to Rosetteismyname
I used to see a bias in the polls, sometimes, I still do see a bias like a loaded question or sort.. … Show full comment

Why do you say, just one person?
I'd say more than one. Tech is needed for the database, someone for the site design, someone for the scripts, someone for the cut & paste front page pics, someone for google adwords, someone to decide what goes on front. Tech isn't usually very good at design, (and considering its limitations, the is well designed) design isn't always good at things like adwords. I'd say three behind the site, not counting the owner(s).

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to amnestymyazz
That's funny. Grim huh?

LOL Yes, Grim was funny! Wasn't at the time, tho, I wasn't expecting his immaturity. Not all the comments are there, he got quite nasty, but at least most of the comments remain.
There have been a few here who remind me of him, the young, self-aggrandized arrogant ones. They're funny, too, but they don't know it, either.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

amnestymyazz 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to hepsy
I agree. This is a privately owned site. If it is censored, it is the owner s right. The owner(s) c … Show full comment

That's funny. Grim huh?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

countryplowboy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (1 messages)
Reply to ironhead
Why don't you go tie a carrick bend knot or a sheepshank knot.

You didn't get it. Replace B and O with R and I. And why would I tie those knots when a simple slip-knot would do?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to amnestymyazz
I think the site needs to be as uncensored as it can possibly be. It's not liberals.com, conservati … Show full comment

I agree.
This is a privately owned site. If it is censored, it is the owner s right. The owner(s) can do whatever they want but it s the free flow of information, ideas and opinions that keep this site popular.

This would be a very boring site if we all agreed. The banter gets fun. I don't like the senseless arguing, it serves no purpose.

Here's an amusingly immature user, censored only with **, who just up and left: http://www.politics.com/news/5754/sarah-palin-searching-for-book-deal--and-tv/?id=5754

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

amnestymyazz 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to hepsy
LOL! I love red cars! If the Car Czar outlaws red cars, the Paint Czar will need to ban red paint! ( … Show full comment

I think the site needs to be as uncensored as it can possibly be. It's not liberals.com, conservatives.com, or even whigs.com. It's politics.com. If that is what it wants to be it needs to be free-flowing and uninterrupted. Hurt feelings be damned.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to amnestymyazz
That's why I picked red. Heroin manufacture and possession. There is a big difference between ma … Show full comment

LOL! I love red cars! If the Car Czar outlaws red cars, the Paint Czar will need to ban red paint! (I do hope my jest isn't heard by the Czar appointer.)

If you start a debate, to return Good Ole Boy's blog back to a discussion on crybabies and liberal bias, I'll add.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

amnestymyazz 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to hepsy
Yeah, alcohol is legal, as is betel nut. At least possession of alcohol isn't a crime, but when som … Show full comment

That's why I picked red.
Heroin manufacture and possession. There is a big difference between marijuana and the others. I think marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol. I definitely have conflicting opinions when it comes to legalizing the hard drugs. I mean we already have methodone clinics. Why not heroin clinics? Why is heroin special? Legalizing heroin and other drugs won't make it free. You will still have the potential for criminal activity to obtain money to get the drug. How about breaking into a heroin clinic to steal the drug? The two biggest things in the drug world right now? Crystal meth and prescription drug abuse. Legalization is not the great panacea. You get caught with drugs by the police guess what they say? They will let you walk if you roll over on a heroin dealer, a meth dealer or a dirty doctor writng rx's. They could care less about marijuana and cocaine. Go figure.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to amnestymyazz
Alcohol is legal. Hey I am for legalization of marijuana. Yes the criminalization of it definite … Show full comment

Yeah, alcohol is legal, as is betel nut. At least possession of alcohol isn't a crime, but when someone is killed because you're driving drunk and caused the accident, that's manslaughter at least. Alcohol is a controlled drug but is not criminalized.

Over the counter drugs, if not in their original packaging, can land someone in jail. They're not illegal, but the War on Drugs is way out of hand. I haven't forgotten you favor legalizing marijuana but keeping heroin (possession? use? dealing? growing poppies?) a criminal act.

(Speaking of red cars... they're pulled over more often than cars of other colors, usually speeding. Maybe a Car Czar will outlaw red cars :))

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Rosetteismyname (Centrist) - 9 months ago

I used to see a bias in the polls, sometimes, I still do see a bias like a loaded question or sort....but it is what it is...

I think that the "politics.com" people are only 1 person - maybe a few people, but I really do believe it is just one person

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to FREEDOMMM
I do. We live in De Toqueville's soft tryanny, I'm afraid legaization could make it worse. It's not … Show full comment

Abortion is aberrant behavior, no matter how Politically Correct it is. Call it what it truly is, the taking of human life, it turns into an ugly murder.
The War on Drugs is another Politically Correct aberration, an international charade.

The War on Drugs is a losing battle because it s on shaky ground. The War on Drugs makes the substance the criminal instead of the actions of a person. The Cartels flourish in part because drugs are illegal, as bootlegging flourished because alcohol was illegal. The War on Drugs doesn't really address the problems, which are the crimes associated with drugs.

Are you familiar with decriminalization of drugs? In short, it displaces the power of Pleasure Police from the substance you may like, and puts the crime in the actions that affect others. And the Pleasure Police would have your guns just as quickly as your drugs, and for similar reasons.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

FREEDOMMM (Republican) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to ironhead
I'm not evading anything, maybe I misunderstood what you were advocating in terms of using capital p … Show full comment

I do. We live in De Toqueville's soft tryanny, I'm afraid legaization could make it worse.
It's not radical to revisit the pushers with the same death they've profited from; amnesty's answer is part of the reason the solution was never tried; plus it could set a legal precedent for the left to use against gun rights, even though a logical jurist would know to invoke the second amendment. Don't have too many sound jurists though do we? Federalism would actually work against this as well because someone could procure their drugs in a neighboring state with more permissive laws.

However if implemented Federally(usually hate this option, me and my Jeffersonian Ideals), it would cut out many of the costs you just described. Due process and the apellite process would remain quite costly, but not as much as the we currently waste on ineffective solutions that softpedals the problem.

Abortion used to be aberrant behavior. Legalization made it more socially acceptable; we now have 1.3 million of them per year with no end in sight. Narcotics could have even more dire consequences than that if a steady cheap supply were available.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

amnestymyazz 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to ironhead
You have made a number of assumptions about drug use which are completely off-target. First of all, … Show full comment

I think you may underestimate the number of people that would begin to use upon legalization. Look how many people get hammered on their 21st birthday. How many college kids start drinking as soon as they get away from home. You mention side-effects. How many people smoke cigarettes? The only real side effect is death. I don't agree with Freedomms answer to the dealer/user question. However it can easily be argued that manslaughter charges are in order if you provide the basic ingredients for a hot shot.
The government legalizing the 'hard drugs' removes a stigma. I disagree with the radical approach regarding sentencing that Freedomm advocates, but agree wioth his assessment regarding the effect on society legalization across the board would have.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ironhead (Libertarian) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to FREEDOMMM
You've erected some prepackaged Libertarian strawmen, they won't help. You're evading. I didn't say … Show full comment

I'm not evading anything, maybe I misunderstood what you were advocating in terms of using capital punishment - for which crimes, etc.

No, I don't think that legalization will serve as a tool to enslave us to the state. We're already there, anyway. People are not willing to give up social security, medicaid, a massive military budget, and so on. Drug addiction is far smaller in scale than these programs. I have already illustrated why I feel that legalization would not substantially increase drug abuse.

I agree that there is always the potential for problems when the state has set up modes of dependency in the form of "welfare programs." However, this is why I consistently advocate for reducing or eliminating these programs - and - the war on drugs. However, one huge gap in your argument is the amount of money that is spent on punishing criminals due to drug offenses. If drug laws were abolished, the power that criminals have over the drug market would be eviscerated. It would also eliminate the need for massive amounts of corporate welfare to private prisons which lobby for drug laws - another example of how criminalization serves "to enslave," to use your words, that are already in place. Do you not recognize these effects?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

amnestymyazz 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to hepsy
If pakalolo is legalized, would the people in a user s life who don't use still be victims? Or wou … Show full comment

Alcohol is legal.
Hey I am for legalization of marijuana. Yes the criminalization of it definitely puts a wrinkle in the victimless crime aspect. You could say owning a red car is a crime. Suddenly people with red cars are doing damage to their families:) That's ridiculous but you see my point. Please know I see yours.
I know my previous statements presume much regarding victimless crimes. There are definitely varying degrees. I say marijuana should be excluded from schedule 1 and be made legal. The others? Freedomm is right. This country would be in the shi$$er. You make heroin legal and you will still have thousands of victims paying a price for the users legal activities.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

FREEDOMMM (Republican) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to ironhead
You have made a number of assumptions about drug use which are completely off-target. First of all, … Show full comment

You've erected some prepackaged Libertarian strawmen, they won't help. You're evading.
I didn't say that the illegality steered anyone from drug use. I also didn't say that users should face as harsh a punishment as the pusher, I don't think that's politically viable, you know, like the libertarian party itself..

It's about punishing those who use drugs as a murder weapon, not those on the recieving end of it. It's a logical extension of existing law.

With legalization, use will dramatically increase and we will endup with a corresponding increase in criminal activity from the addional users instead just the pushers, who will be replaced by vending machines and shops.

Now tell me, will legalization serve as a tool for the state to enslave us, yes or no? Why? I'm waiting.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ironhead (Libertarian) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to FREEDOMMM
Alright. You never answered my question. Your drug laws would turn America into a zombie state, mine … Show full comment

You have made a number of assumptions about drug use which are completely off-target. First of all, virtually no one refrains from doing drugs because they are illegal. The urge to use illegal drugs/alcohol is the desire to escape reality. Each person is typically aware of the dangers and harmful effects of such usage, yet they choose to escape reality each time. The law simply doesn't factor in. If drug laws were abolished, access would be easier and more widespread. It would also be done through peaceful business transactions instead of through violent criminals.

Now, under such absence of laws, you are assuming that an entire new segment of the population will be using drugs. It might become slightly more socially acceptable, but the harmful side effects will still be there. There will always be a number of people who will be willing to risk the side effects to escape reality - and they don't care about whether it is legal or not, that much is obvious. My assertion is that anyone who is not now doing drugs probably doesn't do so because of the side effects, not because of the illegality. In other words, their desire to escape reality is less powerful than their concern over the harmful effects.

Your notion of justice would turn the United States into a full-blown police state. We're already well on the way, but what you're advocating would seal the deal. Imagine the police power that would be required to enforce such strict interpretation of such laws. You think the police tactics are rough now in the war on drugs - wait until it is elevated to a crime punishable by death. That would represent the worst tyranny I can imagine - the state is given the authority (by majoritarian fear and tyranny) to execute people for ingesting illegal drugs. No thanks. Your version of "conservatism" sound a lot more like totalitarianism all the time.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to FREEDOMMM
Legal nuance isn't my forte'. I think they would at leat be civilly liable, but ultimatly the idea i … Show full comment

Legal nuance isn't my forte, either, I just know a scattering.
I asked because your comment hinted at responsibility on the dealer but not user.

What do you base your belief on, that a death penalty on both dealers and users will end the drug war? There's enough objection to the death penalty and to the discomfort of the process, to prevent execution of even heinous murderers.

The war on drugs is quite profitable. If the current thugs don't push, new ones will. Do you propose that the lure of a lucrative run will be less real than a maybe death sentence?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

FREEDOMMM (Republican) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to ironhead
Why did you tell me you're not a statist?

Alright. You never answered my question. Your drug laws would turn America into a zombie state, mine would save lives and give justice to those who have lost loved ones to this scourge. If you deal death to kids, lethal injection is too good for you. Our founders preferred hanging, I'm quite versatile as long as their dead at the end of it.

Why do you think the first thing human traffickers do is stick a syringe of Heroin into someones arm after they get hold of them? If you are doped up, you don't care about anything but the next fix. You think it's easy to get Americans hooked on statism with so called free healthcare and welfare type programs, imagine if those people just wanted something as cheap as heroin. The junkies would rule over the us and the government, or anyone else, could control the junkies. Some laws are reasonable, and if in a representative republic people want to make sure that narcotics aren't available, then that is reasonable.

You are so damned steeped in your own argument that you don't realize that you are empowering the very forces you seek to stop. Your brand of libertarianism is sounding more and more anarchistic all the time.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to amnestymyazz
The people in your life that don't use pakalolo and want to talk to you.

If pakalolo is legalized, would the people in a user s life who don't use still be victims?
Or would they be victims only because pakalolo possession is criminal?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ironhead (Libertarian) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to FREEDOMMM
Legal nuance isn't my forte'. I think they would at leat be civilly liable, but ultimatly the idea i … Show full comment

Why did you tell me you're not a statist?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

FREEDOMMM (Republican) - 9 months ago

Show full conversation (21 messages)
Reply to hepsy
Please clarify. You said you'd make dealing a capital offense punishable by death if the drugs sold … Show full comment

Legal nuance isn't my forte'. I think they would at leat be civilly liable, but ultimatly the idea is designed to make the price too high for dealing or using. If the cartels can't recruit thugs to push, the war's over.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

1 - 25 / 124
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next