Sensible GOP lawmaker criticizes Nazi talk

[nowhereman 1]

Yes I agree that using the same words that the Socialists did for many years are wrong.

funny how they are outraged now, eh?

Charles knock off the passive-aggressive BS. Lucky loves to make dumb little drive-by remarks like this & they shouldn't be condoned. Whether a left wing nut or right wing nut calls someone else a Nazi it's inappropriate & I'm sure offensive to anyone that knew someone who spent time (or worse yet died) in concentration camps.

[peejay 327]

I don't want the mods to look into it. It was the mods that interjected themselves into the thread in the first place telling me that no matter how much I'm provoked that I should ignore it. How about flagging the provocateurs instead of the person it was directed to? I'm all for free expression and can defend myself. It just seemed that the mod didn't agree with my viewpoint and took it out on me instead.

The mod's comment wasn't directed at you but probably it appears that way since suspensions are handed out erratically or not at all depending on the poster.

Exactly. Depending on the viewpoint of the poster. That is not moderating. That is censorship of expression depending on whether the viewpoint is shared by the mods. I don't like or agree with many viewpoints on this forum, but as long as someone is not overly abusive (within reasonable parameters) to another member let the free expression of ideas flourish.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

Yes I agree that using the same words that the Socialists did for many years are wrong.

funny how they are outraged now, eh?

Charles knock off the passive-aggressive BS. Lucky loves to make dumb little drive-by remarks like this & they shouldn't be condoned. Whether a left wing nut or right wing nut calls someone else a Nazi it's inappropriate & I'm sure offensive to anyone that knew someone who spent time (or worse yet died) in concentration camps.

speaking of passive aggressive.......

[nowhereman 1]

I don't want the mods to look into it. It was the mods that interjected themselves into the thread in the first place telling me that no matter how much I'm provoked that I should ignore it. How about flagging the provocateurs instead of the person it was directed to? I'm all for free expression and can defend myself. It just seemed that the mod didn't agree with my viewpoint and took it out on me instead.

The mod's comment wasn't directed at you but probably it appears that way since suspensions are handed out erratically or not at all depending on the poster.

Exactly. Depending on the viewpoint of the poster. That is not moderating. That is censorship of expression depending on whether the viewpoint is shared by the mods. I don't like or agree with many viewpoints on this forum, but as long as someone is not overly abusive (within reasonable parameters) to another member let the free expression of ideas flourish.

There is so much baiting & bashing going on in this thread that I honestly can't tell who shot John, but let's keep this simple:

Try stating your opinion w/o trying to bait other posters and/or defending indefensible actions (like calling our President a Nazi) by saying that the left or right did the same thing before. As much as I thought Bush was a horrible President that's all I called him... I never stated or implied he was a war criminal, Nazi, etc. If you disapprove of Obama knock yourself out by stating why, but to call him a Nazi is offensive not only to the POTUS but worse yet to actual victims of Nazis.

Grow up.

Yes I agree that using the same words that the Socialists did for many years are wrong.

funny how they are outraged now, eh?

Charles knock off the passive-aggressive BS. Lucky loves to make dumb little drive-by remarks like this & they shouldn't be condoned. Whether a left wing nut or right wing nut calls someone else a Nazi it's inappropriate & I'm sure offensive to anyone that knew someone who spent time (or worse yet died) in concentration camps.

speaking of passive aggressive.......

Charles for the love of God knock it off... you know damn well Lucky was baiting when he said that.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

Yes I agree that using the same words that the Socialists did for many years are wrong.

funny how they are outraged now, eh?

Charles knock off the passive-aggressive BS. Lucky loves to make dumb little drive-by remarks like this & they shouldn't be condoned. Whether a left wing nut or right wing nut calls someone else a Nazi it's inappropriate & I'm sure offensive to anyone that knew someone who spent time (or worse yet died) in concentration camps.

speaking of passive aggressive.......

Charles for the love of God knock it off... you know damn well Lucky was baiting when he said that.

and let me guess - you're not baiting with your remark about him?

[peejay 327]

I don't want the mods to look into it. It was the mods that interjected themselves into the thread in the first place telling me that no matter how much I'm provoked that I should ignore it. How about flagging the provocateurs instead of the person it was directed to? I'm all for free expression and can defend myself. It just seemed that the mod didn't agree with my viewpoint and took it out on me instead.

The mod's comment wasn't directed at you but probably it appears that way since suspensions are handed out erratically or not at all depending on the poster.

Exactly. Depending on the viewpoint of the poster. That is not moderating. That is censorship of expression depending on whether the viewpoint is shared by the mods. I don't like or agree with many viewpoints on this forum, but as long as someone is not overly abusive (within reasonable parameters) to another member let the free expression of ideas flourish.

There is so much baiting & bashing going on in this thread that I honestly can't tell who shot John, but let's keep this simple:

Try stating your opinion w/o trying to bait other posters and/or defending indefensible actions (like calling our President a Nazi) by saying that the left or right did the same thing before. As much as I thought Bush was a horrible President that's all I called him... I never stated or implied he was a war criminal, Nazi, etc. If you disapprove of Obama knock yourself out by stating why, but to call him a Nazi is offensive not only to the POTUS but worse yet to actual victims of Nazis.

Grow up.

I'm 52 years old and have been a grown up for decades. So much for baiting and bashing other posters. LoL

As I said...getting slapped down by some of the mods depends on the viewpoint of the baiter and/or basher. Fair and balanced? Not hardly.

[nowhereman 1]

I don't want the mods to look into it. It was the mods that interjected themselves into the thread in the first place telling me that no matter how much I'm provoked that I should ignore it. How about flagging the provocateurs instead of the person it was directed to? I'm all for free expression and can defend myself. It just seemed that the mod didn't agree with my viewpoint and took it out on me instead.

The mod's comment wasn't directed at you but probably it appears that way since suspensions are handed out erratically or not at all depending on the poster.

Exactly. Depending on the viewpoint of the poster. That is not moderating. That is censorship of expression depending on whether the viewpoint is shared by the mods. I don't like or agree with many viewpoints on this forum, but as long as someone is not overly abusive (within reasonable parameters) to another member let the free expression of ideas flourish.

There is so much baiting & bashing going on in this thread that I honestly can't tell who shot John, but let's keep this simple:

Try stating your opinion w/o trying to bait other posters and/or defending indefensible actions (like calling our President a Nazi) by saying that the left or right did the same thing before. As much as I thought Bush was a horrible President that's all I called him... I never stated or implied he was a war criminal, Nazi, etc. If you disapprove of Obama knock yourself out by stating why, but to call him a Nazi is offensive not only to the POTUS but worse yet to actual victims of Nazis.

Grow up.

I'm 52 years old and have been a grown up for decades. So much for baiting and bashing other posters. LoL

As I said...getting slapped down by some of the mods depends on the viewpoint of the baiter and/or basher. Fair and balanced? Not hardly.

I wasn't referring to you; I don't even know what you said. I am referring to the posters who make drive-by remarks with the sole purpose of baiting & when someone responds to their remark (perhaps too strongly) that person gets penalized & the original instigator gets nothing but a good chuckle.

[nowhereman 1]

and let me guess - you're not baiting with your remark about him?

We both know Lucky was baiting & you're condoning it because it comes from the right. If you want to be a referee at least try to be objective. Otherwise silence would be the more prudent course of action.

Peejay: I am referring specifically to Bat Guano's reply to what Lucky said... Bat probably overreacted a bit but he was correct. Lucky was the instigator, not Bat (I thought the mod was scolding Bat, but I could be wrong).

Edited August 14, 2009 by nowhereman

[William33 110]

I don't want the mods to look into it. It was the mods that interjected themselves into the thread in the first place telling me that no matter how much I'm provoked that I should ignore it. How about flagging the provocateurs instead of the person it was directed to? I'm all for free expression and can defend myself. It just seemed that the mod didn't agree with my viewpoint and took it out on me instead.

The mod's comment wasn't directed at you but probably it appears that way since suspensions are handed out erratically or not at all depending on the poster.

Exactly. Depending on the viewpoint of the poster. That is not moderating. That is censorship of expression depending on whether the viewpoint is shared by the mods. I don't like or agree with many viewpoints on this forum, but as long as someone is not overly abusive (within reasonable parameters) to another member let the free expression of ideas flourish.

There is so much baiting & bashing going on in this thread that I honestly can't tell who shot John, but let's keep this simple:

Try stating your opinion w/o trying to bait other posters and/or defending indefensible actions (like calling our President a Nazi) by saying that the left or right did the same thing before. As much as I thought Bush was a horrible President that's all I called him... I never stated or implied he was a war criminal, Nazi, etc. If you disapprove of Obama knock yourself out by stating why, but to call him a Nazi is offensive not only to the POTUS but worse yet to actual victims of Nazis.

Grow up.

I'm 52 years old and have been a grown up for decades. So much for baiting and bashing other posters. LoL

As I said...getting slapped down by some of the mods depends on the viewpoint of the baiter and/or basher. Fair and balanced? Not hardly.

Seriously? We Moderators weigh comments against the TOS, irrespective of the poster. If Ewok sidestepped the TOS, we Mods would suspend him, surmising that the control panel would allow it. All of us value our personal time, but Moderators here donate significant personal time to better the site, without prejudice.

Your statement is unfair and frankly inaccurate.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

and let me guess - you're not baiting with your remark about him?

We both know Lucky was baiting & you're condoning it because it comes from the right. If you want to be a referee at least try to be objective. Otherwise silence would be the more prudent course of action.

what i'm pointing out is your hypocrisy in your posts. it's wonderful watching your pot/kettle moments and you can't even see the forest for the trees

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Can't you just close a thread when it becomes completely stupid, without any saving humor? If so, I would say this thread passed a long time ago.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

If Ewok sidestepped the TOS, we Mods would suspend him, surmising that the control panel would allow it.

i'd love to see that happen

[William33 110]

A cogent point there Bill. We have done that in the past, and the backlash/feedback was, well, you know.....

At this stage, we try to offer some latitude among the regulars in OT. As everyone knows, the upper forums are off limits for ridiculous behavior.

Can't you just close a thread when it becomes completely stupid, without any saving humor? If so, I would say this thread passed a long time ago.

[HAL 9000 96]

Can't you just close a thread when it becomes completely stupid, without any saving humor? If so, I would say this thread passed a long time ago.

But at least let it stay open for more reading. Can't believe this kept going.

And we still have lawmakers and pundits lying to their constituencies and viewers in order to further political agendas that couldn't be further from the actual content of what they 'oppose.' Go figure.

[nowhereman 1]

and let me guess - you're not baiting with your remark about him?

We both know Lucky was baiting & you're condoning it because it comes from the right. If you want to be a referee at least try to be objective. Otherwise silence would be the more prudent course of action.

what i'm pointing out is your hypocrisy in your posts. it's wonderful watching your pot/kettle moments and you can't even see the forest for the trees

Charles you are the last person to point out hypocrisy... you have a very well-established track record of being dead silent or even condoning inappropriate, offensive or just plain dumb comments when they come from the right... in fact you make them yourself. I may be left of the VJ center (which is pretty far right IMO but that's another topic) but I have also denounced inappropriate, offensive or dumb comments from the VJ left on numerous occasions. I'd say "doctor heal thyself" like you said earier, but I think your case is terminal.