Guest 2hard2tame Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 I am a little confused. as long as its against the right, and against anyone Conservative, its ok for old queens and their ilk to bash, insult and demean people.. But If I make a thread with our current case of affirmative action of a president's name as the title and some of the outright lies he has told it gets erased?
Members MsGuy Posted March 16, 2009 Members Posted March 16, 2009 I am a little confused.as long as its against the right, and against anyone Conservative, its ok for old queens and their ilk to bash, insult and demean people.. But If I make a thread with our current case of affirmative action of a president's name as the title and some of the outright lies he has told it gets erased? It's more like the moderators here know that when you get to feeling bored, lonely &/or inadequate, you go looking for "old queens" to cyberbully. Political flame wars just don't fit the tone they seek to promote. Just remember Reagan had it right when he said thet the guy that pays for the mike gets to say who speaks.
Guest Conway Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think that's it at all. I'm as much a right winger here as anyone. It seems that. regardless of your political persuasion, you're less likely to get a thread yanked or locked if you take a very reasonable and intelligent approach to your argument. Just last week, one of the ragers of the left had a number of threads locked that were obviously intended to be a powder keg. This is a nice online community where a number of us have learned that we can agree to disagree as gentlemen. Feel free to start threads. But, argue intelligently and with respect for the opinions of others.
Guest 2hard2tame Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 It's more like the moderators here know that when you get to feeling bored, lonely &/or inadequate,you go looking for "old queens" to cyberbully. Political flame wars just don't fit the tone they seek to promote. Just remember Reagan had it right when he said thet the guy that pays for the mike gets to say who speaks. ? So, is this what you mean? That 4-5 posters can regularly post negative things about mainstream politicians or what have you as long as it has nothing to do with liberalism or the lies of our president?
Guest 2hard2tame Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think that's it at all. I'm as much a right winger here as anyone. It seems that. regardless of your political persuasion, you're less likely to get a thread yanked or locked if you take a very reasonable and intelligent approach to your argument.Just last week, one of the ragers of the left had a number of threads locked that were obviously intended to be a powder keg. This is a nice online community where a number of us have learned that we can agree to disagree as gentlemen. Feel free to start threads. But, argue intelligently and with respect for the opinions of others. I am respectful of others who deserve respect or show they are respectful. But, I am not going to passively stand by while my threads (which are not worded wrong, or disrespectful) are locked and deleted. Fact is, the vast majority of people voted for Osama simply because he was black. Very few and I mean very few people voted for him because of his beliefs, social policies and really anything he is doing today. The only thing he did was shout "Change". The general attitude was, "its about time we have a black president ect ect ect." So, you mean to tell me that you really don't think his presidency was anything BUT affirmative action? The only people who voted for him KNOWING what he was about were the truly scary, radical left who seek to destroy the foundation of what made this country truly great. The rest just saw a half black guy and voted for him out of guilt/shamed into it and most importantly, ignorance.
Members MsGuy Posted March 16, 2009 Members Posted March 16, 2009 I am respectful of others who deserve respect or show they are respectful.But, I am not going to passively stand by while my threads (which are not worded wrong, or disrespectful) are locked and deleted. Fact is, the vast majority of people voted for Osama simply because he was black. Very few and I mean very few people voted for him because of his beliefs, social policies and really anything he is doing today. The only thing he did was shout "Change". The general attitude was, "its about time we have a black president ect ect ect." So, you mean to tell me that you really don't think his presidency was anything BUT affirmative action? The only people who voted for him KNOWING what he was about were the truly scary, radical left who seek to destroy the foundation of what made this country truly great. The rest just saw a half black guy and voted for him out of guilt/shamed into it and most importantly, ignorance.
Members MsGuy Posted March 16, 2009 Members Posted March 16, 2009 Conway: My bad. Your remarks were spot on. Futher, you disagreed with and corrected both of us w/o being disrespectful to either of us. Thanks. 2hard2tame: My bad. I took a personal swipe at you rather than responding to your point. Please accept my apology. Everybody: Sorry about clogging up the thread with dead quotes. Despite clear directions provided by the management, I keep screwing it up.
caeron Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think that's it at all. I'm as much a right winger here as anyone. It seems that. regardless of your political persuasion, you're less likely to get a thread yanked or locked if you take a very reasonable and intelligent approach to your argument.Just last week, one of the ragers of the left had a number of threads locked that were obviously intended to be a powder keg. This is a nice online community where a number of us have learned that we can agree to disagree as gentlemen. Feel free to start threads. But, argue intelligently and with respect for the opinions of others. Conway has it exactly right. In fact, I asked for one of those posts to be reviewed... and I'm generally considered a lefty. I believe the moderators don't have any desire for spitting matches. I hope not. But if you engage with integrity, you'll have an interesting conversation. I'm socially very left wing, economically right wing, and middle of the road on foreign diplomacy. I want to hear from all sides, but in a reasoned, and rational way. The way you might disagree at a friend's dinner party. You might express a strong opinion, but you wouldn't start insulting the other guests. Well, unless you were drunk and an ass. Which is how it comes off here.
caeron Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 MsGuy, Just ignore 2hard2tame. He's clearly interested in starting threads about himself and gets upset when not enough people pay attention to him. The online equivalent of dancing on the table with a lampshade on your head.
Members TampaYankee Posted March 16, 2009 Members Posted March 16, 2009 I am a little confused.as long as its against the right, and against anyone Conservative, its ok for old queens and their ilk to bash, insult and demean people.. But If I make a thread with our current case of affirmative action of a president's name as the title and some of the outright lies he has told it gets erased? Your 'missing' thread was was not a current event postings It soley meant to provoke a political discussion. Let me refresh your memory about our political discussions policy reiterated at the bottom of the thread: http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/inde...?showtopic=3362 and copied here... Surprisingly, we were able to navigate the Presidential Nomination and Election Season without running off the rails of civil discussion. It seems that forebearance has run out. This thread with it's childish and personal attacks is the perfect example of why political discussions generally are frowned upon. With the Season of Civility at an end so is our tolerance of political discussions. Too bad, as policy discussions without personal attacks can be interesting. Current events postings without opinions serve an informative function and remain welcome.
Members TampaYankee Posted March 16, 2009 Members Posted March 16, 2009 I am respectful of others who deserve respect or show they are respectful.But, I am not going to passively stand by while my threads (which are not worded wrong, or disrespectful) are locked and deleted. Fact is, the vast majority of people voted for Osama simply because he was black. Very few and I mean very few people voted for him because of his beliefs, social policies and really anything he is doing today. The only thing he did was shout "Change". The general attitude was, "its about time we have a black president ect ect ect." So, you mean to tell me that you really don't think his presidency was anything BUT affirmative action? The only people who voted for him KNOWING what he was about were the truly scary, radical left who seek to destroy the foundation of what made this country truly great. The rest just saw a half black guy and voted for him out of guilt/shamed into it and most importantly, ignorance. Thank you for your opinion about Obama but this isn't the place for it. This post violates our policy against political opinion posts designed to elicit an exchange of political opinons. Please take it to another site. Unfortuately, leaving this post live only invites other poltical responses so I will close it. If you wish to carry on a discussion about our policy then start a new thread.
Members TampaYankee Posted March 16, 2009 Members Posted March 16, 2009 ?So, is this what you mean? That 4-5 posters can regularly post negative things about mainstream politicians or what have you as long as it has nothing to do with liberalism or the lies of our president? Please alert us if you find a post meant to provoke political exchanges. Thanks.
