nan said:

sbenois said:
please respect the fact that the owner of this platform is making a decision in the interest of his online community and sponsors 

Yes, it is his decision who to censor.  When they pulled Paul's thread, I left for a long time.  If they pull this one, I will do the same.  I'm not going to fight with the owner of my local message board,  I will find some other place to discuss ideas.  

 When they “pulled” Paul’s thread, no one had posted on it for about 3 months. Jamie moving that thread re-made it, tbh.

nan said:

sbenois said:
please respect the fact that the owner of this platform is making a decision in the interest of his online community and sponsors 

Yes, it is his decision who to censor.  When they pulled Paul's thread, I left for a long time.  If they pull this one, I will do the same.  I'm not going to fight with the owner of my local message board,  I will find some other place to discuss ideas.  

 Sell crazy someplace else.  We’re all stocked up here. 

"Democrats" calling for silencing dissent. Looking more like Moscow than Maplewood around here.

nan said:

jamie said:
I think the Paul and nan threads should all be in the sub forum.  I’ll try to come up with a solution.  

 A solution?  Why does this thread need a solution?  Why is it different than any other thread? 

 Because we were slaves unto the Deep State ...

nan said:

mfpark said:
Thanks all for the reminder of why I no longer spend much time on MOL.

 Not sure why you say that.  We are talking about Julian Assange and the related topic of censorship.  There is some troll-like behavior, but most people are just talking about the topic(s).

 Talking about it ad infinitum with the same arguments over and over round and around. Far more heat than light. It can both bore and depress people.

nan said:

jamie said:
I think the Paul and nan threads should all be in the sub forum.  I’ll try to come up with a solution.  

 A solution?  Why does this thread need a solution?  Why is it different than any other thread? 

Because it annoys people that multiple nearly identical threads linger at the top of the main page. I contribute to the problem by frequently responding. There is little to be lost by moving it.

paulsurovell said:
"Democrats" calling for silencing dissent. Looking more like Moscow than Maplewood around here.

 Silencing dissent is more and more like Washington as much as Moscow. The Administration is now stripping security clearance from people for the crime of criticizing Trump.

ridski said:

nan said:

sbenois said:
please respect the fact that the owner of this platform is making a decision in the interest of his online community and sponsors 

Yes, it is his decision who to censor.  When they pulled Paul's thread, I left for a long time.  If they pull this one, I will do the same.  I'm not going to fight with the owner of my local message board,  I will find some other place to discuss ideas.  

 When they “pulled” Paul’s thread, no one had posted on it for about 3 months. Jamie moving that thread re-made it, tbh.

 That is not how I remember it.

LOST said:

nan said:

mfpark said:
Thanks all for the reminder of why I no longer spend much time on MOL.

 Not sure why you say that.  We are talking about Julian Assange and the related topic of censorship.  There is some troll-like behavior, but most people are just talking about the topic(s).

 Talking about it ad infinitum with the same arguments over and over round and around. Far more heat than light. It can both bore and depress people.

To each their own. I find political threads where everyone is basically agreeing with everyone else  or repeating variations on MSM talking points boring and depressing. 

nan said:

LOST said:

nan said:

mfpark said:
Thanks all for the reminder of why I no longer spend much time on MOL.

 Not sure why you say that.  We are talking about Julian Assange and the related topic of censorship.  There is some troll-like behavior, but most people are just talking about the topic(s).

 Talking about it ad infinitum with the same arguments over and over round and around. Far more heat than light. It can both bore and depress people.

To each their own. I find political threads where everyone is basically agreeing with everyone else  or repeating variations on MSM talking points boring and depressing. 

 I am not aware of any such threads on Soapbox-Politics.

LOST said:

paulsurovell said:
"Democrats" calling for silencing dissent. Looking more like Moscow than Maplewood around here.

 Silencing dissent is more and more like Washington as much as Moscow. The Administration is now stripping security clearance from people for the crime of criticizing Trump.

But we're talking about Assange.

Some are calling for removing dissenters because they don't like what they post. And please don't blame us for the repetition. Dave23 has debunked that canard.

paulsurovell said:

Some are calling for removing dissenters because they don't like what they post. 

 Who? Be specific.

nan said:

ridski said:

When they “pulled” Paul’s thread, no one had posted on it for about 3 months. Jamie moving that thread re-made it, tbh.

That is not how I remember it.

Paul’s thread was closed to new comments early on Feb. 18. It had been active right up to then. The discussion was reopened a few hours later. After more of the same for a couple of weeks, it was shut down until July, when jamie revived it in a subforum.

paulsurovell said:

Some are calling for removing dissenters because they don't like what they post. And please don't blame us for the repetition. Dave23 has debunked that canard.

There’s more than one possible reason to dislike what people post. The value of dissent is why I appealed to jamie and dave in a PM on Feb. 18 to reopen the thread. The reason I wouldn’t miss it now is the juvenile back-and-forth insults (“Ouch!”) and one-upsmanship that have turned this discussion more and more into a dinner party scripted by Evelyn Waugh or Edward St Aubyn. Only longer.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

ridski said:

When they “pulled” Paul’s thread, no one had posted on it for about 3 months. Jamie moving that thread re-made it, tbh.

That is not how I remember it.

Paul’s thread was closed to new comments early on Feb. 18. It had been active right up to then. The discussion was reopened a few hours later. After more of the same for a couple of weeks, it was shut down until July, when jamie revived it in a subforum.

paulsurovell said:

Some are calling for removing dissenters because they don't like what they post. And please don't blame us for the repetition. Dave23 has debunked that canard.

There’s more than one possible reason to dislike what people post. The value of dissent is why I appealed to jamie and dave in a PM on Feb. 18 to reopen the thread. The reason I wouldn’t miss it now is the juvenile back-and-forth insults (“Ouch!”) and one-upsmanship that have turned this discussion more and more into a dinner party scripted by Evelyn Waugh or Edward St Aubyn. Only longer.

I aimed the word "Ouch!" at Sbenois because it's one of his terms of art -- for which I don't think he's been critized. As I wrote earlier, it's interesting how calls for moderation came not in response to Sbenois' incessant bullying and insults, but at the moment that he was nailed by Klinker and landed on the ropes.

paulsurovell said:

I aimed the word "Ouch!" at Sbenois because it's one of his terms of art -- for which I don't think he's been critized.

No kidding. That was the point of saying “back-and-forth.”

And for him I was saving Kingsley Amis.

Leaving aside who bears responsibility for the "back-and-forth" (which I think you're avoiding) the question remains why you leveled the criticism at me and "saved" your criticism of him.

I can't post quotes from other posts right now (function not working), but Paul's thread was not pulled when it was inactive.  Who would pull an inactive thread?  That makes no sense.  I remember it was after some Muller indictments came out and Dave said they were closing it down, with the implication that Muller finally had the goods to show Paul was wrong.  Still waiting for that.  

drummerboy - (can't post his quote as this functionality is gone).  I answered your question.  I see lots and lots about Russia and Trump.  I don't see anything about the Democratic platform.  I have no idea about the Democratic platform, but I know people are pissed off at the Russians and Donald Trump.  I did see a whole bunch of Democrats voting for Trump's military budget increase, so I guess they are not anti-war.  I did see some Democrats come out for Medicare for All, not necessarily convincingly, but that is not on the Democratic platform.  Free college, not on the Democratic platform.  How about a ban on fracking?  Nope.  What do Democrats stand for.  Show me some (non-Justice, Our Revolution) Democrats not screaming about Russia and Trump.  Kristen Gullibrand seems to be one who smells the winds of change, and some of the other 2020 hopefulls have made some noise, but in general, the Democrats are sill middle of the road alarmists.

nan-

You keep on saying "I see lots and lots about Russia and Trump. " but you can't give one example of a Dem candidate running on Russia and Trump. Not one.

All that you are seeing is people like Jimmy Dore and Greenwald saying that this is what the Dems are doing - but with no proof that it's actually happening.

At some point you need to revisit your premises due to lack of evidence.

As I've said before - there never is an official "platform" for non-presidential elections. So you're asking about something which does not and has never existed. Whether there should be or not is a separate discussion. Whether the Dems are organized effectively for the mid-terms is also another question.

What there is no question about, however, is whether Dems are running primarily on Russia and Trump. They simply are not, and you have no evidence that they are.

So maybe you should stop saying it.

I quoted you, Paul, because you invoked dissent as a shield. The criticism itself didn’t specify anyone. Feel free to either consider it or don’t.

ETA: If I engage with you while ignoring others, you could also consider the possibility it’s a sign of respect more than unfairness. 

drummerboy,

Let's take the Democratic leadership for starters.  Nancy Pelosi.  I just googled her  Here is what I found. Lots about Trump and and John Brennan and raising money from corporate interests.  She mentions the economy and healthcare, but nothing specific and she's not interested in Medicare for All. She says she is for more affordable healthcare.  The Republicans say the same thing. Who would say they are in favor of less affordable healthcare? There is no real plan.  She went to a Mexican restaurant and posed with the owner and asked if the picture was going on Facebook.  She also tells Democrats to do what they need to do to win.  That sounds like a real strong identifiable platform right there, don't you agree?  The midterms are around the corner.  We should have something better than this.

Pelosi, Under Siege in Her Own Party, Says She Is Building Bridge to ...

New York Times-2 hours ago
Nancy Pelosi is confronting rising threats from different corners of the Democratic Party, and is girding for a mortal challenge to her leadership ...

Sacramento Bee urges Nancy Pelosi to abandon speakership ambitions
Washington Examiner-15 hours ago

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi dines at Near Northside Mexican ...
CultureMap Houston-2 hours ago

Who's afraid of Nancy Pelosi?
Indiana Gazette-Aug 15, 2018

Is the November election Pelosi's last stand?
Opinion-San Francisco Chronicle-15 hours ago

Pelosi pulls in staggering sums for Dems despite facing opposition in ...
In-Depth-CNN-18 hours ago

Dear Nancy Pelosi: It's not about you, it's about your party and country ...

Sacramento Bee-19 hours ago
The Republican Party is now clearly the party of Donald Trump. The Democratic Party cannot be seen as the party of Nancy Pelosi and win in ...

Bad News, Republicans, Voters Aren't Afraid of Nancy Pelosi
New York Magazine-17 hours ago

New poll suggests attacks on Nancy Pelosi won't matter in midterms
CNN-Aug 15, 2018

Nancy Pelosi Wants to Be House Speaker Again to Provide 'Check ...
Breitbart News-19 hours ago

The Daily 202: The US economy is thriving. Can Republicans ride that ...
Opinion-Washington Post-3 hours ago

REPUBLICANS RESPOND TO BRENNAN NEWS -- Trump, McCarthy ...
In-Depth-Politico-3 hours ago

Pelosi takes on the roaring economy, and Trump

Chicago Tribune-Aug 14, 2018
California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the U.S. House, was in Chicago on Tuesday and spent an hour in conversation with the ...

You Want Nancy Pelosi Out? Find Somebody Better.
Esquire.com-Aug 13, 2018

Time for a Nancy Pelosi Farewell Victory Tour and new House leaders ...
Opinion-USA TODAY-Aug 13, 2018

GOP to weaponize Pelosi and 'San Francisco values' in key California ...
In-Depth-San Francisco Chronicle-Aug 14, 2018View all

Nancy Pelosi earns 4 Pinocchios for Mitch McConnell 'racist' jab

Courier Journal-Aug 15, 2018
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi was tagged with four Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact-checker this week for her claim that ...

Nancy Pelosi to Rival Dems: If You Want My Job, Prove Yourself

Daily Beast-53 minutes ago
Nancy Pelosi has addressed rumblings in the Democratic Party about her continued tenure as leader of the House minority in an interview in ...

Nancy Pelosi: Trump revoking John Brennan's security clearance a ...

Washington Examiner-18 hours ago
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the White House revoking the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan was a ...

Trump revokes ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance
In-Depth-Fox News-18 hours agoView all

Nancy Pelosi twists an old McConnell quote into a 'racist statement'

Washington Post-Aug 14, 2018
“Let me remind you that when the Republicans took power when President Obama was president of the United States, what Mitch McConnell ...

Nancy Pelosi calls out Mitch McConnell for 'racist' tactics

Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era-14 hours ago
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's actions were "unthinkable" if not "racist" for ...

Pelosi to Dem Candidates: "Do Whatever You Have To Do, Just Win"

RealClearPolitics-Aug 12, 2018
On MSNBC, Nancy Pelosi encourages Democrats to do "whatever they have to do" to win and adds that she is the "best person for the job" of ...

Nancy Pelosi tells Democratic candidates to 'just win' in November ...
Washington Examiner-Aug 12, 2018View all

Quote button fail. Another masterpiece of maintenance.   

Let's take the Democratic leadership for starters.  Nancy Pelosi.  I just googled her  Here is what I found. Lots about Trump and and John Brennan and raising money from corporate interests.  She mentions the economy and healthcare, but nothing specific and she's not interested in Medicare for All. She says she is for more affordable healthcare.  The Republicans say the same thing. Who would say they are in favor of less affordable healthcare? There is no real plan.  She went to a Mexican restaurant and posed with the owner and asked if the picture was going on Facebook.  She also tells Democrats to do what they need to do to win.  That sounds like a real strong identifiable platform right there, don't you agree?  The midterms are around the corner.  We should have something better than this.

I agree. Pelosi is regressive. The past. She does not strike me as the future. What was OK twenty years ago is no longer sufficient.

She and her cohorts have wedged themselves in deeply. A cabal of opportunists scratching each others backs. Her main thrust is to remain leader, and to be again speaker.

Can she hang on if a blue wave leads to a reinvigorated house?

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
If you read what I actually said, you will see that I said hate speech and libel and anything illegal should be removed.  But, I don't think whole groups or people should be banned unless it can shown that that is all they do.  

 What's the magic ratio?  How much of a percentage of hate speech and libel would keep someone safe?  How much is too much?  If they keep doing it, even when warned (Alex Jones can't say he's not been warned) should a private company be able to say, "Sorry, you can't use our platform any more"?

 No hate speech, inciting violence.  Why should there be a percentage?  But, hate speech needs to be clearly defined. I'm not sure what should be done, but I don't celebrate the horrible Alex Jones being banned cause it is a slippery slope and it has already been abused and good sites have been brought down.  

 I highlighted two parts you wrote.  First, that you don't think people should be banned unless it can be shown that hate speech and libel is all they do.  So, I asked, how much is too much, before they can be banned.  So that's why I mentioned percentages, because of your statement.

As you know, ordinary people and groups are the victims of this Alex Jones character.  If a private company doesn't want to be a part of that, what's the best argument to tell them that they should be?

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
If you read what I actually said, you will see that I said hate speech and libel and anything illegal should be removed.  But, I don't think whole groups or people should be banned unless it can shown that that is all they do.  

 What's the magic ratio?  How much of a percentage of hate speech and libel would keep someone safe?  How much is too much?  If they keep doing it, even when warned (Alex Jones can't say he's not been warned) should a private company be able to say, "Sorry, you can't use our platform any more"?

 No hate speech, inciting violence.  Why should there be a percentage?  But, hate speech needs to be clearly defined. I'm not sure what should be done, but I don't celebrate the horrible Alex Jones being banned cause it is a slippery slope and it has already been abused and good sites have been brought down.  

 I highlighted two parts you wrote.  First, that you don't think people should be banned unless it can be shown that hate speech and libel is all they do.  So, I asked, how much is too much, before they can be banned.  So that's why I mentioned percentages, because of your statement.
As you know, ordinary people and groups are the victims of this Alex Jones character.  If a private company doesn't want to be a part of that, what's the best argument to tell them that they should be?

 They should remove that Alex Jones stuff attacking victims of the Newtown shooting.  And I suggested early, maybe private companies should not be owning the new town square.  I'm just suggesting some things--I have don't have any firm answers except to stand up in general against censorship because that ends up destroying freedom of the press.

nan,

you didn't really expect me to read that post, did you? It had nothing to do with our point of contention - which is simply that you keep on lying, yes lying, about the Dem's supposed focus on nothing but Russia and Trump for the mid-terms. You're just repeating horsh!t that you're hearing on your news sources - just assuming that it's true.

drummerboy said:
nan,
you didn't really expect me to read that post, did you? It had nothing to do with our point of contention - which is simply that you keep on lying, yes lying, about the Dem's supposed focus on nothing but Russia and Trump for the mid-terms. You're just repeating horsh!t that you're hearing on your news sources - just assuming that it's true.

 I proved my point with that.  The Dems have nothing but Trump, Russia, and photo ops in Mexican restaurants.  I saw your post on LOST's thread where you said Pelosi does not have to do policy.  Yes she does.  She should be saying what the Democrats stand for cause no one has a clue, including the Democrats.

edited to add:  I just found this!

No, Democrats Don’t Need a National Platform for the Midterms

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/democrats-dont-need-a-national-platform-for-the-midterms.html

The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.

Example

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage

dave said:
The threads here about Trump and Russia that nan and paul start are all about Trump and Russia.   If anyone goes to actual Democratic  party web sites, those are like 5-8% Trump and Russia [ETA: looks like even lower] and more about all the other issues.
Example
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage

 That's the 2016 platform--the one Bernie Sanders fought for and put Cornell West on the committee to get.  They don't use that one anymore.

Censorship now moving on to leftists, as predicted.  Go against war and you will be smeared as a "Russian" and removed.