Wht is the ratio of posts deleted between "Liberal and Conservative Views"

[Anonymous]

Conservative opinons are fine, if stated clearly and eloquently, but let's be frank, you are not exactly George Will here. Repeatedly posting "pass the weed" does not constitute legitimate debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?

What a surprise. No answer about monitoring the Lib posts. Take a peak if you can stomach reality, at the posts that preceded "weed" comments.

Is the Lib world one of free expression, equity and honesty? Should this honestly be titled "Progressive Political Discussion?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?

What a surprise. No answer about monitoring the Lib posts. Take a peak if you can stomach reality, at the posts that preceded "weed" comments.

Is the Lib world one of free expression, equity and honesty? Should this honestly be titled "Progressive Political Discussion?"

Here you are doing what the hysterical anti-racism poster does. Claiming to be defending certain issues while completely injecting yourself into the debate because of your divisive behavior. What you don't see and don't want to see is that your performance on these boards is all about you and getting attention. You want to make it about politics but the reality is that it is about dominating the threads and being as disruptive as possible. What's not clear is whether you are completely unaware of your impact or whether you are doing it deliberately as a kind of distracting amusement for yourself.

Either way, it's clear that the agenda is to get attention rather more than it is to convince other people of the correctness of your views. And as long as people rise to the bait (or until Jeff bars you from DCUM), it will continue You can pretend it's something different, but we know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?

No. Should fox be required to give time to any point of view out there? No. Then must Jeff? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?

What a surprise. No answer about monitoring the Lib posts. Take a peak if you can stomach reality, at the posts that preceded "weed" comments.

Is the Lib world one of free expression, equity and honesty? Should this honestly be titled "Progressive Political Discussion?"

Here you are doing what the hysterical anti-racism poster does. Claiming to be defending certain issues while completely injecting yourself into the debate because of your divisive behavior. What you don't see and don't want to see is that your performance on these boards is all about you and getting attention. You want to make it about politics but the reality is that it is about dominating the threads and being as disruptive as possible. What's not clear is whether you are completely unaware of your impact or whether you are doing it deliberately as a kind of distracting amusement for yourself.

Either way, it's clear that the agenda is to get attention rather more than it is to convince other people of the correctness of your views. And as long as people rise to the bait (or until Jeff bars you from DCUM), it will continue You can pretend it's something different, but we know better.

Again, a failure to address whether equity exists here in any fashion, gag on an ant and swallow an elephant. An honest appraisal of whether dissenting views are welcome is called for. By the looks of things others have been shown they are not welcome and leave.

I am not attempting to convince anyone only suggesting that all facts be considered. If we dispute facts, that should be sorted out in most cases. If the facts make people angry, as you know happens here; so be it. Associating me with the smelly guy or whoever the "race" guy is suggests two things: an attempt to distort my message and the fact that you only need one hand to count contrary views expressed here. See if you can grow a pair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?

What a surprise. No answer about monitoring the Lib posts. Take a peak if you can stomach reality, at the posts that preceded "weed" comments.

Is the Lib world one of free expression, equity and honesty? Should this honestly be titled "Progressive Political Discussion?"

Here you are doing what the hysterical anti-racism poster does. Claiming to be defending certain issues while completely injecting yourself into the debate because of your divisive behavior. What you don't see and don't want to see is that your performance on these boards is all about you and getting attention. You want to make it about politics but the reality is that it is about dominating the threads and being as disruptive as possible. What's not clear is whether you are completely unaware of your impact or whether you are doing it deliberately as a kind of distracting amusement for yourself.

Either way, it's clear that the agenda is to get attention rather more than it is to convince other people of the correctness of your views. And as long as people rise to the bait (or until Jeff bars you from DCUM), it will continue You can pretend it's something different, but we know better.

Again, a failure to address whether equity exists here in any fashion, gag on an ant and swallow an elephant. An honest appraisal of whether dissenting views are welcome is called for. By the looks of things others have been shown they are not welcome and leave.

I am not attempting to convince anyone only suggesting that all facts be considered. If we dispute facts, that should be sorted out in most cases. If the facts make people angry, as you know happens here; so be it. Associating me with the smelly guy or whoever the "race" guy is suggests two things: an attempt to distort my message and the fact that you only need one hand to count contrary views expressed here. See if you can grow a pair.

Like I said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?

No. Should fox be required to give time to any point of view out there? No. Then must Jeff? No.

PP here.

You obviously do not watch it. They have lots more than Juan Williams who is not to be trusted. Bob Begley, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont,Mara Liason, too many to name, they are there on every show. What a surprise that you are so ignorant and proud of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK

Let me ask you. Has Jeff ever put online comments to a Sargent Underpants, Islamo, Ayers, 44 caliber, pickup truck, codpiece, troll, fox lover yadda, yadda, poster?

Since all the major networks, Katie, Chris Mathews, etc. and now NPR are all LIB, should FOX be eliminated by Executive order and whatever it takes because the Libs do not care for freedome of expression and hate facts they cannot deal with?

No. Should fox be required to give time to any point of view out there? No. Then must Jeff? No.

PP here.

You obviously do not watch it. They have lots more than Juan Williams who is not to be trusted. Bob Begley, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont,Mara Liason, too many to name, they are there on every show. What a surprise that you are so ignorant and proud of it.

Liberal and Conservative are not the only points of view. And I said "must". Learn to read.

You have the freedom to speak. That freedom does not require every publisher to give you a microphone at their expense. Rupert murdoch sure doesn't. They edit the he'll out of the WSJ comments section and they are upfront about it.

[Anonymous]

It's all about integrity, honesty and accuracy. I think pretending to be open to other points of view and then for example yanking a link that shows Farrakhan and Wright having had a fieldtrip to Libya to visit Quadaffi is very suspect. Oh, the alleged reason, consevatives (all one or two) MIGHT be upset if it was suggested that McCain traveled there too.

It is such a comfort to know that my sensibilities are being considered or a lot of crap. You decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all about integrity, honesty and accuracy. I think pretending to be open to other points of view and then for example yanking a link that shows Farrakhan and Wright having had a fieldtrip to Libya to visit Quadaffi is very suspect. Oh, the alleged reason, consevatives (all one or two) MIGHT be upset if it was suggested that McCain traveled there too.

It is such a comfort to know that my sensibilities are being considered or a lot of crap. You decide.

A lot of conservative posts make it. That suggests something was different about yours. It's impossIble to judge which of the two of you is out of line. But Jeff lets through a lot of stuff he does not agree with, so that outs the burden of proof back on you.

[Anonymous]

Puts not outs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all about integrity, honesty and accuracy. I think pretending to be open to other points of view and then for example yanking a link that shows Farrakhan and Wright having had a fieldtrip to Libya to visit Quadaffi is very suspect. Oh, the alleged reason, consevatives (all one or two) MIGHT be upset if it was suggested that McCain traveled there too.

It is such a comfort to know that my sensibilities are being considered or a lot of crap. You decide.

A lot of conservative posts make it. That suggests something was different about yours. It's impossIble to judge which of the two of you is out of line. But Jeff lets through a lot of stuff he does not agree with, so that outs the burden of proof back on you.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/flashback-louis-farrakhan-jeremiah-wright-foster-gaddafi-alliance/

pulled twice............why? truth hurts..........there may be songs by that title

[Anonymous]

Link is still there.

[Anonymous]

Link is still there. It looks like the deletion is due to your bullying behavior, not the content of the link itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Link is still there. It looks like the deletion is due to your bullying behavior, not the content of the link itself.

A new link on Farrakhan from yesterday has been pulled twice in the last 30 minutes, second one with no comments.