# Arabs understand what America doesn't



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yup, they know he is an Arab. I suppose he could never have been elected as an Arab, and could not have been defeated as a black. Race was a big part of the last election.
The good part is he may be able to have better relations with Arab nations. I'm not sure that will translate to America having better relations. If it means our country must bow to the Saudi king they can kiss off. 
What's good for Obama may not be what's good for America. I'm sure Obama sees himself in an important position in the new American Socialist movement, but that's not good for America. What's good for Obama in the Arab nations likewise will perhaps not be good for America. If it is good it can only become so through concessions like betraying our old allies. Good-bye Israel. Ya, I know, I know, that makes many of you liberals happy. If it does I would never want you at my back in a bad situation. 
Good news/bad news? What do you guys think?



> Obama more popular than U.S. among Arabs: survey
> Sun May 10, 2009 7:02pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
> 
> Featured Broker sponsored link
> ...


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

lol, I had a dream we were impeaching Obama last night.

I think I can't wait until 4 years are over. I've never been so sick about our gov't leadership in my life... I can't wait until they tell the automakers what kinda gas friendly death trap car's to make because they gave them the bailout to survive...


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

I would think this could be considered good news. It's obvious that our nation has been disliked by folks in that general region for a while now. Why would it be bad news that our new leader is seen more favorably? Like Rodney King said several years ago, "Can't we just all get along?"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right, it could be something good. On the other hand how long will that keep the radical Muslims happy? It could start good and turn out bad. What happens when a year or two down the road they want us to turn our back on Israel while they go to war against Israel. I don't think there is any way to get along with these radicals short of a 308 to the cranial cavity.

Short term this could be great. Long term it could be a disaster. The radicals want to dominate the world. Maybe we will get along while Obama is in this four years, then it will be worse than ever. What treaties will he make that we can not possibly live up to?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

fhalum said:



> I would think this could be considered good news. It's obvious that our nation has been disliked by folks in that general region for a while now. Why would it be bad news that our new leader is seen more favorably? Like Rodney King said several years ago, "Can't we just all get along?"


Of course you are right. Gotta remember that it's the "in thing" on this site to spin anything that might be favorable about Obama into something (terribly) bad.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, we shall just see now....but my bet is he will sell out the Jews when it comes to Iran. all indications are, he will throw any one or anything under the bus, if it suits his objective. he is now in a position to show his true colors....."my Muslim faith, campaigning in all 57 states".... :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:


> Your right, it could be something good.


Seabass wrote:


> Of course you are right. Gotta remember that it's the "in thing" on this site to spin anything that might be favorable about Obama into something (terribly) bad.


Plainsman says: Whaaaaaaat? It could be good, but it could go sour. Hope for the best while preparing for the worst. I expected mediocre from Bush, but expect the worst from Obama. Actually I think that way about most politicians not just Obama. If it turns out otherwise I will be very happy. Where is the cross your fingers emoticon?


----------



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

I think what I have always thought. they said the next time we will tear you down from inside your own country.

And now we have a muslem as president.

what do you think.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Of course you are right. Gotta remember that it's the "in thing" on this site to spin anything that might be favorable about Obama into something (terribly) bad.


By the way Seabass, could you list for us the things this guy has done right. Since we are ripping him up, take the chance to tell us something good. I could use some good news. I don't like the guy, so I'm leaving it up to you guys to present us with the good news. Sort of like the way it worked with Bush. We said good things while you guys kept knocking him at every turn. The shoe is just on the other foot now.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > Of course you are right. Gotta remember that it's the "in thing" on this site to spin anything that might be favorable about Obama into something (terribly) bad.
> 
> 
> By the way Seabass, could you list for us the things this guy has done right. Since we are ripping him up, take the chance to tell us something good. I could use some good news. I don't like the guy, so I'm leaving it up to you guys to present us with the good news. Sort of like the way it worked with Bush. We said good things while you guys kept knocking him at every turn. The shoe is just on the other foot now.


Plainsman, you decided to "not like the guy" the minute, nay the second, he darkened the doorway at the whitehouse.

But it's 10:35 and I've been going hard since 5:00 AM, so this isn't going to be all inclusive (or well written). But my knee jerk response is that the Obama administration is handling the banking mess decently well. The idea that the government should be totally hands off and let the banks fall to pieces would, in my opinion, have been disastrous. I think the fact that at least some banks are ready to pay back tarp funds is a good sign. Home sales are also starting to show signs of improvement.

Our global image is improving. It's improving both in Arab countries as well as in Europe. And it does matter.

I think that closing guantamano was a good thing. Those detainees should either be tried or released. period.

Closer to home, the window plant in Grafton can now hire back all the employees they had previously laid off because homeowners are buying new energy savings windows for a tax break. Seems like a win-win, especially when the heating bill is reduced this winter. In my home town in Minnesota, farmers pooling their money together to invest in wind turbines to sell electricity back to the power company through some recent government incentives.

I am concerned about some gun control issues that have started to crop up. I hope our elected officials can keep a clear head on this issue.

One thing I do know, is that I certainly didn't expect our economy to rebound out of a full blown recession within the first 100 days of Obama's presidency. Not by a long shot. Like it or not, this recession was in the making for quite a while and I imagine it will take a while to pull through.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

My comments are in bold



> Plainsman, you decided to "not like the guy" the minute, nay the second, he darkened the doorway at the whitehouse.
> 
> 
> > I didn't I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, what did that give us?? tax evaders and a supposedly "changed" cabinet that turned out to be a reworked Clinton whitehouse. I am dissappointed.
> ...


*rebound WHAT?? we've spent trillions and trillions and trillions and they have nationalized the banking system the auto industry considering doing the same to newspapers ( pravda mean anything to you) which will soon fail anyway and all they have done is slow the fall its still falling and will fall farther its not rebounding

rebound? in these first 100 days he spent 4 times the money that idiot Bush spent in his whole budget .....money we dont have

a rebound would be a market based thing not a government spending spree :roll: Bush started this stupid charge into hell and Obama is happy as a clam to continue it with his own brand of marxism.

Seabass you need to quit working 16 hour days and start paying attention to whats really happening in our country. Like most citizens of this country they work so hard they have little time to really study these issues, so they form opnions based on what the media feeds them.

I cannot stand the republicans or the Dems but at least I recognize both of their weaknesses.*


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

pretty simple really.......if you like the idea of the government making all the decisions in your life and you don't really care about the Constitution or those silly "inalienable rights" or the future your kids will inherit, then great.....Obama is your man....but don't ***** when you suddenly are taxed to death and you have lost your freedoms.........


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, you decided to "not like the guy" the minute, nay the second, he darkened the doorway at the whitehouse.


I disliked him long before that. I disliked him the first time he opened his Marxist mouth during the campaign.



> Closer to home, the window plant in Grafton can now hire back all the employees they had previously laid off because homeowners are buying new energy savings windows for a tax break.


I'm not sure where you have been the last ten years, but we put new triple pane windows in our house for the tax break during the Bush years.

Bobm covered most of my thoughts so I will just end in saying: I often wonder about the people who think what Obama has done is wonderful. When talking face to face with them about 70% don't have children. They are only thinking about today and themselves.

Oh, and Europe and the rest of the world is laughing at us. Our image has not improved, they simply like us more because we are now weak like them. They like us because as the old cliche says: misery loves company.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm your slant on the issue is very evident. I'm just as informed as yourself, but I simply see things differently. I love it how when we don't agree with you bob that we are simply "uninformed."

The banking mess was due in large part to deregulation.

Bob, please check out these links. Then explain to me how this is ALL the dems fault. If you really believe that, it's hard to take you seriously on any topic.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=581657&highlight=#581657

Plainsman, I have kids. So your attempted point about only thinking about myself is a joke. Nice try though.

I correspond with Europeans daily. They are not laughing at us.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> The banking mess was due in large part to deregulation.


Yep "rolling stone" :roll: sometimes I wonder if there is hope

heres abiased left( I know thats all you will consider ) but much more accurate time line

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... emise.html



> Then explain to me how this is ALL the dems fault. If you really believe that, it's hard to take you seriously on any topic.


I think it is you that needs to read the history. Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act after it was passed by a heavily Democrat Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

This act has been cited by commentators as a catalyst for the Subprime mortgage crisis.

Obama was a huge supporter of Fannie and Freddie, and was paid like it, garnering the third highest total contributions from those two organizations in the past decade, despite only being in office 3 of those years. Christopher Dodd was number 1.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09 ... eddie.html

When the Senate attempted to further regulate Fannie Mae in 2005, Obama acknowledged the risks of subprime mortgages, but took no action to reform Fannie, despite pending legislation which he could have impacted.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1224030 ... tml?csp=...

The Clinton adminstration specifically pressures these agencies to make risky loans.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/busin ... ans&st=cse

And of course, Glass-Steagall repeal was supported by the Clinton Adminstration, and he signed the bill.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

So, did you read the article from Rolling Stone or NPR? Doesn't appear that you did.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

yes I read it I have no love for the republicans in fact I I can't stand them and doubt I wll ever vote for them again

and while they were involved they were not able to do this

read the links I posted the dems did this the republicans in congress are a bunch of self serving pukes GET IT I dont like them but in this issue the republicans are not the culprits mostly due to who held congress and the senate not because they are any better than the dems

its history not opinion


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bob, the ability of the banks to pull off mortgage backed securities and the rest of the gimicks played a huge roll in this.

I'm certainly not saying that the democrats are not to blame for a lot of the mess, but certainly there is plenty of blame to go around for both parties.

Add that to the fact that the repubicans were in control of congress for many years while all of this was starting to take shape.

I started to read the links. The NYtimes link didn't bring up anything for me.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

try the link again I screwed it up, I think its fixed look at the open secrets link also

I know the republucans are fools but they actaully recognized what a major screw up this was in time to fix it and

barney frand and chris dodd and the congressional black caucus all dems demonized their efforts and the republicans being the nutless fools they are gave up trying to fix this.

To be honest I think the crooks in the banking industry bought most of them incouding the republicans then you have that ahole Phil Gram who supposedly new what hes aws talking about, if you look into the contributions and lobbyist activity the pressure was immense


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Add that to the fact that the repubicans were in control of congress for many years while all of this was starting to take shape.


Seabass the republicans were never in control of congress but for 6 years of the last 32 years and this was already a done deal before those 6 years started

They didn't have control until Bush was elected, prior to that the Dems controlled the congress the whitehouse or both all my life. And even when the Republicans had control they blew it by not doing the things they promised to do that got them in control.

They could of done something about this but lacked the courage to that degree I blame them and thats alot I'll give you that.

To Bush's credit he tried to re regulate this and also failed because the republicans in congress were cowards afraid of Barney Frank the black caucus and our media demonizing them. Gutless pukes wouldn't support Bushs efforts.

I wouldn't pee on the republicans if they were on fire

i


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:


> When talking face to face with them about 70% don't have children. They are only thinking about today and themselves.


Seabass wrote:


> Plainsman, I have kids. So your attempted point about only thinking about myself is a joke. Nice try though.


I have never talked to you face to face, and I have no idea that you have kids. Since you speak intelligently, and as if your an older person, I would assume that you did have kids. However, the fact remains that most of the people I talk to who like what Obama is doing don't have kids. I would then be interested why. The difference has to mean something. I can only surmise that the difference is they will not be around to pay for this boondoggle, and they don't have kids that will have to pay. So they reap any benefit without having to think about eventually paying for it.

I too will read the article in the site you posted, but I had to comment on this first. Oh, and this:


> I correspond with Europeans daily. They are not laughing at us.


These countries are sort of like sport teams. If your opposing team has a very good captain would like it if the replaced him with the dumbest guy on the team. That's why Europe is happy right now. America has become the six foot six inch big dumb kid on the block. It's all relative. The weaker we are the higher in the pecking order they become. France may think they will become an important nation on the world stage again. Sure they are going to tell you they are happy, and they are, but also, they want you to be happy with your captain. :eyeroll:

Edit: Ok, I read the rollingstoner as we called it in the hippie days. I thought it would have to be different, but I don't think you can write for them unless you get foul mouthed in the first sentence. I really didn't see much of anything different since that publication begin. Simply the opinion of an grown old flower child.

I'll add that I am as disappointed with the republicans as Bob is, but still see this whole thing just like Bob does. Seabass you will not see it as long as you have the liberals on a pedestal. The whole bunch in Washington are fools or worse. However, it is the liberals who got us in this mess.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)




----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There are many tapes like this out there. Some with Barney Frank talking about how strong these lending institutions were right up nearly to their collapse. The proof is there if the liberals will wipe those cobwebs of partisanship from their eyes. Sure there is enough blame to go around. Sure the republicans were idiots too, but when a few had the brains to try do something the democrats stopped them.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman wrote:



> By the way Seabass, could you list for us the things this guy has done right. Since we are ripping him up, take the chance to tell us something good. I could use some good news. I don't like the guy, so I'm leaving it up to you guys to present us with the good news. Sort of like the way it worked with Bush. We said good things while you guys kept knocking him at every turn. The shoe is just on the other foot now.


Plainsman: Your statement above illustrates perfectly your partisan nature and dislike of folks that lean to the moderate or left side of the political spectrum. This is frustrating since you are supposed to be a moderator.

In my opinion, a moderator is supposed to moderate discussions, not start them or steer them. However, time and time again, I see you spin things from the right and Ryan spin things from the left. My advice is that if you and Ryan want to initiate discussions and push an agenda, you should not be moderators. I have chaired or moderated many meetings, and in that role, I know that I am less free to express my personal opinions out of risk of affecting the discussions and outcomes. But, you know what they say about opinions.

Now to the matter at hand. I'll reply with my take on Obama and why I think that he has done more good than harm in his first 100 days. In fact, I give him a 'B". Here's why:

1. He has clearly communicated the he is serious about climate change. He has directed the federal government to look at ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and he has let everybody know that we will no longer ignore this issue.

2. He has ordered the closure of the prison at Gitmo. This is the right thing to do. Regardless of whether the detainees are political prisoners or enemy combatants, they need to be charged with something or released. Bush had this authority, but he never used it.

3. He has clearly voiced his opposition to the use of torture. This is also the right thing to do. First, most experts will tell you that torture does not work. More importantly, it violates basic human rights, and it puts our citizens and soldiers at a greater risk of being tortured if they are captured.

4. He has a renewed focus on Afghanistan. Bush seemed to have forgotten who was behind the events of 9/11 and where we think Bin Laden is holed up.

5. He has promised to withdraw from Iraq by May of 2010. This is also the right thing to do. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This is still a war without a mission. Get out.

6. He has re-initialized relations with other countries and improved our image in the world. He has let it be known that we will once again use diplomacy to understand each other and try to resolve issues in a non-military fashion. This is good. It shows strength, not weakness.

7. He fully supported stem cell research. There is great promise with this technology, and much of the research will only be done with federal dollars. Lifting the restrictions on the use of these dollars is a good idea.

On the flipside, here are my negative comments on Obama:

1. There is not enough bi-partisanship for my liking. He promised to build coalitions with the Republicans. Although he has reached out to the moderates, he has not reached out to the hard-core conservatives.

2. He has exercised poor judgement in his cabinet choices. Or, his staff did not adequately evaluate the nominees.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

BigDaddy said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


as for opinions, i suppose this site could restrict mods from stating one, but then ryan would have NOWHERE to go! :lol:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > I'm not sure where you have been the last ten years, but we put new triple pane windows in our house for the tax break during the Bush years.
> 
> 
> This is what I was refering to.
> ...


 :roll: right...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm wrote:


> I wouldn't pee on the republicans if they were on fire





> the republicans in congress were cowards


Further he called the republicans:


> Gutless pukes


Plainsman wrote:


> I'll add that *I am as disappointed with the republicans as Bob is*, but still see this whole thing just like Bob does. Seabass you will not see it as long as you have the liberals on a pedestal. The whole bunch in Washington are fools or worse. However, it is the liberals who got us in this mess.


BigDaddy wrote:


> Plainsman: Your statement above illustrates perfectly your partisan nature and dislike of folks that lean to the moderate or left side of the political spectrum. This is frustrating since you are supposed to be a moderator.


I'll let people decide if that's honest or not. I know you were referring to me asking Seabass to list some things Obama did right. I think all those things you listed were wrong. I don't think the republicans have the right answer either. So if I think they are all stupid how is this partisan? I am an American before I am republican or democrat. It would appear to me that because I think Obama is a fool or worse, and you think he can walk on water that you are upset with me. 
You may have noticed I have been upset for eight years with how Bush handles the border. I did agree with him on the war. Since most of our debate was about the war it would appear I really liked Bush. However, you fellows like to forget the things I have said if I will not agree with you about Obama. I have never personally attacked you so don't understand your bad mouthing. That's disappointing. It's sort of like if you can't defend Obama attack the messenger and deflect the debate. Lets not make this personal between you and I.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Plainsman: Your statement above illustrates perfectly your partisan nature and dislike of folks that lean to the moderate or left side of the political spectrum. This is frustrating since you are supposed to be a moderator.
> 
> In my opinion, a moderator is supposed to moderate discussions, not start them or steer them. However, time and time again, I see you spin things from the right and Ryan spin things from the left.


Typical lib always what to censor opinions Plainsman, Ryan and anyone else are free to give their opinions or start any topic they want. I will also point out every mod on here routinely gives there opinions in the various forums there nothing special about this one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was just going to add that BigDaddy you can start a pro Obama thread anytime you want. No one is stopping you. I never stopped you from all the anti Bush attacks did I? Did I? NO. This is not very big of you BIGdaddy.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

You have a right to your opinion like everybody else. However, I still question whether the posts that you and Ryan post are consistent with the roles of moderators.

How many message strings have you and Ryan started that began with your opinion on some recent item from the news? The answer is "lots".

How many message strings have you and Ryan weighed in on by disagreeing or agreeing with a poster? The answer is "most".

Is this what a moderator is supposed to do? In my opinion, a moderator is to make sure that posts stay on topic, that people do not issue personal attacks, and other things, not to steer discussions based on the moderator's personal beliefs.

I ask you to just think about it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> BigDaddy said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman wrote:
> ...


The difference is H94 that I am not the moderator of the Politics forum. I have stated that when I come in here I take my "moderator" hat off, and have agreed to leave my moderating at the door to the politics forum.

And.. in case you haven't noticed. I post here a LOT less frequently than I used to.

Guess I do have somewhere else to go 

I see you haven't noticed the overall dropoff. I haven't added 30 posts in over a month.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> I was just going to add that BigDaddy you can start a pro Obama thread anytime you want. No one is stopping you. I never stopped you from all the anti Bush attacks did I? Did I? NO. This is not very big of you BIGdaddy.


Nope, you have never stopped me from starting a thread or attacking a political person. You have never stopped me from expressing my opinion. However, I am not a moderator, I am a participant. I am not moderating this board.

Plainsman, you are passionate about your beliefs and you are very active on this and other boards. Good for you.

However, like I said earlier, I have chaired and moderated many meetings and committees. In that role, I knew that my job was to keep people focused on the issues at hand and to make sure that people had an opportunity to weigh in on issues. That role limited my ability to express my personal opinions for fear of advancing my own agenda. Being a member certainly gives a person more freedom to advance their agenda than being a chair (or a moderator).

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe on these boards, a moderator is not expected to only moderate.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

so you hav the "right to your opinion" just as long as you don't state it :lol:

Gee whiz thats generous of you as long as a moderator does'nt use his moderator status to bully or threaten anyone their opinion doesnt carry any more or less weight than yours.

We dont and will not allow any moderators including each other to do that


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

My apologies to you Ryan. I was mistaken. I see that Plainsman and Bobm are listed as the moderators on the politics forum, not you.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> Maybe I am wrong. Maybe on these boards, a moderator is not expected to only moderate.


I think that is a fair point BigDaddy.

I think here on Nodak you'll find the most active folks have taken on mod roles. They are and were very active here both before and after doing that.

Myself personally... I have a passion for posting in here if only to even out some of the very conservative nature of the posts, and to rebuke much of the internet hoaxes, lies, and rumors that the email rumor mill perpetuates.

There are many folks here who never attempt at getting news from multiple sources, and instead flood this forum with stuff that often borders outright SPAM. That has been proven here several times this week alone.

I would think the moderators of any politics forum would have the responsibility of yanking lies off the board once they were found to be lies via Snopes for example. Yes that might be a bit of a burden, but if the poster who would originally started the thread were PM'd about posting those lies, they might start policiing their own threads a bit more for veracity (that means truth H94  ) prior to posting it. Sure some things will slip by now and then.. ok .. that is then the exception. But overall you'll see a politics forum that has a bit higher level of discourse over time.

An no SPAM isn't simply posting something from the opposite political spectrum of you beliefs. Other forums have been successful at drawing a line between threads that are current, in the public eye, and hot topics, vs stuff that isn't needed, like continuing to perpetuate hysteria, lies, etc etc.. there is a difference.

On an entirely different note.

I like being able to post up stories that show that there is a different take on politics than most here are used to. Seeing as I have become the poster child for the other political spectrum, I often posts stories that show that side to expose folks here to a different message, that encourages them to consider things from a new perspective.

I'm not as liberal as most here would trying painting me. It is just that folks who are more moderate than most have been painted as liberals by those needing a whipping boy. It would appear that this is the new mantra of the far right on the spectrum, as they fear that anything more moderate than they, will mean a fractured political party and continued losses at the polls. One only needs to watch Hannity Beck, or especially O'Reilly to see that anyone who dares speak in more moderate tones in the Republican Party (Colin Powell, McCain, his daughter, McCain's Republican strategist, ad nauseum), is summarily chastized, demonized, tar'd and feather'd, and belittled by the talking head pundits on Fox. This same style of tactic it would appear is being employed here also.

Remember that "kicking and screaming" comment I made Plainsman regarding the far right clinging to power in the Republican party as the cries for change grow louder? hmmmmmm


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> My apologies to you Ryan. I was mistaken. I see that Plainsman and Bobm are listed as the moderators on the politics forum, not you.


No worries Big Daddy.

It seems that I'm still held to that standard anyways by the masses...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> so you hav the "right to your opinion" just as long as you don't state it :lol:
> 
> Gee whiz thats generous of you as long as a moderator does'nt use his moderator status to bully or threaten anyone their opinion doesnt carry any more or less weight than yours.
> 
> We dont and will not allow any moderators including each other to do that


touche' Bob :lol: :thumb:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan



> I would think the moderators of any politics forum would have the responsibility of yanking lies off the board once they were found to be lies via Snopes for example. Yes that might be a bit of a burden, but if the poster who would originally started the thread were PM'd about posting those lies, they might start policiing their own threads a bit more for veracity (that means truth H94 ) prior to posting it. Sure some things will slip by now and then.. ok .. that is then the exception. But overall you'll see a politics forum that has a bit higher level of discourse over time.


thats why you can't be a moderator in the politics forum, the term "lies" leaves way too much wiggle room to censor opposition, freedom of speech is just that. Everyone on this forum is free to lie, exaggerate, be biased as heck ect. and everyone else is perfectly free to call you on it. Moderators opinions as to whether its a lie dont matter they can refute with their position just like everyone else but not censor.

Hopefully sooner or later that will sink in, freedom isn't always neat and orderly


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Ryan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*sigh*

I thought I addressed that very point in my earlier post. I knew you would come back with this.

Simply not true. You are missing the difference I tried outlining.

I'm not talking "opinions" I am strictly speaking about cases where a snope's lie is posted. There is a huge jump between the two.

How is it that other forums don't have this issue? You don't even see these stories in other forums. Internet hoaxes don't make it (or last) on those sites before being taken down as silly...

What am I missing?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

other forums aren't politics, politics is by its very nature deceptive especially when viewed from an opposition view point

snopes has no weight one way or the other its got its own bias.

Moderating a politics forum must be done without censorship.

I try very hard to keep that principle and I believe I've been very consistant about it. I see things on here all the time I believe could be construed as lies especially from my (very conservative one most issues) point of view.

I leave them alone for everyone else to analyize and respond to

ANd anytime you advocate or threaten censorship you will get the same harsh rejection of it on here from me

"sigh"


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan you ever listen to talk radio?

I do sometimes as much as 16 hours a day because of the nature of my job. My office is at home and I spend a lot of time traveling in my vehicle with serius radio.

You want to know what makes a great talk show host, its the ones that listen and allow callers to call in and complete making their point without shouting them down( censoring).

Then they logically and methodically pick out the flaws in the callers point hopefully with the caller still on the line allowing rebuttal thats what makes great talk radio.

Boortz and Tom Sullivan are real good at this, Rush is erratic about it, Hannity and Savage are real bad at it I usaully tune them off.

Its why there are no commercially successful left wing talk shows so far I've never heard one that didn't descend into censorship and wasn't therefore boring.

ANd I listen to NPR regularly, and the only commercial TV new cast I watch is the "news hour " with Jim Lerher both left leaning but reasonable

I enjoy hearing opposition thought


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> other forums aren't politics, politics is by its very nature deceptive especially when viewed from an opposition view point
> 
> snopes has no weight one way or the other its got its own bias.
> 
> ...


1. I'm not referring to Nodak Outdoors when I say "other forums". I'm referring to other politics sites that have forum style discussion boards.

2. Snopes does not have bias. It goes out of its way if something is a "maybe" to differentiate the discrepancy.

3. Moderating does not mean no order. There is a huge difference between moderating opinions, and allowing known lies to be posted and left up. Often those who are less political savvy, read these posts as "truth" and go on to retell, repost, and perpetuate the lies/myths. You would think a politics forum would be somewhere where known lies/myths are rebuked, the post is yanked or locked, and the discussion is a bit more higher brow conversation.

That is not censorship to keep the conversation more educated in nature and less taking pot shots over and over and over..

I do understand the difference.

You see on occasion, we have folks here who say similar things to this over and over and over... and nothing gets thru. Folks have left this place over it. They are tired of the skewed nature of this position. But time and again those comments when coming from other folks also.. are simply glossed over.

Haven't you noticed the more moderate or more liberal or whatever folks here consistently commenting on the same thing, and/or get fed up and quit posting regularly? How many can we name off the top of our heads who fit this criteria?

I'm really surprised you all haven't seen this change happening here over the past year or two. It is glaring to me.

on second thought.. nevermind... I've exhausted my passion to care anymore.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Ryan you ever listen to talk radio?
> 
> I do sometimes as much as 16 hours a day because of the nature of my job. My office is at home and I spend a lot of time traveling in my vehicle with serius radio.
> 
> ...


I do Bob.. and I agree with you. But the problem is that we have posters here who would never call in to a talk show with the things that are willing (in words) to post crap that they wouldn't have the kahunas to talk about on the radio. Hope this makes sense...

I do enjoy talk radio more than online forums.

Thanks for that.

take care.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ryan, you need to look closer. you are one of the few who continuously attack the right wing pundits, only to scream foul when the left wing kooks take a hit you don't agree with.

censorship is deciding, *on your own*, what is truth and what is not and then striking the post. words in context, out of context, as some have said, freedom of speech and beliefs is having the right to express an opinion, based on fiction or non-fiction, real life experiences or trust in a news source.

if you invoke censorship, *BASED ON YOUR NARROW MINDED OPINION*, of *YOUR* credible sources or beliefs, you deny 1st Amendment rights to the poster.....you have to ask yourself, is this what NODAK has in mind for this forum? i don't think so. you just need to grow up and stop threatening the removal (censorship) of posts based on your political bias.

honestly, you fit right in with the left wing radicals...you don't hear or see right leaning folks here, proposing we strike *your posts *because we don't like them...we respect your right to post as you chose. we may not agree, but we don't feel compelled to threaten you or frame your posts as consciously untrue or offensive and thereby justify the suggestion that we want your posts removed......when, if ever, will you get over this childish notion? please take a pill, relax and grow up!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan your so bitter about not being able to boot people you don't like that now you drive a wedge every chance you get. Mind your own business please. Supermods don't need to be backstabbing each other.

I don't always believe factcheck.org, or snoops. If someone including myself is wrong, the embarrassment is enough punishment.

I would suggest that if you have the freedom to express your opinion, grow a set and stop whining. If you have the freedom to say what you want what's the problem? This isn't a professional meeting BigDaddy, and I don't intend to curb my opinions. Part of the reason I post as much as I do is to keep things rolling, and interesting. If you want to do the same, not only are you free to do so, I thank you for doing it. :thumb:

And Ryan it's hypocritical for you to complain about people posting bs. Do you need a reminder every month or something?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> That is not censorship to keep the conversation more educated in nature and less taking pot shots over and over and over..


define "more educated", don't really try thats just a rhetorical question

I cannot see why you don't understand this is a perfect example of censorship



> I do understand the difference.


You know I believe you think you do and just don't.

You just can't get past what you think is.... is and what some one else thinks is... isn't.

Somehow I am going to figure out a way to get this across so you can recognize it, you've got it bad.

and snopes and every other human being on earth is biased of that I am certain, just never ever trust anyone that claims not to be.

Never encourage political censorship it will always come back and bite all of us


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Ryan,

I have agree with Bob snopes is very bias.

Bob, I used to listen to Jim Lerher, but I'd rather have a root canal :lol:

Ryan, I have found the higher up the food chain and "more educated" the easier it is to spin (lie) your point of view. I don't think I used to be synical but watching the leadership in DC (both parties) one can not help having serious doubts.

My Opinion only----------Obama's campain and his appointments have been 180 degrees. i.e. Transparency, Honest appointments, (tax cheaters) and alot of other things that have been and will keep getting brought up. You cann't seem to even acknowledge any of it. And you wonder why some pile on. I think some have "hope" for you.[/quote]


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I like him and I don't have cable tv so hes my best choice.

I know they are biased left :wink: I mean its georgia public TV.

IMO They go into issues much more thoroughly and sometimes will surprise even me with their even handed coverage.

The way I see it if all you listen to is people you agree with you can't ever learn the truth so I try to listen to both sides and go with what my gut and my lifes experience tells me makes sense. If I find something that doesn't I research it, I want to know the facts not some politicians BS although its hard sometimes to figure it out.

The internet is something kids don't appreciate, so much info at your fingertips, it never ceases to amaze me.

Gwen Effiel is the one thats usaully a far left leaning "unbiased" although she sometimes is refreshingly honest and takes the libs to task.

She did a excellent job during the presidential debates


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Bob said


> The way I see it if all you listen to is people you agree with you can't ever learn the truth so I try to listen to both sides and go with what my gut and my lifes experience tells me makes sense


I do agree. It's like the saying "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer". :lol: Who said that?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Bobm said:


> Ryan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 COOL!!
:beer:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

To say that dems are to blame for our current troubles puzzles me. Both parties share in the blame, if one is more to blame than the other it would be about 55% to 45%.

All the deregs in the commodity and financial industries have failed. The right wants to call it redistribution of wealth, it is more of a reallocation of wealth. The corporations and some in the upper class had their hand in the cookie jar too long and their greed has led to the success of the libs. All the republicans' failures with the economy and other issues (guns) and their inability to separate themselves from the elitist label has also contributed.

Obama has not done enough to the banking industry. He seems to have done too much to the auto industry. Cap and trade is so stupid I can't believe the libs who think they are smarter than everyone else can't figure out that this will not work. Case in point is the CO2 scrubbers that cost millions to install, who pays for it? Consumers. They are required for coal powerhouses in the US but the one right across the ND border in Emerson, Sask does not have one. All this will do is raise our bills. 
Torture is also puzzling. Our soldiers already get tortured. How anyone can think otherwise is weird. Do you think the taliban or any other muslims care what the Geneva convention says? Read the quaran or koran and see the numerous quotes about infidels. I read part of it, the jist of it is kill any infidel. I agree gitmo was more of a hassle than it was worth. I think keeping prisoners is more of a hassle than it is worth.

The only thing obama has done right is improve our global image. His tax plans have some good but also has a lot of bad. I say this because so many liberal ideas have failed before and they keep re-hashing them. Obama had good ideas and plans during the campaign but he has failed to deliver so far. I hope some day obama starts listening to the american people and leaning on the moderate dems instead of the libs but I am not betting on it.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

TK33 said:


> To say that dems are to blame for our current troubles puzzles me. Both parties share in the blame, if one is more to blame than the other it would be about 55% to 45%.
> 
> All the deregs in the commodity and financial industries have failed. The right wants to call it redistribution of wealth, it is more of a reallocation of wealth. The corporations and some in the upper class had their hand in the cookie jar too long and their greed has led to the success of the libs. All the republicans' failures with the economy and other issues (guns) and their inability to separate themselves from the elitist label has also contributed.
> 
> ...


good post TK, i pretty much agree with your assessment of where we are today and, unfortunately, where we are headed. i suspect anything we do to improve the planet through a super expensive cap and trade will be crushed by the pollution alone generated in China...the filth and toxicity in their country is just unbelievable and they have no intention of falling into line with better environmental practices.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Aren't scientists already finding evidence of china's pollution as close as hawaii or washington?

I pointed out the emerson plant because it is so close to the ND plants. Given our prevailing North winds it is all that more humorous or pathetic, depending on your view


----------

