Story Comments
Posted by: Bacalao 1 year, 3 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
89%
Bacalao1 year, 3 months ago
-
92%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What people, I believe, need to understand is quite simple. An article reaches the home page of propeller based, not on what each of us sees as "good" - but rather, on a ranking system, an algorithm, that tries to mathematically determine what the community is most interested in.
Reply
Without specifics, an article's score goes up as it gets more reads, more props and more comments. Comments, for example, seem to be quite powerful.
That being said, if anyone here thinks an article is simply inflammatory, the best move is to NOT read it - and even more so to NOT comment on it.
Those that want to promote nasty articles will always "bait" people to comment and read with wild headlines, crude comments, and the like. They want people to get mad - and comment.
Why? So their "message" will get to the front page. period.
Personally, I just ignore a lot of articles here.
On the other hand, when people see an article they like - instead of just a blind "prop" it might be a good idea to post a quick comment too. I'm going to start doing that a bit more often myself.-
-
95%
JamesMarcus1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ignoring what are clearly pieces of yellow journalism is a good rule. The presence of such material on Propeller puts the staff in a difficult position. The TOU gives us the freedom to remove offensive or libelous articles--yet we are reluctant to play the role of censor. And what happens when a National Enquirer piece about John Edwards and his love child pops up? I would have assumed this was mud-slinging rubbish, especially given the source, yet it turned out to be true. We don't have a large enough staff to source and verify stories, and even if we did, that's not our mission at Propeller--the conversation is conducted primarily by the members. This is not a perfect system. If I have to hold my nose and ignore a certain number of top stories, I live with it. I'm afraid it's simply the Jekyll-and-Hyde nature of social news.
Reply-
84%
Spadecaller1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
James,
Reply
I agree that there are circumstances that are profound and confusing that place Propeller in a difficult position in regards to censorship.
I am not recommending censorship, but constraints on stories like these making the front page might be wise.
More importantly, however, is the example posed in this story, which clearly stated that the article under scrutiny was not reliable. And, there have been many of them like this.
So lets deal with what is and not what could be.-
100%
JamesMarcus1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spade, I find articles like the snopes.com piece as repugnant as you do. But I think you are still evading the problem when you ask for "constraints" that would keep such pieces off the front page. You are asking us to make judgments about every inflammatory post--to decide whether they are ugly rumors or ugly facts, then behave accordingly. But we are not media watchdogs: that is simply not our role. And once we start vetting posts, our own opinions will inevitably color what's on the home page, which is the very opposite of how a social news site is supposed to operate. This is not a simple issue, and I know you are making an honest attempt to grapple with it. Three cheers for that. Step one is to modify the algorithm and push additional news categories onto the page--and those things are now being worked on by our development team.
Reply-
-
74%
TheRealizer1 year, 3 months ago
-
92%
Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
James, you're right that the best solution is to ignore what appears to be yellow journalism. That said, some stories have headlines and summaries that are so provocative, it's almost impossible to ignore them.
Reply
An obvious example was the rumor-based article appearing here last week that said Obama chose Gov. Sibelius as his running mate. The headline and summary did not present the article as rumor, and in order to discover that it was, one had to click on the article, which boosted the story by giving it a "read."
In order to keep people from intentionally gaming the system that way and submitting stories with purposefully misleading headlines and summaries, "reads" need to be given far less weight than they are now.-
63%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"An obvious example was the rumor-based article appearing here last week that said Obama chose Gov. Sibelius as his running mate."
Reply
Amen.I pointed that out over the weekend but *someone* from Propeller (I won't say who except to tell you that he's posting on this very thread, the scoundrel and his initials are JM) and I said that the behavior of the poster was sl--zy. And what did I get for expressing my opinion? A big 'ol virtual raspberry from the aforementioned anonymous Propeller staffer (aka JM). That stung but I recovered (I'm very resilient). Anyway, it warms the cockles of my heart to know someone shares my perspective. ;-)
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
90%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
James: Glad you provided some perspective on that. I am happy that Propeller is not playing the role of censor - because then we'd be subjected to the personal choices of just a few people, which is not what this kind of site is supposed to be all about.
Reply
I do hope that people will ignore, rather than fight with comments, these kinds of articles.......and there's plenty of them from the left, right, middle, and outside of politics too.
I also hope that Propeller will work to continue improving the algorithms - as it appears far too easy for a small group of people to dictate the nature of the home page by loading up articles with comments.
I can only assume that the recent one-at-a-time rule was a way to keep this under control, and thus, provide an even better product. I didn't think it would work, and it doesn't appear to be working. It's my opinion that the only improvements that can be made are in the algorithm itself...
But, now I'm really rambling. Thanks again for the input. I expect I will continue to enjoy my time here - and am excited for more improvements as time goes on.-
-
-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
77%
ADAGUY1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have a lot of room to talk! You just admitted negging with little or no reason. You have a bit of growing up to do, but in the meantime, neg away!
Reply
Someday you will understand that there is more to life than getting your way. Then you will no longer be a republican.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
69%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know what you're saying James, and you're right. However, had the National Enquirer peice not been true, which so many of them aren't, the damage was already done. The member who posted that article has also posted other articles that turned out to be untrue, but with the support group that follows her/him, every article ends up on the front page whether they are rumor or truth.
Reply
At that point, it becomes a joke, once they have done their damage, spread their dirt and had their fun at the expense of other people and their beliefs.-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned9 Replies
-
-
-
79%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are absolutely right; just keep doing what you are doing. I too tend to ignore the slanderous stories, but once such blatantly racist story makes it to the front page (and the right-wing is very good at getting them there by a concerted effort to prop and make cute little comments to each other), then it is hard to ignore. Even though none of the posters and supporters can be persuaded by facts and logic, others who simply read the "article" and the comments should see both sides of the issue.
Reply
One solution would be the sink button that actually counts, but it has a downside too. The right-wing attack team would sink all kinds of legitimate stories simply because they don't like them.-
75%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The right-wingers try hard to keep stories with real substance off the front page by starting their "flaming" wars.
Reply
I agree with you that it is necessary to rebut them with factual information. For example, in the recent snopes.com garbage article about Obama, one tbkennedy tried to claim that all this garbage had been "well documented" by James Corsi in his book. I simply asked tbkennedy whether he also believed the "well documented" research by Corsi about Bush and McCain:
Jerome Corsi's Long, Strange Trip
... In July 2007, Corsi spoke before the Texas Constitution Party. At the time, he remained focused on foiling the ambitions of Hillary and Bill Clinton. "I don't want Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House," Corsi proclaimed. "We had enough serial rape going on when he was President." But Corsi didn't want a Republican in the White House either, especially not Senator John McCain. The war-scarred McCain, Corsi wrote in a column for the far-right webzine WorldNetDaily, is a possible jihadist dupe who "has enjoyed strong support from a lobbying group that backs...a Muslim terrorist group with ties to criminal drug networks and Al Qaeda." Even George W. Bush was now treasonous. "Bush," he told the Texas Constitution Party, "is post-America and post-God," a figure so indebted to foreign interests that he had allowed "communist China" to "run its gunboats up the Mississippi." ....
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080901/blumenthal
I want to be able to provide such rebuttal information without this being counted as a vote (prop) for the story!
PLEASE propeller, make the story rating dependent ONLY on votes by members, NOT comments (and show us who is responsible for those votes).
-
-
64%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And what happens when a National Enquirer piece about John Edwards and his love child pops up? I would have assumed this was mud-slinging rubbish, especially given the source, yet it turned out to be true."
Reply
--JM, I'm late to this thread but I feel it necessary to point out that the NE John Edwards story is only *partly* true (Edwards has only admitted to having an affair) as far as we know. I agree with your remarks, otherwise -
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I perfectly understand your position James. This is really the community's problem for the most part, we really don't want censorship. Yet the best thing is to ignore these things as best as we can. Do not vote or comment on them. I've been suckered a couple times into calling out the obvious ludicrousness of smear articles but that only helps move the article to a higher position of "interest". These articles are often submitted by the same people (most of whom have been removed as members multiple times only to immediately return as a new source of annoyance). They have a modus operandi that includes posting inflammatory nonsense and baiting you to lose your cool so you will get "removed". (Though more often than not, this backfires on them as it is they who are close to blowing a fuse in the first place).
Reply
My advice to members is do not take the bait, ignore ignore ignore.
-
-
-
71%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fine, then could more people please comment on the articles I submit. My next one makes number 1,000. It turns out, I have submitted 1,001 articles already, but 2 were closed. In my entire time here, I have only had 2 articles close because they were too much like other articles which had already been submitted.
Reply
Excellent post, Spade, I agree that the comments specific to the article against Obama's article were nothing more than inflammatory and pure drivel. Thanks for keeping propeller.com honest.
-
-
72%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know what you're saying pop, and it makes perfect sense. However whether people who disagree with the articles ignore them and refuse to comment, the people who WANT to see them get to the front page will comment continuoulsy until they do. There are also enough of them to prop these articles to get them to the front page with or without comments.
Reply
Many on Propeller support this kind of thing. They prop/comment in a frenzy for the express purpose of getting inflammatory articles to the front page, where they know they can bait people who find them offensive. At that point it doesn't really matter, they have already succeeded in getting the article to the front page and whether we comment or not it stays there for at least a day.
These same people attack the scouts, anchors and other members if they express disdain over these inflammatory articles. Although there have been a couple of people banned, others who should have been are still here, attacking scouts, anchors and other members, simply because we can't agree with everything they say. For this reason, i quit participating for several weeks. Often times i find Propeller more stressful than any other aspect of my life because of the name calling and questioning of my intelligence. I report people, nothing comes of it, they are still here and still doing the same things from day to day.
Thanks Spade, you said what needed to be said. I tried once to fight fire with fire, but that's not really who i am, so i won't do that again.-
-
not2needyComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
78%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey N2N - a good point.
Reply
I do believe that what you're referring to is all the more reason to ignore those kinds of articles. If a person commented on an article they hated - 5 times for example - that would only solidify that article's position on the home page. When, instead, 5 comments elsewhere might bring a new article to attention or cause another article to rise above the one you didn't like.
Yes, that was a run-on sentence!-
ranchhandComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
82%
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I totally agree. If you want stories like that to quit dominating, then its on those here to ignore them. As hard as that might be to do sometimes, its the only thing to ever work on a user run forum such as this.
Reply
In the end, the every person here holds the power to effect change if they were willing to do so. So while the person posting such tabloid style news has their own culpability in this happening, so does each person who opens them up and comments on them.-
80%
lovemylibs1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Couldn't agree more. I would "love" to add a little perspective here. I've been on Propeller long enough to have seen it all and experienced most of it. I've seen posts from both "sides" that were sorry excuses for information. You see, that's the main reason I'm here. To learn a lot and to hopefully teach a little. As I read through all of the posts on this story, I couldn't help but ask myself where the liberals where who found the scurrilous attacks on McCain on par with the story from yesterday. I posted in several stories a couple of days ago about how the "cross in the dirt" story had been thoroughly debunked. All of those comments were negged more than posed. The person who posted that story had the gall to post a comment on this story about us controlling the content on Propeller. So, is this about controlling content? If it is, then you can have Propeller, I don't want it. Content control is a dangerous subject. It is censorship plain and simple. Now, if you want to do it the right way, don't prop, comment on or support the questionable stories. If enough from both sides do this then change will happen. If you see a questionable story, comment on it with facts. The truth will hit home with the truthseekers. The people not seeking truth have already made up their minds about who will get their vote. I just wish some of you would realize that this sort of behavior is enacted by both sides on Propeller. It is wrong from both sides and it is not a one way street.
Reply
-
-
79%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Frankly populist, I think this issue is indicative of bigger problems with the current version of propeller.
Reply
As I look at the present frontpage, there is very little of substance on it. Mostly trivia is making the front page and this has been facilitated by the "groups" that block vote trivia. As I predicted from the beginning, the group mechanism has downgraded the value of propeller as a means of finding real information. Unfortunately, at the same time tools which allow users to find the stories that interest them have been downgraded and it is now MUCH more difficult to find stories with real substance.
As a long time user, I would guess that participation in propeller has declined rather significantly since the revision (another long time user recently sent me a message saying she felt lonely in the new propeller). I put this down to fewer tools that let users tailor usage to their interests and slow response times.
In the old version of propeller, we could all see who was responsible for the "garbage" stories and who was commenting in what ways. I have always felt that this acted in a "social hygiene" sense to stop some of the flaming wars, but this is no longer possible.
I used to provide factual information to rebut some of the obvious "flame distractions" without voting for them. It would be useful to stop counting comments as "props" for a story and let us see who actually voted for the story.
-
-
75%
jovial1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That was an outstanding article and comment. The attacks have been unrelenting. His preacher, his wife, his mother, his father, his grandparents. It's an unrelenting attack on the character of this candidate. I think i know why. It's worked in the past. It's a ploy that has given the Republican party good results and explains why they have won so many elections in the last 20 years. I don't think it's so much a color or racist thing. It's more an ideology attack. Let's face it, Perot dropped out of the candidacy in large part due to the attacks on his family. Kerry was swiftboated. Clinton was dogged throughout his entire Presidency with sex scandals. Imagine if George Bush had a left-wing special prosecutor assigned to investigate him throughout his entire presidency. Do you think he would still be President now? I think not. The fact of the matter is that the "race thing" is convenient now. The candidate is black. It's the easiest thing to pick on. He's also got a foreign name. So what better way to debase the character of this candidate, but by saying everyone that he ever associated with was a racist, a Muslim, or a communist. It's dirty politics at it's worst. A real eye opener for those that think our democracy and political system is the greatest system in the world.
Reply-
35%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jovial,
Reply
Puh-leaze....You're self-righteous attitude has made me nauseated....For you to come in here and point the finger ONLY at the Republicans is ludicrious...There is just as many hateful, bigoted, defamatory, stories from the left as the right....Only when YOU guys do it, it's called freedom of speech....When WE do it, we're hate monters, instigators, devious, etc.....
Another for instance, I had to send a personal message to Propeller letting them know how biased they were to liberal-minded members and that every week the featured member was ALWAYS a liberal and NEVER a conservative...Even the featured groups we're all left-winged....So, please get your facts straight before you go off on your liberal unfairness blathering....It is SOOOOOOO left-leaning in these threads, even the anchors at propeller and scouts would be considered democratic and liberal in nature.....I mean, let's be fair about it...
Ask Neophile, Aidenag, and Populist if they're liberal and Democrats....Ask them....The conservatives at Propeller have very little impact and if it wasn't for a few of us, would not even have a voice....It's a liberal pow-wow session each and every day....I mean, look on the front page and count-up how many anti-McCain stories there are....Count up how many "McLame" and "McSame" and equating Bush and Cheney to "Hitler" comments there are in these threads
Give me a break.....-
80%
jovial1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alphagnosis was a featured member if i remember correctly. I don't see this bias you accuse Propeller of having. They let that Snopes story through. If they were biased they could have deleted it. I don't know how the featured members are selected, but i can tell you this. I've never seen my name there. I'm not crying about it either, though. People comment with McSame, McLame, etc. That's their right. They're slandering his politics, not his skin color. Not his mother, or his father, or his grandmother. A lot of the character attacks on McCain came after he changed his political tactics and started to become more "swiftboatish". For a long time McCain was out of the news almost entirely. It was just a constant drone on the reverend Wright and other racial based attacks.
Reply-
36%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jovial,
Reply
"Alphagnosis was a featured member..."
Yea...only AFTER I raised hell about it which was a few months ago....
And I'm sorry but Obama's relationship with the Rev. Wright has EVERYTHING to do with the man's character and his thinking...His relationship with a known terrorist William Ayres has EVERYTHING to do with the man's character....As far as the "attack" on his mom....As ranchie said before, the original poster of the story, it's not so much an attack on her but rather Obama's vagrant lying as to where she's from and what her religious background was....I think lying is a very important character flaw of Obama and NEEDS to be addressed....But for some reason, Obama is off-limits to scrutiny whereas McCain is a "pandora's box" for liberals....I mean, questioning the man's POW experience, making fun ofhis age, fogetting how many investments he had because his wife handles most of those things...I mean, how is that attacking his character, jovial ?
Or how about this story that fortunately didn't make the front page, but still indicated you liberals are just as hateful and smearing as we are....
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/06/24/as-long-as-were-talking-about-michelle-obama-did-you-know-cindy-mccain-was-a-drug-addict/
How does attacking his wife give us more insight about McCain's character, jovial ?
And the racial based attacks are from Obama himself with many stories on his race baiting suggesting that no one would vote for him because he was "different" or "not a typical president on the dollar bill" and yes, even mentioned that "because he was black"....
So please look in the mirror before you go off on your rants....
Thank you....-
87%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yea...only AFTER I raised hell about it which was a few months ago....
Reply
Re:Featured member...
---
NOT A FEW MONTHS.. 2 weeks.. and twas I that informed my friend AG...
AlphaGnosis 2 weeks, 1 day ago
WOOHOOO! Thank you, baby! I didn't even notice that. That's awesome . . . you made my day! :D-
25%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will,
Reply
I can't read liberal....
Can you decipher your "cut and paste" attempt above ?
I talked to Tom a few months ago about featuring more conservative members on their front page....regardless of the date that was discussed, the point is AG wasn't featured on the front page until AFTER I had raised a stink about it ....
Or I raised a "Will" about it in conservative terms.....-
86%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The best way to deal with this issue is to NEVER feature ANY person on the frontpage. The last thing we need on this site is to facilitate mindless herd behavior. This generates too much trivia and flame wars - mostly by people who have very little of substance to say. A story should rise on its merits, NOT from high school cheer-leading crap.
Reply -
-
-
-
57%
amazed1 year, 3 months ago
-
73%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
-
30%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
63%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
-
86%
slate1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The truth usually has both sides of the issue, when you only point out the bad deeds of the right and never the left then , yeah their is 'truth' in it but it's flawed, because it's intent is to smear only one side and protray your side as innocent which is a lie.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was called the "hall of great republicans" and it sadly had links to the newspaper articles that documented these facts. I compiled the information for the article and in contrast could only find a dozen examples of democrats doing similar crimes. The folks who claimed democrats were just as bad could not come up with more than 4 examples. The article documented over a thousand republicans who used their positions of influence to molest children or bash gays while being involved in gay relations themselves all while waving flags. That is not a smear or unfair if it is true and documented. sorry.
Reply
-
-
80%
jovial1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How does attacking his mother with a unsubstantiated rumor give any insight into his character. You right-wing Republicans feel that you have the authority to question everyone's character, but become incensed when your own members are questioned. McCain's military service is off the table. Bush's military service..that too is off the table. Obama? Everything is on the table. No stone is unturned. If there's no truth fit to print, innuendo and rumors are used. You tell me that things are "off-limits" when it comes to Obama. I say that's B.S. He's been called a coommunist, a socialist, a Muslim, a racist, a terrorist. What the hell is it in your opinion that's been left out? If a story came out that "White people vote for McCain because he's white" How would that go over? Or "McCain's mother was a bar room wench that gave out secrets to the communist's" Mind you, this is only examples, but it's interesting to see what you and other conservatives reactions would be to these type of stories.
Reply-
38%
Nixie1 year, 3 months ago
-
65%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, when you call him McSame, McLame, declare you will never vote for him if he is the parties nominee, make fun of him, post Anne Coulter articles praising Hillary, Pray for Biden, Mitt, Fred, Rudy Newt, yada yada, then as soon as we know who the nominees are you immediately start telling us what a wonderful man McCain is, it looks a little suspect!
Reply
Want me to pull up some of the submissions and give you links? there's a lof of them, right here on Prop. -
62%
jovial1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I haven't seen that story about McCain supporters and white people. I'm sure if it's so frequent I would have seen it by now. Getting back to the point, what exactly is off limits on Obama? (besides out and out racial slurs) The only reason those aren't out there is because it would be pulled fro TOU violations.
Reply
-
-
33%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jovial,
Reply
What planet are you from ? Read my comment....Did you even read the first sentence ? I said, that it wasn't EVER about attacking his mom....It was about the lying where Osama claimed his mother was from a certain place and she wasn't and her questionable radical religious affiliation....You don't think lying and possibly coming from a radical left-winged background doesn't have any merit on Osama's character especially since Obama himself has been quoted that he got most of his morals and values from his mother? Well, what we're those values ? Were they radical in nature ? Why did he lie about where his mom was from ? Tie that up in a nice little bow and throw in his relationship with yet another radical lefty, Rev. Wright...I mean, a character picture starts to develop....
But yes, if McCain's mother was a Klansman back in the day or his dad, wouldh't you have some reservation about McCain's character, jovial?
Of course, you would.....
You're being unrealistic, as usual.....-
83%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nixie actually made a good point:
Reply
by saying people are voting along racial lines on one side, the other is automatically implied. Racial lines are racial lines: it takes two to tango. To say one group won't cross them because the candidate is black carries with it that other people won't cross because the candidate is white.
Racism or partisanship to one side or the other is always a two way street that way, with a lot of jaywalking and a lot of refusing to cross at the light if its the wrong color, be it black or white, red or blue.
[I feel like I didn't get what I was trying to say quite right. Doesn't feel well thought out and expressed, Let me give it one more short try]
sigh...I got nothing. Can't quite get the 'why' of how saying black people are voting for Obama because he's black automatically implies the opposite, and vice versa-that white people are sticking with whitey because he's white equals black people only voting for color. It's almost a negative 1 equals positive 1i type equation.
I think its because saying or high-lighting that only one group is voting or capable of voting along racial lines implies the other one is colorblind, which runs against what we know of humanity and is racist in itself.
all people are equal regardless of color means all people are also equally capable of being dumbasses, in other words
so that's why saying one implies the other -
-
75%
jovial1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The key word you used was "possibly". No i don't think it matters. I don't even think "probably" matters. If it was coming from a party that normally deals with facts and doesn't boost rumors, I might give it a listen, but we all know that's not the case.
Reply-
-
44%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain's wife is from a mobster family with strong connections to zionist ethnic cleansing of millions of people in Palestine. McCain's father was involved in the cover-up of the zionist attack on the USS Liberty. If the mainstream media were "balanced", these facts would be on the front page of every newspaper and screamed in TV talk shows daily.
Reply-
-
75%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCains' chief foreign advisor is a ZionCon who has used corrupt influence peddling and the US military to make himself a rich man.
Reply
Sorry Spade, but if you are not capable of condemning corruption and crimes against humanity just because the are committed by pseudo-jewish zionists, then all your protestations about racism and bigotry here are simply rampant hypocrisy.
McCain's ZionCon warmonger - And none dare call it treason.
Who is Randy Scheunemann? The principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential national security adviser to the president. He is also dual loyalist israel-firster, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/22/mccains-zioncon-warmonger-and-none-dare-call-it-treason/
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By all accounts Obama's Mom belonged to no particular religion but taught him to respect all religions. That's "radical"? A danger?
Reply
Only to theocratic autocrats..
Attacking the man's dead mother with anonymous e mails and unsubstantiated innuendo is pathetic and says quite a bit about the people who defend this behavior. I am still hearing how unfair it was to submit a completely sourced and linked article that was about republican chicanery,
The idea that a true article that gave sources and links to sources is anything like these nonsensical attacks with no sources and zero facts is completely laughable.
-
-
67%
Lurch1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> It was about the lying where Osama claimed his mother was from a certain place and she wasn't and her questionable radical religious affiliation.
Reply
Lol with that one. Lying? you mean like McLame lying about not having the affair with Vicki, despite him taking her everywhere with him during the campaign? (judgment issues aside for the moment) You mean McLame interferes with govt agencies for lobbyists on a regular basis, and not just for those who go to bed with him on top of giving him $?
You mean like lying about the cross in the dirt story, claiming it was your own after some other POW published it in a book years ago and you never mentioned it in your memoirs before?
You mean like lying about being sequestered in a church room while you were actually in a car with your lobbyist campaign staff getting feeds on the questions?
You mean lying about war in order to win an election despite the fact you know it will likely get more GIs killed?
Oh no, you mean lying like a RW rumor supposedly being the truth despite the fact no RW was there at the time.
Yeah, thanks for being so `realistic`. LOL. -
24%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
26%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
-
80%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Barack Obama is Christian. Not that it should matter what his religion is. He is the leader of a secular government. As for his politics, Barack Obama is a Democrat, not a socialist. You do not understand the subtle differences between the two, but that is OK; after all you did graduate from FSU.
Reply
Incidentally, Barack Obama is black...in case you missed that. -
83%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''This isn't a telephone....you can't just hang up the phone...''
Reply
sure you can
you don't even have to answer someone's call in the first place
well I had a nice post written for you but an errant keystroke cause it to disappear
but it went something like this:
'I'll answer you tho:
-a socialist
the definition for the word varies on here. one man's socialist is another's socially conscious pol. ...to many just having welfare and SS already makes us socialist
-a muslim
thoroughly debunked and irreconcilable to hold anyway if you are offended by his 20 years CHRISTIAN church associations. I suppose he's been using a christian church as a 20 year beard for his muslim-ness, knowing when he joined 20 years ago, that 20 years later muslim terrorism would fully flower and make being a muslim somehow 'wrong' for his 20 years down the road prez candidacy.
and maybe there'd be a pic or report of him expressing his muslimhood somewhere? maybe one story or pic of him on a prayer rug or something?
he's kind of been a public figure for awhile
ok number 3
using race as an excuse people won't vote for him
supply a quote
I think he said something about our nation not being 'ready' for him yet
interpret that how you want
I think he meant maybe we aren't ready for a prez who can crossover dribble
or maybe he meant the US isn't ready for a dem or a liberal or something
supply a quote
that's the only one I remember, the 'not ready' one
-
-
-
-
78%
quackpot1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to your definition of socialist, Bush himself might qualify.
Reply
Mr. Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. this is well documented.
Race certainly IS a reason why some people will not vote for him. In fact, racial issues were the primary focus of the article in question.
-
-
-
-
-
77%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
-
27%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And noticed that not2needy conveniently propped this hanus article on Cindy McCain....
Reply
Again, the pot calling the kettle....
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/06/24/as-long-as-were-talking-about-michelle-obama-did-you-know-cindy-mccain-was-a-drug-addict/-
71%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hanus? Hanus? Don't you know how to spell? Yesterday you said more classier, and today hanus! It's heinous, HOWEVER...How is that the pot calling the kettle, I'm not a drug addict, never have been, never will be. You have serious mental issues don't you? Admit it.
Reply
Cindy McCain was a drug addict, and never went into rehab, so for all i know she still is. Not only was she an addict, she is a thief, forged prescriptions, and smuggled drugs using diplomatic immunity. The truth is the truth, it may hurt, but that doesn't cancle out the fact that it is still the truth.-
67%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just because you say it isn't so doesn't mean it didn't happen. Even she admits it.
Reply
Your problem is that you have nothing like this to pin on Michelle Obama, because if you did, you wouldn't let a day go by that you wouldn't make reference to it.-
29%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
-
71%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course Cindy loves America, where else could she commit multiple felonies, get caught and come out of it without so much as a record. You need to start facing some stark realities and stop basing so much on hearsay. At least my facts are that, facts, you are basing what you say about Michelle on heresay.
Reply-
-
-
33%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here you go n2n....
Reply
Read it and weep...
Or should I say "watch it and weep"
And btw, it's not from fox news....
Care to have some crow ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4
-
-
-
-
71%
Lurch1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
of course the one time she said `for the first time she was really proud`. But truthiness is not your forte, we understand.
Reply
Also, you know that is her personal opinion, its a free country, and she has the right to say whatever she wants. Despite your biased political-correctness.
Also, I was listening to NPR the other day, and I heard about a black WWII vet who loved his country, fought for his country, and lost friends for his country.
However, he was not always proud of his country. You gonna attack everybody who has at one point or another not been proud of their country? How about all those Vietnam Vets who are ****** at McCain for stopping the hunt for POW/MIAs - you think they have ever NOT been proud of their country? You gonna attack them?
It`s like a parent to a child. One should always love their children, but if the child commits a crime, gets pregnant at 15, or flunks out of college for partying too much the parent will not be proud, should not anyway. Same with country.
When your country is being bad and you know it could do so much better, why would you lie and say you are proud of it? You still love it, but being proud of it is something else.
I was not proud of my country around the time of Katrina for example. That is the day that Bush and McCain ignored the warnings and instead shared some birthday cake and a photo op while thousands were facing their last moments on earth.-
bruhahaComment removed: Spam
-
25%
FSU92grad1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, but lurch when you are running for the president of the United States and your wife stands up in front of the world and says for the "FIRST TIME, She was proud to be an American...."
Reply
What does that imply ? First time ? Meaning she had NEVER been proud of America ? EVER? I'm sorry.....Bruhaha's comment aside....We need people postiive about our country and pointing out the good and I sincerely find it very hard to believe that any American wasn't proud of SOMETHING at SOMETIME.....We should be proud and for her to stand up in front of the American people and insult America like that, I'm sorry....True or not, it's horsechit !
I love this country, scars, pimples and everything and I can find a lot of things to be proud of....Michelle is only proud just NOW because her stupid husband is running for office... Do you know how absurd that sounds? Check HER approval ratings....Why do you think they are trying to make her appear more "human" to voters ? People can't stand her...Nobody likes someone who blames America for everything and then stands up there and curses America and basically states there's not anything in our history that she is proud of....
And spare me with the blaming of Bush and McCain for hurricane Katrina....You libs seriously.....Dude....Get off your soapbox....
What about local government who did NOTHING....what about Ray Nagin ? That dirtbag ? How about being told that they needed to do something about the levy's years ago, but nothing was done on a LOCAL level...How about them apples, lurch?
And you wonder why people in here use name-calling tactics....It's because you guys truly are idiots
You're thinking is so warped and inconceivable, it's unimaginable to believe ANYBODY takes you seriously....Other than n2n, hyperbola and the rest of you libs....-
50%
ADAGUY1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"How about being told that they needed to do something about the levy's years ago, but nothing was done on a LOCAL level...How about them apples, lurch?"
Reply
This is what gets us so fed up with you. This is nothing but a bold faced lie!
Yet you have spouted it since Katrina hit.
LIMBAUGH LIES! that's all you can come up with! -
100%
bruhaha1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What about local government who did NOTHING....what about Ray Nagin ? That dirtbag ? How about being told that they needed to do something about the levy's years ago, but nothing was done on a LOCAL level...How about them apples, lurch?"
Reply
Because the levy's are a federal project, the Corp of engineer's. Idiot
-
-
-
88%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well FSU, I think you should ask yourself whether you really feel that goosestepping along behind "dear leaders" is what american democracy is all about and if that is the kind of country you want to live in. You seem to spend an enormous amount of energy screaming about it.
Reply
Army, Flag, and Cross
The American mythos today is saturated with the Holy Trinity of God, the flag, and the armed forces. All are glorified and sanctified in a manner that is overtly sentimental, Romantic, and irrational. Review the images in your mind: Grainy newsreel footage of Hitler “blessing the colors.” The massive, militarized May Day love fests in Red Square. The manic triumphalism of military parades staged by every tin-pot dictator ever to reign in the Third World. And realize that now it is America’s turn.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/26/army-flag-and-cross/ -
80%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FSU, you just can't dig your hole of bigotry deep enough, can you?
Reply
No compassion for your fellow Americans either as helping them at all is absolute SOCIALISM in your ignorant, biased mind! Please go back to FSU and get more than just a PT degree!
-
-
-
-
-
-
not2needyComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
fuzzy1967Comment removed: Spammer20 Replies
-
65%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See FSU, there you go, No one can disagree with any of you, when they do you immediately go into attack mode. It's not enough to attack the messenger, you have to attack Propeller staff, which is the norm.
Reply
I have seen many days that the whole front page was covered with one attack article after another, posted by pc25, AG, Nixie, DropKick, etc. I have never seen any day that the front page was full of nothing but Liberal articles, never.-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
0%
DropkickaLib1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't look very often. I've seen plenty of days when navigators like neo have filled the front page with leftist stories. I haven't posted that many stories myself so I question the accuracy of your comment. I'd bet anything that you've posted more stories than I have. I can't remember any of my stories ever reaching the front page.
Reply
-
-
91%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ALWAYS a liberal and NEVER a conservative
Reply
ALPHA .. was a featured member.... I think she'll take offense to being called a liberal......
Neophile is neither he's Canadian
you wouldn't know a liberal or a true conservative if one bit you in the azzzzzzzzz.. -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
33%
ADAGUY1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I Know it's asking a lot, but what you don't stop to look at, (because you have no defense from it) is the fact that many of us who disagree with you are not the least bit liberal, we are conservatives that are fed up with republican corruption!
Reply
(I say republican corruption because they are the ones who put us in this current mess)
Some of us aren't dumb enough to put the party affiliation first. Instead, my main concern is the welfare of this nation and the constitution!
Quit worrying about who is or is not a liberal, and take a look at whats right and whats wrong! -
67%
Dave591 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is a break for you. Yes many of the people here are "left-leaning". I am really sorry if that bothers you. (NOT) if you don't like it then just leave okay? That will be fine with me.
Reply
I have taken the same attitude you work with..My way or the highway. So hit the road jack.
Wa wa wa. you all abuse poor Mcain. The man is an ass hat and should be in a home for old folks...not the Whitehouse.
That is what I think. Live with it. I could really give a flying crap if you like it or not.
Oh yes, would you like some cheese with that whine?
-
-
-
37%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article is written by someone who likes to throw the hate around a lot when it comes to Christian and Conservatives. He puts together presentations and puts them on sites like this one that puts pictures of Christians or conservatives along with pictures of Hitler and the Nazi war machine. This is nice discourse. He uses the term Nazi on this site and others when talking about conservatives.
Reply
My advice to Spadecaller is to get the beam out of your eye before trying to get the spec out of someone else's eye.
Most of what was said in that article is found by simply verifying by using the web. There are portions that are not verifiable by doing that. Spadecaller expresses his hate by arguing against existing evidence. Is he trying to silence people that he does not agree with. What a guy.-
-
-
31%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I consider the source of the attack because that is what you wrote is. You are subtle about it but it is there none the less. If you had not made mention subtly about the author it would have been better. But you had to take your shots instead of just commenting on that article.
Reply
Hypocrite.
I was referring to one of your previous stories and you know it. You did a similar thing on another sate. Every time you post and use the word Nazi or put something up putting people or concepts against the backdrop of pictures of Hitler and Nazi things it greatly angers me. We went round and round on this before. So when you do an attack piece those Nazi and Hitler stories and posts come quickly to mind. I put what you say against that backdrop.
You come out being a hypocrite with that backdrop. I will call you every time I see them.
I admit to being prejudiced against using Hitler and Nazi to brush ANYBODY with them and if you want to call the anger over doing that a grudge so be it. It is your actions and posts that cause that anger, grudge, and prejudice against you. IF you will ever reject those things I will revise my opinion. But I saw a post today where you used the word Nazi.
-
-
92%
BronxBomber1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like James Marcus, I don't pay any heed of racially inciteful or polarizing articles that I know are pure bovine excrement, & in choosing not endorsing it in this mode, it doesn't bother me a bit. Not at all. Giving the slightest credence to fallacious, and disparaging innuendo's give it's negative sources more encouragement, and reasons to add more garbage to proliferate in future articles. Therefore, I blot it out in all it's dimensional aspects that way, it doesn't bother me or even enter my psyche' at all as in terms of other poster's willful negative conscientious influences. Just don't prop it if you know it's full of crap! If you do think that it's too out of the periphery in terms of the normal standards of moral infrastructures of a cogent society, report it to the staff..that all.
Reply -
-
riverdalianComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
35%
Wolfie20071 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller
Reply
What a crock you are one of the worst on Propeller. You call people names and ridicule them all the time, in addition to your Bush is a nazi, etc. remarks. Add to your resume that you are also a hypocrite, this article is only self aggrandizing, sophistry and hyperbole.-
ClockworkorangeComment removed: Abusive5 Replies
-
-
22%
automan9091 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's ok. When someone is drowning it's common for them to kick and scrape all they can to get another breath of air.
Reply
Much like the losers in the Democratic race for President.
After the first night of the convention the poles have stayed the same.
The Dems are going down for the third time really soon.
-
-
69%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...why the country needs the Truth in Telecommunications Act that Reagan vetoed... and why today's repugs oppose the Fairness Act. If it takes a court of law to penalize the liarsand deceivers... eventually honest news will prevail... only an honestly informed America insures democracy as our forefathers envisioned can survive!
Reply -
100%
dunkirk1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can understand you ignoring them, but in some ways its like the majority of the Christians who dont comment on the wack nuts taking over. If an article is over the line someone needs to say it, otherwise you read a slew of comments that basically are in support of it. The Sink button is gone now and that use to be one way to place a comment on an article to say it sucked.
Reply
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (49)
-
Wil
-
Ciera-Marie
-
Ratskii
-
TGrass3001
-
Eagle_Eye
-
joey-evans
-
BronxBomber
-
cushi
-
david_nwpa
-
Justice4All
-
Nowalive
-
not2needy
-
Charlson
-
Pupi
-
tchef
-
Lurch
-
gamahuche
-
miklkit
-
Shadowolf
-
globalwarmer
-
alakazam
-
mntnman444
-
dadesider
-
Spadecaller
-
fsev41
-
Goppy
-
Will1313
-
splitrch
-
mesodude
-
ecotourusa
-
ProudBlueTexan
-
dunkirk
-
bruhaha
-
spyguy
-
GWHayduke
-
ML2007
-
y_soitenly
-
CRYMTYPHON
-
doggammit
-
dissent
-
AnteUp
-
daducha
-
bluetexasvalley
-
raats6662
-
burntorange
-
Progressive
-
epiphannyy
-
TNT
-
Simplicitas
oldgringo
ind06
AlphaGnosis
Wolfie2007
DropkickaLib
Nixie
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.