Comments for Unsubstantiated, Racist, Character Attacks; Propeller’s Front Page »
Posted By Spadecaller 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsFor those of us who cherish the freedom to use Propeller for responsible communication, we must endure articles that are false, bigoted, and hurtful to others. The sad fact is articles of this nature often make the front page and even become the number one story. Why should it be that way? Should anyone be held accountable... and if so, who should that be?
Read Full Story at freewebs.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 628
-
89%
Bacalao1 year, 4 months ago
-
92%
populist1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 months ago
-
92%
Beau78901 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 months ago
-
73%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
-
30%
FSU92grad1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
63%
not2needy1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
-
86%
slate1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 months ago
-
65%
not2needy1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 months ago
-
-
26%
FSU92grad1 year, 4 months ago
-
80%
david_nwpa1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 months ago
-
27%
FSU92grad1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 months ago
-
71%
not2needy1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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/ -
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
-
not2needyComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
fuzzy1967Comment removed: Spammer20 Replies
-
65%
not2needy1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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..-
-
-
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
33%
ADAGUY1 year, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 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.
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
-
riverdalianComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
35%
Wolfie20071 year, 4 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, 4 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.
-
-
100%
dunkirk1 year, 4 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
-
-
72%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
63%
jovial1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know what sometimes get's me angry is that when stories are put out like this, a lot of liberals run over to comment. I've even seem some liberal minded individuals prop the story! When you comment, either yay or nay you lend validity to the story by raising the prop number.
Reply-
-
100%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps I can explain that. I look at a story from the viewpoint that we have many people on this site and they all deserve to have their voices heard, so whether or not I agree with the politics of a post is not why I vote for it, I vote based on whether or not I think it is a good story.
Reply
Please don't make me explain my criteria for "good story". -
89%
tchef1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I will often comment on a story without propping it. I only prop stories that I think are credible. I comment on attack pieces as a counter attack to put an opposing viewpoint on it so anyone who hasn't already decided on an opinion will have more than one side to look at.
Reply-
75%
globalwarmer1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Reminds me of that story about China being our enemy last week, that spent the whole day on the front page. It was pure nonsense but I couldn't keep my mouth shut ( for me anyway). I expected to see all the major players there denouncing it as rubbish, there were a few but I assumed it was being ignored for what it was.
Reply
-
-
78%
cushi1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I make it a point not to do that! I can't resist reading some of it, though, just to see what the underbelly of society is up to! There's a saying to hold your friends close and your enemies closer!
Reply
I don't put anything past some of the people who post on here. They may be holding back a bit of their venom because they don't want to get kicked off, but I just know they scurry back into their dark little corners thinking up all kinds of nasty, vile and disgusting things to further their ignoble causes.
-
-
-
-
81%
Goppy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I agree. Thanks Bacalao.
Reply
My position on this issue is probably not popular ... ... ...
While I have voiced outrage to these stories online, I personally see these stories as an opportunity. I figure ... it's better that they appear on Propeller than on FOX, SBC, and on Rush Limbaugh ... because you KNOW they will appear on those venues ... but without the intelligent rebuttals which Propeller members can provide.
Look, I work with Christian Conservatives every day. This is how they think. As AlphaGnosis has been saying ... (half kidding ... I hope) these people see Barack Obama as the anti-Christ. It's an opportunity to recognize that for a large portion of America, the election is a twisted religious issue. I see these stories as an opportunity to compare the extreme moral perversion they represent and contrast them with the aspirations of patriotic Americans who wish to make our nation a better place for our children ... and our children's children.
As the election draws near, I do see a ramping up of attack stories from my fellow Christian Conservatives. Interestingly, the more avowed they are as 'Mainstream Christian', the more intense is their vitriole. I am seeing what I assess as a 4 to 1 vicious attack from the right. I think Liberals and Progressives ... whatever you call yourselves ... should be proud of this ratio.
As an aside, I would recommend that Liberals refrain from calling John McCain a traitor or submitting stories to this affect. He's not a traitor. He's an adulterer and a Flip-Flopper, but he's not a traitor. To say otherwise will not garner any good will to your point of view.
I also think it's a bad idea to compare Bush to Hitler. Certainly, this happens far less than my fellow Conservatives harp about. But I HAVE seen it on occasion. Bush is the worst president ever, the most duplicitous, and I believe the most dangerous ... but he's not a Hitler. His low regard does NOT need to be augmented with this kind of comparison. Again, to say otherwise will not garner good will to your point of view.-
81%
Ciera-Marie1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
n2n I've done that too. Especially during the first week of the new propeller. Hard not too.
Reply
Sometimes the titles sound good and once you're there, oops no recourse.
Some I've propped or voted for if it was from a reputable source only because I think both sides should be heard if it's from reputable sources. -
87%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well put, Goppy. Well put. I am of the opinion that we must allow people the freedom to express themselves, despite the ridiculous nature of their opinion, in order to confront them in the light of day.
Reply
And I believe we must confront them. -
83%
agoodlibertian1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to disagree on some of your points. I do agree that name calling is not the way to go in our society, sometimes it is necessary. The reason why I call John Mccain a traitor is because of his association with the pnac(project for a new american century). He helped create this organization in the 90's and this organization is the reason we are in Iraq today. This is a fact. The pnac wanted war and now we have an ecomony that is being dragged down because of this war. They knew(the people in the pnac) that this could occur if they went with this war. Knowingly putting this country at risk of an economic collapse is treason. and Mcain helped set this up. Rregarding Bush as Hitler, agree that is crazy, Hiltler was one of a kind. That being stated; Bush did lie about war as Hitler
Reply
did, Bush and his cronies were involved in torture, murder and who knows what and tried to cover it up like Hitler, Writing laws like the Nazi's: case in point the 2006 Military commissions act and the 1935 Nuremburg laws. Both laws setup the rules for concentation camps. In both laws these were called speical interment camps, The people need to know the truth, but it is not being told. So, yes I do agree name calling can be a distraction but if it is true.
Then what.-
88%
Lurch1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I call McCain a traitor to the military and our vets, because based on his votes, actions, and words that is what he is.
Reply
He did not get an `F` rating from our vets for nothing.
Obama is not getting six times more in donations than McCain for nothing.
Anti-war Ron Paul is not getting four times more in donations than McCain for nothing.
But point well taken. We`re not conservatives, we have reasoning for our opinions.
Wouldn`t it be nice too if the cons stopped calling Obama a socialist for giving the middle class better tax breaks than the rich for once? (I thought cons were for tax breaks, but I guess they only like them when others benefit and they suffer)
-
-
81%
AntiNeoCon1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good comment Goopy, as usual.
Reply
Well it would probably be best to ignore the posts made by certain people and on topics you don't care for. That would be the gentleman way to deal with the radicals here on propeller.
However, somebody has to stand up for the other side and balance the remarks or the posts would simply amount to a group of people with like opinions scratching each others back.
A good open session of opposing views never hurt anybody and it makes propeller more interesting.
Politics and Religion always bring out the best, or the worst, in all of us. You need a thick skin if you are going to debate either.
While I often mock and belittle the right wing comments and get down on their level is because they do it to us. Does two wrongs make a right?
Probably not, but hey....let us have some fun. We don't have to take it so seriously. -
33%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your obvious bias is showing along with your ignorance of what Conservative Christians think.
Reply
" these people see Barack Obama as the anti-Christ. It's an opportunity to recognize that for a large portion of America, the election is a twisted religious issue."
Conservatives take one look at the Black Liberation Theology that teaches that EVERYTHING is viewed as "blacks liberating themselves from the yoke of whitey". Wright preached a sermon saying that Jesus was an oppressed black man crucified by the white Romans. We reject this as having anything to do with true Christianity. The fact that he was a Jew and the Sanhedrin gave him to the Romans and Pilate wanted to free him until he was blackmailed into crucifying him is entirely left out. Since he adhered to this kind of nasty theology for 20 years has us questioning what he really believes.
What you say is just as bad as if not worse that what that article says.
You say that its a bad idea to compare Bush to Hitler. The poster and creator of this story does that as well as compare Christians and conservative thought to him. You say that you have seen this on occasion but I have seen it a lot with certain posters. This one in particular. -
29%
tbkennedy531 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Knew we'd hear from the king of them all. "This is how they think", "moral perversion", "twisted religious issue". On and on Goppy. Almost without exception you post this same biased rant on every story. You rarely if ever dispute facts you immediately talk about McCain's first wife. Your constant name calling and totally biased views make you one of the worst on this site. What a hoot.
Reply -
-
-
33%
Nixie1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
CumloverComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35%
slate1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not about one person? Then why did I see that's she has been banned! It's always been about her for you guys, you saw her as the most dangerous to your 'cause' because she posted many unflattering threads as it pertains to your cause and party.
Reply-
40%
FSU92grad1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again,Slate....If we even attempt to question their far left agenda or beliefs were immediately construed as hate-mongers or bigots...
Reply
It's the same for Osama...We question his ability to be commander-in-chief and we're all of a sudden racist's or Nazi's....warmongers, etc....
We can never have a normal conversation with liberals because we disagree on just about everything they believe, for every point we make, they counter with one of their own...
Very few in here really can see BOTH sides and I can count on one hand which ones those people are....
I, of course, am not one of them....And I admit that, but there are a few I do respect who actually can see BOTH sides...I don't always agree with them but their logic is tolerable at times... -
-
-
100%
Shadowolf1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nope; speaking only for myself; I liked the people and hated their politics...Ranchie didn't often get involved in smearing...and could be counted on to inject humor into the thread when things got too hot...AG and CatStevens did engage in political smearing; but AWAY from politics had a VERY readable perspective...
Reply
<fontcolor=red>I know it's hard,but we need to try to seperate the politics from the person...it's REAL hard to do when dealing with those who smear, lie, insult, and project their own negativities on their opposition...</font>
-
-
-
-
71%
not2needy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
She may not have been banned slate, she may have closed her account. When you close your account your comments are automatically removed and member is banned comes up.
Reply
I'm not sure about that, but that's my guess, as far as i know. Unless she has sock puppets, and in that case Tom said he was going to ban everyone who had sock puppets.-
-
-
-
86%
bluetexasvalley1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no doubt you are right about that, Slate. But I am also sure it had nothing to do with any comments she made. I read all her comments on this thread, and none of them violated TOU. Maybe it had to do with her being outed as the former luvmyprez? I believe once you've been banned, you are not supposed to come back, even with another name.
Reply
Well, we can only speculate, but maybe she will reveal herself to you and you can ask her.
BTW, I have agreed with quite a few of your posts today. You are one conservative who rarely aggravates me with your comments, probably because you are closer to a "real" conservative than most of the others here. Thanks for being a relatively reasonable person. :)-
100%
slate1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I appreciate the compliment; I do try and be as reasonable as I can in the heat of the debate, though I have said things I regret.
Reply
Surely, you have been watching the slow tide of distain towards AG over time? I think there was a concerted effort to catch her doing something she wasn’t supposed to be doing in an effort to have her booted. I’d think that effort paid off and those that wanted her gone are gleeful about it.
How many times have people made it a point here to deride her and her threads, saying she should not be allowed to post what she wants? Then on the same day, these same people would be in other threads that were exactly like the one’s she put up, except it was about someone on the right? To them, the thread bashing those on the right were OK, yet they wanted the thread bashing the left pulled and her banned.
Then you toss in the actual staff members feeling the same way about her. I can’t help but feel that a concerted effort to have her banned was in progress. After all the hateful things that the left on this site (including staff) have said and hateful threads they have posted, I find the indignation of those submitted from the right disingenuous.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''Then why did I see that's she has been banned!''
Reply
AG got banned?
sorry to hear that
I don't remember what started the mass exodus of many 'conservative' members a couple years ago, but I was sorry then too.
the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned
and the deleted removed thread from yesterday had the secret of color...
color text, that is
the secret is now lost
---
I was gonna ask a question about the mechanics and screening of posted stories such as the banned one from yesterday, and who bears the responsibility, the submitter the accepter or both?
But I figure it's already been asked and answered here somewhere
the PROBLEM is with the new propeller, once a thread reaches this size, many of the comments are lost in the mist of blankness at the bottom of the page.
and oh boy, isn't it fun to wade thru here looking for comments, decreasing text size to get more of the 500 comments to appear, and making the red arrows at the top of the page point sideways just so you can see some of the latter comments.
worst thing for me about the revamp-
100%
bluetexasvalley1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DMT, the reason so many cons left a couple of years ago was because luvmyprez was banned. After she came back as AG, some of her friends followed her back, but not all.
Reply
I was not a member then, but I was a dedicated lurker [:)], so I was around for the whole thing.
I don't remember her doing so much copying and pasting back then, mostly she just tossed out zingers, like lovemylibs does now.
The easiest way to see your comments and the replies to them is by using the Comments (right under Submissions) on the left side of your profile page. This actually brings you back to the thread at the point of a particular comment and you can continue reading and posting from there.-
DeadXXXManXXXTalkinComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
55%
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why didn't you title this article honestly, Spade?
Reply
"Let's Attack AlphaGnosis"
ROTFL!!!
This article was probably inspired by Ranchhand's moronic submission of an unverified e-mail posted on Snopes.com as pending investigation.
Your response reminds me of what that great American Louis L'Amour once observed -
"I named no names, but when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit."
Looks like Spadecaller nailed AlphaGnossis, at least in your eyes.
-
-
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
80%
Charlson1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller, I participated on that post and after reviewing MY comments, I am ashamed at what I said while trying to debunk the spurious claims of the post and the intent of the poster. I will in the future endeavor to avoid commenting on these types of submissions - from the left or the right.
Reply
Too bad Propeller has ignored our requests to add a sink button to these submissions.-
75%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Charlson
Reply
I agree and commend you for your humility in admitting that you (like me and others) can easily get swept into the inflammatory dialogue that these articles thrive on.
I prefer the sink button too, but that still doesn't offer a better substitute than refusing to participate, to vote, and to comment. These miserable stories have no power unless members give into them.-
74%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree with you there Spadecaller. They have no power over those who would disagree with them anyway, but unfortunately, I think there are enough on the site who will willingly read, agree to, and prop these articles for them to still make it to the front page.
Reply
In that case, I think it is very important that the undecided people who read the story see that it is contested.
I think the algorithm is at fault here. "Don't judge a book by its cover" is an appropriate maxim. Sometimes, in order to know an article is trash, one has to read it. Unfortunately, Propeller has decided that the simple act of opening the article means you think it has worth.
Propeller - please take away the "reads" part of the algorithm. If a story has worth, we are intelligent enough people to "prop" it.
That having been said, comments are a valuable way to see if an article generates a good discussion, and I think they are an important part of the front-page algorithm. However, I still think they should be far less important than the "props" because "props" are the only way we have of communicating directly what we WANT to appear on the front page.-
78%
cosmogenium1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with you , Willottica. And I still think the "sink" button or some way to actively object to an article without making it more popular is needed. Or at least a way to indicate how many people disagree with the original submission.
Reply-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned17 Replies
-
-
95%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I did my best to do honest research on the Obama's Mother thread but it seemed mostly to be ignored. To be fair, it was at the bottom of a VERY long thread and I haven't been able to look at threads after they get past 300 comments or so, so not long after I put up my last post, that comment string went blank on me...
Reply
Plus, it took me all morning to debunk the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
So, even though I personally feel good about clearing a few names I doubt I changed any minds about the truthfulness of that post, or even if such articles should be posted in the future...
I could add vis-a-vis the sink button that it was never a way to do anything but voice your dislike of a post without actually bothering to formulate an intelligent opinion and was used far too often because people didn't like the poster rather than anything to do with the post. Good riddance to it.
Also, any comment you make on a post helps it's "score" go up so ignoring a story you hate may be the best route with the current system. -
94%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I did my best to do honest research on the Obama's Mother thread but it seemed mostly to be ignored. To be fair, it was at the bottom of a VERY long thread and I haven't been able to look at threads after they get past 300 comments or so, so not long after I put up my last post, that comment string went blank on me...
Reply
Plus, it took me all morning to debunk the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
So, even though I personally feel good about clearing a few names I doubt I changed any minds about the truthfulness of that post, or even if such articles should be posted in the future... -
-
-
68%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It has been many months since I participated on an article like that. I will not need to repeat this experiment again. If the community should choose to populate articles of this nature, I do not see a promising future for Propeller or for my future with Propeller either.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
60%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WhaT A CROCK slate. No one, not me, or anyone on this thread or anything in my article advocates any censorship of any kind. So get off your phony soap box.
Reply
Should Tom and James make changes in the algorithms that are used to determine which stories make front page be considered by you as censorship, take that up with them and stop blaming those that you already despise.
That many of us find hate articles and hate-mongering distasteful has nothing to do with your politics and prejudices, which are by no means a secret around here.
The consensus on this thread appears to agree with the idea that it is best not to prop hate articles and to give them more exposure. Why would anyone be irritated by that position? Unless they enjoy hate stories and posting on them, it should be a no brainer for a normal human being to understand that without all the antipathy that you are demonstrating.-
50%
slate1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spade I haven't even had a chance to get close to the soap box, you've hogged it with this thread and your indignation in your posts.
Reply
I've seen many of the same people here that make the same claims you just did in some very hateful threads about the right. I have yet to see one thread from you about that. You only post these types of threads about those from the right.
In fact you just called me 'not normal' in your post. Pretty hateful stuff wouldn't you agree?
Next time, how bout just ignoring it and not post a thread like this? I think 'most' adults' can decide which threads they want to participate in without your advice.
-
-
-
-
92%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
-
59%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
75%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. I don't mind political satire directed at either the right or the left; but there is a difference between vicious rumors. And that applies to both sides of the aisle. (I opposed the commentary about Cindy McCain's alleged biography for the same reasons.)
Reply
If a story has previously been determined to be unreliable and unsubstantiated -- a story that is defamatory by nature regardless of who the target is, it should be boycotted and opposed by those of us responsible enough to discern that kind of muck.
-
-
-
-
-
CumloverComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
78%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Standard definitions of the term Nazi. (withNeo referring to "new")
Reply
“one who is likened to a German Nazi: a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person”
“In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism - with "fascism" defined so as to include any of the authoritarian, nationalist, totalitarian, and right-wing movements.”-
44%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It goes way beyond that and you know it. Along with it goes the holocaust and other atrocities that Hitler had committed. Especially when you dreate one of your stories and put those pictures beside Christians and Conservatives. When you do that you spew hate. You know absolutely what I am talking about. Don't play the innocent with me.
Reply -
-
-
-
100%
JamesMarcus1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
69%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
-
93%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
-
64%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no great affinity for the sink button and rarely ever used it. However, I agree; best to not vote or comment on these stories.
Reply
BTW... does anyone know if it is fact or rumor that some of those that commonly submit stories of this nature are in fact sock puppets? Or is that just a reactionary rumor from members frustrated with this situation?-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned20 Replies
-
-
OldoneComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
91%
ameliog1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are many members who seemingly argue almost for the enjoyment of it. These people seek out these sorts of stories just to get into it with an opponent. A vote and comment gets these things seen, so our individual control over content comes down to ignoring what we don't want to see. I feel no obligation to read any stories on this site, and tend to go with trusted sources, although what is "trusted" varies widely for each of us.
Reply-
93%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree ameliog, I already tend to ignore that kind of thing, though I am occasionally sucked in, it hasn't had any effect.
Reply
However, Senor Coconut, I believe the most important part of the new algorithm is still votes. Since we would need people from all sides of the political spectrum on this string agreeing to not vote for such posts, and we don't have that, they'll surely keep showing up.
-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
69%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ameliog
Reply
I agree that what is considered "trusted" sources varies among us. And yet, other than the sociopaths and psychopaths that operate and participate on these web pages, most of us know the difference between shoddy content and reliable stories. -
-
ClockworkorangeComment removed: Abusive5 Replies
-
87%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I like the idea of just not participating in threads like that... I stay out of the attacks on McCain's war record and out of the "The truth!!! about Barack Obama!!! type threads.
Reply
I do participate once they reach the front page, for the most part. -
-
94%
Beau78901 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What Obama stands for is RARELY discussed.
Reply
What is most often discussed is unverified rumors about Obama's mother and wife.
If you'd like to get into a discussion about policy or issues, without bringing up associations from the past, just let me know, Endoscopy.
-
-
72%
crespi1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A black man running for office really brings out the racist in Americans, doesn't it?
Reply
At least we don't have to hear how there ISN'T ANY racism in America anymore (always said by white guys.)
Propeller illuminates the ooze from the creeps by offering an open forum racists just can't help themselves from posting on.-
29%
ecotourusa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama has no policy or issues. what has he done except support the FISA BILL? (a move to remove our personal freedoms, to make legal what bush has been doing illegally for years)
Reply
his vote absolutely shocked me; since it came from the man of change!
a policed country is different, though. -
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a response to Beau7890 above. Propeller strikes again.
Reply
I have posted many time about his policies that I get from his own web site. He has the Johnson spending, Carter economic, and Clinton taxing policies. That makes him a typical old school tax and spend Democrat.
A major problem when looking at all the spending programs (go to his web site) is that the taxes he proposes (go to his web site) will never pay for them. Even if he did a tax of 100% on that top 5% there is not enough money.
He foolishly believes like most liberals the opposite of what Kennedy knew and experience has taught us since then. Increasing taxes lowers revenue from them. Lowering taxes increases revenue from them. Liberals never look at how people change their behavior when giving or taking money by the government is done. -
-
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
71%
miklkit1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those threads are irritating for sure. I try to avoid them, but am not always successful. I have not propped, read, or commented on some; but just done some serial negging. Some of you may have noticed that they do that also.
Reply
I believe they use the Jerry Springer strategy because they can't debate the facts. -
FormidableComment removed: Hard Banned12 Replies
-
92%
Nowalive1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent piece. I would agree that too many negatively charged articles make it to the front page, but OUR tool to remove them was also removed. If enough members "sunk" an article it went away.
Reply
I miss the sink and retract functions.-
-
79%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why was it there at all? Just so people could feel like they were doing something?
Reply
Next you're going to tell us that "props" have no effect on a story's ranking?
A "sink" button, combined with a legitimate "prop" button, with little interference from unknown or uncontrollable variables is a much better way to ensure a social news site where the members determine the news.
The "secret algorithm" method doesn't do the members opinions justice. Of course, it does make the process more similar to the American Political system. The people have little to no way of effecting immediate change.
-
-
-
71%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/25/snopescom-barack-obamas-mother/
Reply
there is NO WAY this story got over 5791 legimate reads....
only Propped.. 72 times.... yet remained on the front page.. AT THE TOP for several hours....
I've stuck around here .... but if this is going to sink to the level of other network sites.. some of them are easier at this time to navigate.. and don't seem to censor anything let alone LOLOL... -
72%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i too would like the return of the SINK feature..i rarely used it.. and I NEVER NEG... but would like to see who does.....
Reply
I'd bet not being able to see who negged you.. has cut down considerably on the fun and sexual excitement that Wolfie used to get from this site...-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
72%
vor1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a sad fact that despite some attempts at denial racism is alive and well here in the grand old USA. One email I was copied on showed a group of impoverished African refugess and carried the title "Here comes the relatives". Sick stuff. Yet the Right fights back by suggesting that Obama himself is racist by commenting that you don't see anybody that looks like him on our money. That happens to be a true statement, not a racist one. But it is their only line of defense for their shameful behavior. i often meet people who have no idea of my beliefs who will discreetly mention that either "they ain't voting for no n-----r" or that "if it comes down to the white guy and black guy you know who I will be voting for", those are racist statements. Not hard to guess that I live in the Deep South. It isn't difficult to determine the difference. If you can't it shows a certain ignorance ,or simple unwillingness to address the issue truthfully.
Reply-
90%
skyking2p1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Vor I am with you on your comment. I am soon to be 65 and was born and raised in the south. My family were southern baptist but if quit going when i was about 12 years old because the whole church were a bunch of racist pigs. For the most part they still are today. I am a big overgrown redneck looking guy so most people i run into everyday take me for one of them (racist southerbaptist), so I hear it all unfiltered and they are the vilest bunch I have ever known.
Reply
I understand "Christan " means christ like and if that is true these folks are using the wrong name for there church. I have never seen a bunch so full of hate for other humans, but I guess there thinking is blacks aren't people anyway so hate away. Jesus was probably a black Jew, maybe someone like Anwar Sadat but they have turned him into the whitest anglo you can find.
-
-
50%
vidman041 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow, Spade...pot meet kettle....I can't believe how you people whine about how certain posters or stories that go against YOUR beliefs are to be considered unsubstantiated or lies or character attacks, but when YOU and others like you, have posted story after story, lie after lie, about President Bush, John McCain, and others, then well, you're just reporting the truth..... the hypocrisy is astonishing, both sides take pot shots at one another, both sides say things they shouldn't, but for you to say it's just one side's fault without acknowledging that all are at fault, just shows how wrong you are...
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
74%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
vidman,
Reply
you failed to read the posts, where I admitted it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. The practice is wrong on either side of the aisle to target people with information or stories that are unsubstantiated.
But as usual, you prefer to attack the individual rather than the substance of the message. -
-
davidhallstromComment removed: Spammer
-
77%
fsev411 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem that I see in just ignoring certain posts is that the "group" most of us seem to be talking about has learned to game the system in such a way that only the views of one side will ever reach the front page. This article is a good example. If I had not chosen to join Jovial's group I would not have known about it. Many propeller members want some reasonable debate on topics of interest and will not get it if we have to divide into "us and them" groups. I think the return of the "sink" function could be beneficial in helping to control some of the negative articles.
Reply
Another concern I have is totally misleading headlines, most often made up by the poster. The Kathryn Sebellius (sp?) story comes to mind and another that didn't make it to front page, probably because the Biden announcement came out early and trumped this story before the crew got it propped enough. That headline was "Obama gives contract to long time donor." it was posted by one of the group members. One would be led to believe that the story would be about Barack and some shady deal. In fact the story was about Michelle and a private business transaction that was perfectly legal. Sensationalism and innuendo at its worst but typical of the group.
PS: What do the color changes in the rating block mean. I have an idea but it doesn't seem to work the way I think it does all of the time. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive3 Replies
-
83%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I do not appreciate the fact that some scurrilous garbage reaches the front page, I also think that we have a duty to keep this site as open as we can. When someone (and I don't care who it is) decides that "this" submission is unsubstantiated and can not be tolerated while "that" submission is fine then we are going to have problems.
Reply
Let people post what they will unless it directly violates the TOU. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be pulled and it shouldn't be censored. And it isn't up to us (the community) as to what violates the TOU. That is up to the Big Dogs at Propeller. James and the rest are doing a pretty fantastic job, in my opinion, with keeping most of the more egregious stuff away from the site, while still offering a place to voice opinions that many, if not most, disagree with.
Since we're talking about the story yesterday, I appreciated that Propeller added their "warning", but I thought that was unnecessary. Again, this is a community driven site and some of our community wants to look at stories that I don't agree with. That's the way it is. If it doesn't violate the TOU and they can get the votes (or whatever in the new algy) to get it to the Front Page then that's that.
There were a group of us that tried repeatedly to discuss the idea of "blind voting" or "propping" in this case, and were roundly criticized by many, for trying to "control the site".
If people don't vote or comment on a story it isn't going to go anywhere. However, we have enough people on this site that are on both sides of the issues that occasionally, we're all going to have to suck it up and deal with the fact we're going to see stuff that we don't like.
Frankly, I'm more tired of this person or that person complaining all the time about other people's behavior or about how they're going to leave or about how this thing or that thing that Propeller is doing it going to be the downfall of the site, than I am about what people post.
Let 'em post. If you don't like it, don't participate.-
64%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
-
80%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Reply
I believe, although I may be wrong, that the number of times a story is "read" is cumulative and not individualized. It's possible that every time a story is clicked on or refreshed it's "read". If that's the case, based on the number of comments on the thread yesterday, I wouldn't doubt the 5700 times a bit.
But, that doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about.-
71%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it sure does.. that's how a story gets to the front page and is able to stay there... .. number of reads...
Reply
the "BIOGRAPHY" of Obama's mother posted yesterday.. the story and the fact it remained at the top of the front page.. was as stated in the prior post... BS...
as far as the WARNING being UNNECESSARY.. well if they felt compelled to add a warning because of BS... then maybe it should have been REMOVED...-
83%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All I'm saying is that people should be able to post what they want as long as it doesn't violate the TOU. That's my whole point.
Reply
And I agree with you that if they thought the warning was necessary then they should have removed the article.
But, I will say this. Technically, the submission itself was not "BS". The submission was from Snopes.com which declared that the e-mail in question was "unsubstantiated". From Snopes, that is a fairly damning statement. What was BS was what happened in the thread with some people using the unsubstantiated e-mail as a jumping off point in their character assassination of Senator Obama.
Now, THAT was BS.-
75%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
# is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, pornographic, invasive of another's privacy, tortious, or contains explicit or graphic descriptions, or accounts of, sexual acts;
Reply
-----
if that story wasn't
defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent,
then almost nothing would qualify... it sunk to almost new lows..-
83%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They got around it by using the Snopes.com page rather than on some site that didn't have it as "unsubstantiated". That's how they got around it.
Reply
And a LOT of those things from the TOU are subjective.
It's in the eye of the beholder. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will1313, As I write this my post for today is number two on the home page with 2,452 reads and 78 props. I assure you, I do not do "sock puppet", I wouldn't know how if you held a gun to my head. The high read counts are from AOL taking some of our postsd and featuring them on their news page.
Reply -
-
100%
ind061 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I have had, just within the past week, a post that got 12,906 reads. If you recall, it was titled something like "Couples' Baby Really IS Center Of Universe." Since I'm egotistical like this, I keep track of my posts that reach the highest and my highest prop count to date is 113 for "U.S. Poland Sign Death To Poland Agreement", so my props for this 12,000+ read post were probably in the 90's.
Reply
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
-
71%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of us believe in improvement and that positive change can come from respectful discourse without being concerned about being labeled a whiner. Some enjoy stories that are inflammatory and bigoted. Some consider them a great opportunity to vent their anger and resentments. We have a wide variety of people coming from many points of view.
Reply
Fortunately, James and Tom have expressed their desire to deal with this difficult issue with us and did not assume the attitude that this was simply a trivial complaint and a bothersome ordeal. In fact, I was quite impressed with James' in depth understanding of the profound issues involved.-
93%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And many of us believe that trying to ignore or bury something just lets it fester and that we should confront these things in the open light of day.
Reply
I don't believe that the complaint is trivial, I simply disagree that the best way to approach it is to bury it or pretend that it doesn't exist. Personally, I enjoy the opportunity to face off against those that I think are wrong, especially when what they are saying is a lie. Sometimes, although not always, that can present an opportunity for growth.
We can agree to disagree on that.
And I didn't label anyone a whiner. I simply said that I was more tired of the complaining by some people than I was of the occasional unsubstantiated, ridiculous, scurrilous garbage.
-
-
-
35%
injest1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unsubstantiated,
Reply
Racist,
Character Attacks;
Propeller’s Front Page
Isn’t that the description of Propellers front page?
“Was its purpose designed only to falsely besmirch a political candidate’s reputation without any concern for truth or for the wellbeing of others? Can you feel good in voting or propping a story of this nature?”
Humm? Would that be like the false story stating McCain plagiarized the “Cross in the dirt”
I don’t recall seeing ANY disclaimer on that story.
Do you really want to get into the Bush and the Texas ANG?
“designed only to falsely besmirch a political candidate’s reputation without any concern for truth”
Bush family + Nazi money?
Based on a (as in 1) share of stock issued in 1924, 8 years before Hitler was even close to power, valued at $124.00?
Do you have any idea how many stories on propeller are attributive to one or two “un-named source(s)”?
Do you understand that stories without actual named sources are in fact unsubstantiated?-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
71%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
injest
Reply
The majority of us are not politicizing this story. We are condemning unfounded stories right or left wing that assassinate a person's character that should be presumed unassailable until verifiable information is provided; otherwise cheap rumors and false innuendos become the centerpieces for deplorable commentary. Most of us are sick of that.
loading ...
