Robust Discussion Concerning Moderation

Who financed Herzl?
Don’t you know?

I wish it was possible to distinguish Zionist ■■■■ (Israel firsters, along with nutty Christian Zionists) and American ■■■■ who are law-abiding decent citizens. For the sake of brevity, I just say “■■■■■ with a caveat that there ■■■■ who are anti-Zionist

BTW, Ginsburg was a Talmudic ■■■■ the worst kind

Please, go ahead and tell us as I’m sure it’ll be interesting.

Be sure and provide actual evidence from reliable sources to support whatever you have to say on the subject.

When ■■■■ speak about “tikkun olam” (Hebrew for you in case you didn’t know), it is euphemism for the New World Order.
Hello 1984.

Sorry, Samm, but freedom of speech often brings gangs of idiots that pat each other on the back with their demented rhetoric and insane talking points.

You either live with it or deny freedom of speech.

Not only can you mute users (never get notifications of their activity) and scroll through without reading their gibberish, you can mute whole threads and never see them or their listing on the Latest page.

My concern with these goddamned anti-Semitic assholes is that they are hating people who contribute hugely to the scientific and medical facets of life rather than hating the intolerant theocracy of Islam that wants to kill all that do not convert to their demented beliefs that include subjugation/genital mutilation of women and having sex with goats.


Appreciate you seeing the big picture. When we ban speech that we don’t like we become no different than the rest. Sound arguments win the day.

I don’t build and run safe spaces. I’m not a babysitter for adults. If someone doesn’t like an argument that someone else is making either counter it or ignore it. Don’t try to silence it. Unless it is speech that meets the threshold of yelling fire in a crowded theater, it’s protected by the 1st Amendment just as our Founders intended.


I am new here and must say that this is a refreshing perspective. If more people shared it the internet wouldn’t be utter trash. I think people have grown too used to having their feelings protected online which has unfortunately carried over to the real world. When that happens you end up looking like the UK or the EU. It’s best to take the good bits with the bad and let the truth rise to the top. It always does.


There is another big picture. And that is people will leave the site because they are here to discuss politics, not read or argue with a hate group that continuously finds a way to derail threads.

The arguments have been countered, time and time again. I came into this thread and whaddaya know. ■■■ haters.

And if you are not on board with it you are called Anti-American/Cuckservative.

Is it Freedom of Speech or freedom to spread hate?

1 Like

What are you suggesting?

I am suggesting that they are using Freedom of Speech to spread hate.

It needs to stop. People who want to actually discuss politics without the fringe element will leave this board and the chances to grow it with a diverse group of people engaging in discussions will disappear. Instead, you will grow the board with like minded people and be nothing more than a hate site.

1 Like

That sounds Orwellian. You must understand that the former is an absolute while the latter is a well spread leftist talking point designed to chip away at the former.

1 Like

When it can be proven to have merit that’s fine.

When it has been proven to be nothing but a load of hogwash time and time again? No.

1 Like

Why, people… why… lol smh

Having a board taken over by a particular group is always a risk. Just look at your former Hannity site. Speech there is heavily moderated and it is essentially a far-left site. As someone with decades of experience running discussion forums I can tell you that when moderation of speech sets in the left flourishes. They are one group whose ideas need to be protected by moderators. If I decide to start moderating speech in the same way here, this will become a left-wing site very quickly. It will feel more like the Facebook or Twitter than the Wild West.

Now to your point on free speech…if I ban the individuals that you suggest as a result of their posts related to Judaism / Zionism shall I also ban those critical of Islam? How about those critical of Catholics? Does the line in the sand only apply to Judaism? If so, why and where does it get drawn? Is any criticism allowed? If so, what criticism specifically?

Do you see how slippery this slope gets?


The hell you say! :innocent:


You would have to ban everyone :rofl:


Let’s abandon free speech. Free speech is what got us to where we are now. You shouldn’t be allowed to say that kids can be drag queens. You also shouldn’t be allowed to make race mixing propaganda for that matter.

1 Like

No one has a gun to your head. If you don’t like a thread, don’t post in it. If you don’t like a post don’t reply to it. If you need a private group to post then why don’t you just ask for one? Why does everyone else have to abide by your personal standards of what’s right and what isn’t?


I did not suggest bans.

And you are correct, Hannity became a far left site in large part because the liberals gamed with the flagging system. Which is why I don’t flag unless it is really, really bad.

To my knowledge, no one here plays that game.

I actually thought I’d enter this thread and see an update on RBG. Instead, it is new member with what to add to the topic?

The liberals did the same thing at Hannity. Agenda, troll, derail, plie on and bully. No difference from being called a “cuckservative” for not agreeing with hatred of ■■■■ than being called a “racist” for not agreeing with reparations.

And now I must go to work so I can actually write a check at the end of the year. So, I’m not bowing out but obligations call.

1 Like

How many threads does that enter into on a consistent basis?