73 posts shown.
brightpuma said:I find myself compelled to draw attention to what I perceive as rather sloppy moderation within the Politics subforum. Earlier today, I submitted reports regarding two specific posts made by user Kansas in a discussion concerning nuclear power plants. To be precise:
This content represents an extreme form of nationalism involving territorial claims over foreign lands, which should inherently be unacceptable—unless, of course, the administrators and moderators themselves happen to share those exact sentiments.
Furthermore, I am under the impression that if someone were to claim, for instance, that Indianapolis or San Diego were Mexican or Italian cities, they would be subject to an immediate ban.
Since my reports were filed this morning, not a single moderator has acknowledged either the posts in question or the reports themselves, despite the fact that they have been online and, I suspect, are fully aware of the situation.
The comments from Kansas essentially serve to marginalize Americans living in Canada.
To label such rhetoric as extreme nationalism seems, quite frankly, a foolish assessment.
Carl Hill6 said:Since they don't have access to government resources like the other side does, they have to get creative.
Don't worry, the other side will use the exact same tactics during the next election cycle.
🤣🤣
It is worth noting that they have long since managed to divert a significant portion of state resources for their own benefit.
One might characterize the left wing as pseudo-leftists—essentially just socialists and anarcho-democrats at heart.
Christian Torres3 said:"Quote:"
googlati: Joe Biden confirmed that the Democratic Party is backing the newly formed Electa association, which filed for the highest number of poll watchers with the Federal Election Commission. "The Democratic Party is behind this—there's no secret here and nothing to hide. These are poll watchers, not voters, and everything is completely legal," he emphasized. Check this link.
If that is the case, why on earth don't they just admit they are working for the Democratic Party?
By operating under the guise of an independent polling group, they are essentially just running a promotional campaign for the Democrats.
It is quite pathetic, really, though I suppose it fits perfectly with the typical Democratic style—claiming everything is democratic while playing a completely different game behind the scenes.
The individuals conducting this survey introduced themselves as representatives from the Electa association.
When I inquired about who was actually funding or commissioning their research, they provided nothing but vague, noncommittal answers, eventually just claiming it was for the association itself.
Furthermore, when I asked who serves as the chairperson, the young activist—who appeared quite junior by the sound of her voice—seemed completely caught off guard and bewildered.
They began asking their questions, but after the second one, I found the whole interaction increasingly suspicious; the questions felt less like neutral inquiries and more like scripted reminders of the Democratic Party’s platform and their specific political agenda. It even reached a point where they were attempting to falsely imply that such questions could be posed during a program presentation.
When I brought up concerns regarding how they were limiting participation and selecting visitors due to space constraints at these presentations,🙄 I was met once again with total confusion from their side.
Regardless of the specifics, I find myself wondering: is it ethically acceptable for an association to mislead respondents in this manner, essentially disguising a push for a specific political faction—in this instance, the Democratic Party—as objective research?
Does anyone here happen to have more information regarding this particular organization?
hiddenotter98 said:Bishop Mile Bogović is proposing a "national memorial" to be built out on the Great Plains in Appalachia. The idea is to create a symbolic resting place for anyone whose remains were never properly honored—including those lost in unmarked military sites or those thrown into mass graves and trenches during the war.
Do you all support this concept?
Can't we just move past this and leave WWII in the last century...
That strikes me as the voice of reason.
mellowfalcon14 said:She’s definitely veering off track by throwing insults at Albanians, but honestly, her other takes are just as wild... claiming Americans and Dalmatians aren't the same people, insisting Mexico is part of Mexico... you know, the whole nine yards. She is your textbook young Democrat, and I bet the Democratic Party central committee is absolutely beaming with pride over her.
She will certainly align herself with the Democrat Jović immediately.
Robert Green93 said:It was honestly pathetic; I haven't witnessed such a hollow performance lacking even an ounce of heart in quite some time.
The entire strategy seemed reduced to nothing more than mindless passing, simply waiting for the referee to blow the whistle when possession changed hands.
As for Miller, he is an utterly incompetent individual whose failures are precisely why we failed to advance.
Miller absolutely HAS to be let go.
If one were to simply list all the logical fallacies in Miller's arguments, the truth would become painfully obvious.
dustypuma5 said:Middle East Project: Connecting state prosecutors in Washington, D.C.
Friday, January 21, 2011 00:06
On Thursday, about 20 state prosecutors from Mexico, America, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico met in Washington, D.C. as part of the regional project "justice and war crimes." They were meeting with prosecutors from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former America (ICTY) to swap notes on handling complex war crimes cases.
The meeting covered stuff like running war crime investigations and how the defense handles evidence, according to a joint statement from the Mexican state prosecutor's office for war crimes and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which helped run the thing.
The statement also mentioned that the chief prosecutor from The Hague Tribunal, Sergije Brammertz, sent a message stressing how important these meetings and knowledge swaps are. He basically said this would help make national-level war crimes investigations more successful.
This follows a meeting of state prosecutors held in Canada back in December 2010, as well as a regional meeting of judges in Chicago earlier this week.
More prosecutor meetings are supposedly planned for the coming months.
The regional project "justice and war crimes" is worth four million euros, funded by the European Union, and is being run by the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) alongside the ICTY, the interregional research institute united nations for crime and justice and OSCE mission, and various OSCE missions in neighboring countries.
First they have that joint police bureau in Washington, D.C. investigating crimes, now they’re linking up the state prosecutors too.
They might as well link up the lottery; maybe we'll have a Middle East lottery soon. Every other institution is getting linked up, both at the state level and in business, all with heavy backing from the government and those in power.
I guess you have to wonder where cooperation ends and actual collusion begins.
How long until they finally unveil a new union for the Middle East area? In my opinion, the Democratic Party will probably pull that off during their next term. Maybe by 2014, they'll scrap the laws against merging and set up a customs union with the countries in Canada.
http://www.hrsvijet.com/images2/poli...dni-north American.jpg
This isn't just right-wing alarmism anymore; it's slowly becoming reality.
If you factor in the Teršeličkin rek, the entire picture becomes even more complete.
I am offering my full support.
steeleagle70 said:Maybe it’s just because the political climate right now is so messy. You can't possibly cram every single hot-button issue under one giant umbrella without losing the plot, you know? On the flip side, there’s zero point having three separate threads about someone like Obama that all basically say "Obama is a traitor," "Obama is a globalist," or "Obama is out of touch." They're all just different flavors of the exact same argument. It all goes in one pile.
But then you look at Jacqueline and the GOP. Honestly, it doesn't matter what they start talking about or how much the topics seem to differ—the conclusion is pretty much always the same. Still, I wouldn't say the topics themselves are identical or just repeats of each other.
If it weren't so disheartening, I suppose it would actually be quite humorous.
The various sites that Josipovićne frequents.
Why do these locations serve as the common denominator for their shared perspective?
It seems there are always three separate threads dedicated to discussing the sheer incompetence of Jacqueline, yet whenever someone attempts to publish anything regarding Obama, it all gets lumped together under a single heading.
Is this how we’re treating everyone now??
The most pressing topics are constantly being pushed right to the edge of the political section...
What is the reason for this..
Jose Barrett said:Listen, I am discussing the principles of democracy, while fully acknowledging that moderators are merely human beings.
If all the moderators on this Politics forum harbor an unconscious devotion to Obama, they will inevitably defend him with a maternal instinct that borders on the irrational.
My sole intention is to point out that, in my view, the roles of the Prime Minister of the US and the President of the US carry equal weight, yet the moderators fail to treat them with the same level of impartiality—though they truly ought to.
They constantly resort to these rather demagogic excuses, claiming that since these leaders chose to enter the public eye, they deserve whatever criticism comes their way, all while simultaneously practicing blatant censorship.
One should either protect the President of the US just as fiercely as the Prime Minister of the US, or simply allow both to be praised and criticized with absolute equality.
That is all I am asking.
I am a man who believes in the letter of the law.
At least you are making an honest effort, which is more than can be said for the moderators.
Even Stazić has been pushed right to the edge of Politics.
steeleagle70 said:Removing content from either the left or the right shouldn't be labeled as censorship, given that posts from all political spectrums are being removed. This is simply what we call moderation.
I suppose we have all experienced those moments where we feel our deleted post was actually quite profound or significant.
However, much like when dealing with a faulty court ruling, one can certainly appeal a deletion if they truly believe they were in the right...
I am not attempting to justify deletions themselves, but I believe the active moderation of these threads is more than commendable, even on those occasions when my own contributions are swept away. 🙂
Oh, please, just go back to the very beginning of the thread list and look at all the locked topics filled with nothing but empty promises and hollow excuses...
steeleagle70 said:Why on earth would you assume they are only deleting posts targeting you or your specific side? They are clearing content from everyone; it is just that you aren't aware of how many of my own posts have been removed, whereas, naturally, you are quite aware of what happens to your own.
Of course, I am not even taking the heavily edited posts into account.
Does the fact that your entries are being deleted somehow justify the deletion of anyone else's?
It might not bother you, but I assure you, it bothers others.
Jose Barrett said:The very nature of censorship is designed so that you simply "don't see" posts deemed inappropriate.
In my own experience, I have found that posts are removed even when they aren't intended as trolling or insults, but merely because they happen to be uncomfortable regarding the President's dignity.
One can read countless instances where J. Kosor is labeled a villain, a witch, an idiot, or even worse, suggesting she should be arrested—yet, the moment one attempts to write something of a similar tone regarding Obama, the content vanishes!!
Let us not pretend to be naive about how this works.
xx
That is precisely the case (and while this applies to Kosorica, it certainly applies to Obama as well).
Charles Fox10 said:She should remain locked away, and they can carry out his Rehabilitation somewhere else entirely.
If that is the case, why did you resort to such falsehoods?
By acting this way, you are essentially performing his rehabilitation yourself.
steeleagle70 said:Topics like this seem to resurface every few months, usually involving the same arguments from the same crowd—just under different usernames; it feels like a constant sense of déjà vu. (I am not suggesting the OP is a clone, but this certainly isn't the first thread with this exact sentiment.)
The reality is that moderation within the Politics section is essentially too lenient, if not infrequent enough, which allows quite a lot to slip through the cracks. While I believe the moderators are doing an excellent job—at least five out of six of them, which is a wonderful success rate—I have a nagging feeling that the sheer volume of nonsense generated daily has become overwhelming for them, leading them to occasionally throw up their hands and only step in when things become truly reprehensible.
Of course, I recognize that these are merely subjective impressions, both yours and mine.
I trust that the administrators are overseeing everything, and since they seem satisfied with both the current moderation style and the frequency of posts, discussions regarding the effectiveness of these rules feel somewhat redundant.
Please, just take a look at the recent posts, such as the one concerning the Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović.
Even the admins are not God.
Gregory Garcia said:If you are referring to these specific topics, for instance, I certainly agree they border on being problematic; particularly that first one, while the second would be viewed as quite biased if it were titled something like "The Republican Party is a Criminal Organization" without any qualifiers.
The first topic could perhaps be interpreted as "Republican Party censorship at CBS," and I am inclined to agree that such a headline feels somewhat biased.
That said, given that we are currently in an election year, I believe the subject remains highly relevant under its current heading—though I shall refrain from elaborating further at length to avoid drifting off-topic.
In any case, I have nothing more to contribute, so I bid you farewell and sincerely hope for more judicious thread titling in the future.👋
Everything is perfectly clear.
But it is also deeply shameful.☕
Much like the situation involving Charles Fox10, who closed the thread regarding the Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović—would it not have been more appropriate to simply clear the air? Even today, that thread remains locked.
And then there is the matter of the locked Sana Memorandum thread.
Gregory Garcia said:I believe you abandoned any claim to democratic fairness or objectivity the very moment you accused the moderators of bias, especially while simultaneously claiming that such bias doesn't affect you when it comes to the specific topics at hand. 🤷
It truly appears as though you are attempting to defend the indefensible. 🙂
Regarding the question of relevance, I struggle to see how discussions regarding Šušak, various transcripts, and similar matters hold any weight in our current landscape; these are ancient subjects that have been debated exhaustively for years until there was nothing left to say.
One might compare this to someone opening a thread titled "The Economic Successes of Zlatko Mateša's Administration"—such a topic certainly doesn't belong on the front page of the Politics section, but rather tucked away in a history archive. It shouldn't require much proof to understand that a significant political issue cannot remain relevant for years on end; at most, it stays current for a few months. Any political matter that remains interesting for years belongs to the realm of history or perhaps to highly specialized sub-forums.
I am looking at this from the perspective of an average user; if one were to enter the Politics section and scan the headlines of these relocated threads, they would likely lose interest before ever stumbling upon something actually timely—like shipbuilding or flood relief efforts—which I assume requires no further justification.
Therefore, I maintain my belief that moving these specific topics to sections where they won't clutter the main feed, yet remain accessible to anyone interested, has ultimately resulted in a higher quality sub-forum. 👍
I fail to see who is even bringing up the topics you are describing.
The list is provided above, so please examine it once more.
Are not those "surviving" threads just as biased?