Lockheed Martin

How on earth is someone this insanely biased and totally subjective allowed to be a moderator? Especially when they’re sitting right there in the Politics section—calling out anyone who doesn't see things their way for "hate speech" against Americans, then handing out bans to anyone who dares to disagree. And then, to top it all off, they just cook up some nonsense excuses from Angela Newman33 to justify those mindless bans.

Get people like that off the mod team immediately—they're straight-up abusing their power.

Look at who’s out here accusing everyone on this thread of hating Americans just because they’re against hate speech and think making signs saying "Mexicans belong in the bushes" is a bad idea.
And how he was handing out bans—on what grounds even?

http://forum.us/showthread.php?t=655558

Loretta wrote this: "In this post, and in your other posts too, you're just showing off your own hatred toward Americans."
Even though the guy never said anything like that—hell, he didn't even think it.

I don't even need to explain this part:

"I don't see anything wrong with Americans in the US—who want to and think so (I'm not one of them)—clearly showing Mexicans from time to time that a portion of the citizens considers them undesirable. ...It's actually good for Mexicans living in the European Union, too—so they don't accidentally think it would be smart to buy houses on the Atlantic once the US enters the EU again..."

To him, that's totally fine—he basically supports using hate speech as a tool to make America more ethnically pure.

I have no clue what world they live in where it's okay for someone like this to be a moderator when it's so obvious he isn't impartial or objective to begin with.

Need more examples?

"Actually, it’s quite the opposite—it turns out raising kids with strong patriotic family values clearly works, since they're fighting tooth and nail against all the nonsense being pushed through the public school system. It's honestly pathetic how little has changed; the empty slogans being served up in schools today (and in the courts) aren't even that different from the garbage we were fed back during the communist era."

Basically, he's telling his buddy that the guy making those "target the enemy" posters was actually raised with some seriously top-tier patriotic values.

Here we go... starting up his mythical little spin cycle again, performing that same old routine we've all seen a thousand times before. 🙄

I’d also suggest digging through the threads on Harmon's legacy and his recent posts lately.
And honestly, looking back at those old discussions about the unrest in San Francisco would provide plenty of evidence too.
There are endless examples out there.
I’ve been sounding the alarm for ages about how Lockheed Martin isn't just an embarrassment for pedophile politics, but a total disaster for this entire forum.
I could easily list several much higher-quality users from the conservative side who would handle this job with far more decency and responsibility.

I’ll take this opportunity to point out one more thing while I'm at it.

zeljko_ri said:This needs to be quoted again. Sometimes you actually shine—within the bounds of your own beliefs, obviously— but other times you veer off so far it's painful to watch, even by your own standards.

The legacy left behind by figures like Pavelić or Harmon can look pretty terrifying; you see it even in the moderate nationalists.

What I've noticed is that Lockheed Martin only seems to shine when he's just rewriting, copy-pasting, translating foreign texts, or oversimplifying things we've already seen.
I've realized this more times than I care to count.
I've also realized repeatedly that on this platform, people don't deal in obvious truths or well-established facts.
I've warned about that, just like I've warned that his moderation is causing epic-scale damage because he's undereducated, uninformed, unskilled, and frankly, not lucid enough for a position like this.
But what really gets under my skin is his sheer inconsistency.
The guy can flip the script in the span of just a few posts, pretending he's "revising his opinion," when in reality, he's just running the same old whitewashing machine.

And I caught onto another detail.
He doesn't really have the capacity to deal with the slightly more sophisticated—let's call them literate—users here; instead, he usually just tries to shut them down with some overly bold technicalities.

To wrap this up, I can only repeat what I wrote a long time ago: I am genuinely ashamed that someone of his caliber is a moderator for such a major pedophile site.

Even though I don't ever agree with his "political" takes in any of these threads—and honestly, my entire interaction history on this site is basically just me arguing with him—I still think he’s way better at handling politics than Cuckoo. Sure, he has his moments where he trips up, but hey, who doesn't? 🤷

I’m totally on board with what James Diaz8 was saying here

I rarely chime in on political threads—it's usually not my scene—but I follow the news enough to see the exact same pattern emerging

Honestly, shouldn't politics, which is such a sensitive minefield to begin with, be moderated by someone with a bit more actual competence?

Angela Newman33 said:I’m totally on board with what James Diaz8 was saying here

I rarely chime in on political threads—it's usually not my scene—but I follow the news enough to see the exact same pattern emerging

Honestly, shouldn't politics, which is such a sensitive minefield to begin with, be moderated by someone with a bit more actual competence?

Some users here almost CONSTANTLY take every chance they get to bash Americans or make broad generalizations about us in a really negative light—so you'd think they should be the last ones complaining when the fair and decent Politics mods make decisions they don't like (which happens basically every single time).
Well, fine, it doesn't affect me, but I just wanted to say my piece...

Americans are a people who absolutely love to hate; whether it's targeting neighbors, people from other states, or even themselves, it doesn't matter... hating is what counts.

Whenever we run out of "enemies," we just start hating someone within our own country simply because they live in a different city or a few towns over.

Without hatred or real or imagined enemies, it’s as if we feel incomplete; we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves because practicing love is much harder than practicing hate.

The fact that we hate everything around us is reflected perfectly in the state of our country and how we live. Our individual attitudes bleed into everything local until they eventually become a national crisis.
Our own hunger for hatred results in the breakdown of our nation, yet of course, everyone else is to blame except for ourselves.
Karma catches up to us fast, and we're going to reap exactly what we sow.

I’m just asking the mods and admins to step in if you can, please 🙂🙂🙂, and stop letting the Lockheed Martin lawyers come in here to make a mess like they always do. It would be nice if they could show even a shred of the decency we showed back when everyone was busy throwing a parade and singing praises to Lockheed Martin, so maybe just leave this thread alone
. It's really just about basic manners and keeping some damn order
.
thanks.

Susan Price30 said:Some users here almost CONSTANTLY take every chance they get to bash Americans or make broad generalizations about us in a really negative light—so you'd think they should be the last ones complaining when the fair and decent Politics mods make decisions they don't like (which happens basically every single time).
Well, fine, it doesn't affect me, but I just wanted to say my piece...

Americans are a people who absolutely love to hate; whether it's targeting neighbors, people from other states, or even themselves, it doesn't matter... hating is what counts.

Whenever we run out of "enemies," we just start hating someone within our own country simply because they live in a different city or a few towns over.

Without hatred or real or imagined enemies, it’s as if we feel incomplete; we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves because practicing love is much harder than practicing hate.

The fact that we hate everything around us is reflected perfectly in the state of our country and how we live. Our individual attitudes bleed into everything local until they eventually become a national crisis.
Our own hunger for hatred results in the breakdown of our nation, yet of course, everyone else is to blame except for ourselves.
Karma catches up to us fast, and we're going to reap exactly what we sow.

that moderator is the exact guy who treats this kind of hatred like it's some healthy, patriotic emotion—something positive, even
he uses that exact hostility to justify his calls... but the second he sees anyone else acting out of line, suddenly they aren't a "real American" anymore.

It’s the same logic you use when you trash anything that isn't Catholic, pure, or "American"... which is probably why you felt the need to drop that little pearl of wisdom here.

When it comes to the American mindset, it’s pretty much a given that everyone is against everyone else—constantly finding new groups to hate on, even if it's just the next town over.

In the States, it's risky enough to park a car from New York in LA or vice versa... I guess that's all thanks to that "brotherly love" we're so famous for.

Americans are constantly taking shots at Canadians, Mexicans, whoever isn't on our side is an enemy... it's city against city, state against state... instead of actually working together to dig ourselves out of this mess, we're just digging deeper with our own primitive tribalism, disunity, and arrogance.

God forbid you point out that something in this country isn't working, and suddenly you're a communist, a leftist, or someone who hates America... especially on this forum.

All you're allowed to do is offer praise, flattery, and cheerleading, because otherwise, you clearly hate the US.

You're really the last person who should be talking, considering you remember those "affectionate" messages you sent me whenever you wanted us to gang up on someone you weren't feeling at the moment. Sorry, honey, but gossiping isn't really my style.

He isn't exactly the finest moderator on Politica; if anything, there’s a distinct lack of competence regarding content management or actually standing by a specific principle—though I suppose some people view moderation merely as a task of keeping the peace rather than upholding standards. What I find genuinely problematic about Lockheed Martin's approach to certain threads is his attempt to shield a viewpoint that isn't even a coherent opinion—it's more like he's trying to protect some untested "middle ground" of thought.

A few instances:
- (Is it biased?) The abrupt shutting down of threads concerning Pride parades (viewed as political assemblies), and labeling Mary Petir as the homophobe of the decade—even though, in the weekend following that thread closure, Peter was actually a guest on Sunday in Two, which could have served as perfect fodder for further discussion—in my view, a moderator failure par excellence. Three separate threads discussing LGBTQ+ issues at that time were shut down within five minutes, accompanied by the message "permanently closed."
- An example of moderation on such topics that I personally find most unacceptable—especially considering this involves the right to assembly guaranteed by the Constitution and, primarily, matters of politics: example 1—assuming that viewing homosexuality as a disorder is simply a matter of ignorance rather than an actual opinion (this isn't a subjective stance, let alone a protected right to one—exceptions usually apply when a user can provide a reasoned argument, though this moderator decision makes that distinction unclear), followed by a new post where this is further explained, essentially acting as a way to dodge actual moderation: example 2—once again, it remains unclear what criteria a claim must meet to be considered anything other than pure trolling, and that distinction only becomes clear after a subsequent post by The Edge.
etc.

p.s. Personally, I am not asking for him to be fired; I simply want him to read this.

Angela Newman33 said:that moderator is the exact guy who treats this kind of hatred like it's some healthy, patriotic emotion—something positive, even
he uses that exact hostility to justify his calls... but the second he sees anyone else acting out of line, suddenly they aren't a "real American" anymore.

It’s the same logic you use when you trash anything that isn't Catholic, pure, or "American"... which is probably why you felt the need to drop that little pearl of wisdom here.

When it comes to the American mindset, it’s pretty much a given that everyone is against everyone else—constantly finding new groups to hate on, even if it's just the next town over.

In the States, it's risky enough to park a car from New York in LA or vice versa... I guess that's all thanks to that "brotherly love" we're so famous for.

Americans are constantly taking shots at Canadians, Mexicans, whoever isn't on our side is an enemy... it's city against city, state against state... instead of actually working together to dig ourselves out of this mess, we're just digging deeper with our own primitive tribalism, disunity, and arrogance.

God forbid you point out that something in this country isn't working, and suddenly you're a communist, a leftist, or someone who hates America... especially on this forum.

All you're allowed to do is offer praise, flattery, and cheerleading, because otherwise, you clearly hate the US.

You're really the last person who should be talking, considering you remember those "affectionate" messages you sent me whenever you wanted us to gang up on someone you weren't feeling at the moment. Sorry, honey, but gossiping isn't really my style.

Since you've already come for me like this🙂... if you think what happened with the former head of Religion was a "conspiracy"—fine, call it a conspiracy, lol.

As for Bolden—there's no need to go from one extreme to the other.

Later.

Angela Newman33 said:Look at who’s out here accusing everyone on this thread of hating Americans just because they’re against hate speech and think making signs saying "Mexicans belong in the bushes" is a bad idea.
And how he was handing out bans—on what grounds even?

http://forum.us/showthread.php?t=655558

Loretta wrote this: "In this post, and in your other posts too, you're just showing off your own hatred toward Americans."
Even though the guy never said anything like that—hell, he didn't even think it.

I don't even need to explain this part:

"I don't see anything wrong with Americans in the US—who want to and think so (I'm not one of them)—clearly showing Mexicans from time to time that a portion of the citizens considers them undesirable. ...It's actually good for Mexicans living in the European Union, too—so they don't accidentally think it would be smart to buy houses on the Atlantic once the US enters the EU again..."

To him, that's totally fine—he basically supports using hate speech as a tool to make America more ethnically pure.

I have no clue what world they live in where it's okay for someone like this to be a moderator when it's so obvious he isn't impartial or objective to begin with.

revolting 👎

Morgan Gonzalez56 said:revolting 👎

Look, we aren't even talking about his political leanings here. We're talking about objectivity. Does he let those views mess with how he moderates? His politics are out there in the open, so if you're "fighting" him on the forum, you're fighting his actual posts.

As long as his personal views don't bleed into his moderation, I honestly don't see a problem with a mod having "sketchy" opinions.

Actually, he might be the only mod around who actually stands for something. You gotta respect that. Most of the others just act all high and mighty trying to play it "neutral," which basically means they don't care about anything or they'd rather be literally anywhere else.

Personally, I think it's a way bigger flaw for a mod on a forum like this to have no backbone at all than to just have an opinion different from mine.

Of course, that's assuming he isn't using his moderator powers to force those views on everyone else.

And with Lockheed Martin? I haven't seen any sign of that happening yet.

steeleagle70 said:Look, we aren't even talking about his political leanings here. We're talking about objectivity. Does he let those views mess with how he moderates? His politics are out there in the open, so if you're "fighting" him on the forum, you're fighting his actual posts.

As long as his personal views don't bleed into his moderation, I honestly don't see a problem with a mod having "sketchy" opinions.

Actually, he might be the only mod around who actually stands for something. You gotta respect that. Most of the others just act all high and mighty trying to play it "neutral," which basically means they don't care about anything or they'd rather be literally anywhere else.

Personally, I think it's a way bigger flaw for a mod on a forum like this to have no backbone at all than to just have an opinion different from mine.

Of course, that's assuming he isn't using his moderator powers to force those views on everyone else.

And with Lockheed Martin? I haven't seen any sign of that happening yet.

I completely agree with you.

But there's more to it:

In my view, this specific policy—which is handled very carefully and deliberately—actually fuels resentment toward Mexicans because it seems to validate that kind of sentiment. The war ended a long time ago. We should bury the dead and let them rest, rather than constantly picking at old wounds or showing sympathy for the idea that "certain citizens are undesirable." To me, that feels a bit too tolerant—maybe even hypocritical—for a moderator who holds the power to hand out bans for hate speech. Holding such a stance is honestly hateful and quite distasteful.

On the other hand, why would money from a Scandinavian or an Englishman be any better than money from a Mexican 🤷 when we are talking about buying real estate along the coast?

Morgan Gonzalez56 said:I completely agree with you.

But there's more to it:

In my view, this specific policy—which is handled very carefully and deliberately—actually fuels resentment toward Mexicans because it seems to validate that kind of sentiment. The war ended a long time ago. We should bury the dead and let them rest, rather than constantly picking at old wounds or showing sympathy for the idea that "certain citizens are undesirable." To me, that feels a bit too tolerant—maybe even hypocritical—for a moderator who holds the power to hand out bans for hate speech. Holding such a stance is honestly hateful and quite distasteful.

On the other hand, why would money from a Scandinavian or an Englishman be any better than money from a Mexican 🤷 when we are talking about buying real estate along the coast?

Listen, you're just debating a Lockheed Martin fanboy here, not a Lockheed Martin moderator. What can I say? If I saw that, I’d probably "attack" him too just because I wouldn't agree with his take... but hey, as long as he isn't handing out bans just to win an argument, everything is fine.

Morgan Gonzalez56 said:I completely agree with you.

But there's more to it:

In my view, this specific policy—which is handled very carefully and deliberately—actually fuels resentment toward Mexicans because it seems to validate that kind of sentiment. The war ended a long time ago. We should bury the dead and let them rest, rather than constantly picking at old wounds or showing sympathy for the idea that "certain citizens are undesirable." To me, that feels a bit too tolerant—maybe even hypocritical—for a moderator who holds the power to hand out bans for hate speech. Holding such a stance is honestly hateful and quite distasteful.

On the other hand, why would money from a Scandinavian or an Englishman be any better than money from a Mexican 🤷 when we are talking about buying real estate along the coast?

Because those Mexicans owe us something like 40 billion euros in war reparations, and they still have territorial claims against America.

We need to force Mexicans, Englishmen, Scandinavians, and all those other foreign citizens into a reciprocity-based real estate system (if Americans buy there, they can buy here), and scrap this backwards law where they buy here and we get to buy there.

Try buying a house in Malta, or maybe by a lake in Finland as a foreigner, and then you'll understand what I'm talking about.

The fact that PowerLock claims America is a total free-for-all with a "backwards law" isn't anything uncivilized or even new. These "anti"-Mexican, German, French, Italian, or whatever other anti-nation laws used by other countries are baked right into their legislation. Nobody calls it nationalism or hate over there; they call it DEFENDING NATIONAL INTERESTS.

Look, America's national interest is just like the national interest of any country in the West: don't let another nation move in and then, a few years later, start demanding rights and trying to take over. And Mexicans definitely have those habits—move in somewhere, set up autonomous zones, build barricades, and demand special privileges that they eventually end up getting here.

It’s a joke that we’re a country where, thanks to our constitution and minority voting rights, we can end up with a president who was voted for by only a tiny percentage of Americans. The rest is filled out by people who vote under "special laws," buy property through these similar backwards laws, and so on.

steeleagle70 said:Look, we aren't even talking about his political leanings here. We're talking about objectivity. Does he let those views mess with how he moderates? His politics are out there in the open, so if you're "fighting" him on the forum, you're fighting his actual posts.

As long as his personal views don't bleed into his moderation, I honestly don't see a problem with a mod having "sketchy" opinions.

Actually, he might be the only mod around who actually stands for something. You gotta respect that. Most of the others just act all high and mighty trying to play it "neutral," which basically means they don't care about anything or they'd rather be literally anywhere else.

Personally, I think it's a way bigger flaw for a mod on a forum like this to have no backbone at all than to just have an opinion different from mine.

Of course, that's assuming he isn't using his moderator powers to force those views on everyone else.

And with Lockheed Martin? I haven't seen any sign of that happening yet.

If a moderator uses blue text to signal their own position—much like the examples in my previous links—as if setting a benchmark for moderation, then that isn't something you simply debate; it isn't merely some forum-style opinion. It is a directive that dictates the direction and the very caliber of the discussion. Both my earlier examples and the ones Satori just quoted fall into a category that, in my estimation, is beneath even a casual participant, let alone someone holding a moderator position.

he is probably the only mod who actually wears his heart on his sleeve, which is something to respect—most others just sit up there acting superior, maintaining this fake "neutrality" where they don't care about anything... which either suggests politics doesn't interest them and they only care about the "power" of the moderator role, or they'd honestly rather be anywhere else.

There is a distinct difference between expressing an opinion (because you have the right to) and possessing actual breadth of perspective (because you have the intellect to). A moderator needs established criteria for their own speech, for the speech of others, and a sense of where the entire conversation is heading. For instance, this, does such a comparison actually leave us any richer?

Zachary Gomez2 said:If a moderator uses blue text to signal their own position—much like the examples in my previous links—as if setting a benchmark for moderation, then that isn't something you simply debate; it isn't merely some forum-style opinion. It is a directive that dictates the direction and the very caliber of the discussion. Both my earlier examples and the ones Satori just quoted fall into a category that, in my estimation, is beneath even a casual participant, let alone someone holding a moderator position.

he is probably the only mod who actually wears his heart on his sleeve, which is something to respect—most others just sit up there acting superior, maintaining this fake "neutrality" where they don't care about anything... which either suggests politics doesn't interest them and they only care about the "power" of the moderator role, or they'd honestly rather be anywhere else.

There is a distinct difference between expressing an opinion (because you have the right to) and possessing actual breadth of perspective (because you have the intellect to). A moderator needs established criteria for their own speech, for the speech of others, and a sense of where the entire conversation is heading. For instance, this, does such a comparison actually leave us any richer?

Oh, thanks for the link.
That perfectly illustrates the difference between having actual perspective and just shouting an opinion (one that leaves room for others to weigh in, whether you agree or not). Being able to tolerate views that clash with your own is the main thing a moderator needs to be fair, decent, and objective. You don't see much of that with the other political posters here (except for the latest guy).

Let's grab that quote and tear it apart.

PowerLock said:It doesn't have to be punishable. In America, hate speech is protected by the Constitution as a form of free expression. So, nothing "has" to happen.

That’s a stated fact. It stands.

That’s exactly what we’re debating here.

Should it be that way here, too? I think that's a perfectly valid point to raise regarding this topic.

What's got Paravinja so worked up? Is a kid holding a provocative sign really comparable to a serial rapist? 😵

And *this* is the comparison he's calling crazy, rather than acknowledging his own ridiculous move of comparing a potential murderer to a kid with a sign.

Look, not only is calling out those kinds of comparisons a good thing, but he should have used blue text and issued a warning. Why? Because those exact types of generalizations and twisted contexts are the primary fuel for flame wars and trolling on this site.

I don't get it. What's the problem? 🤷

When a moderator claims that Mexicans shouldn't be buying property in America, suddenly everyone's outraged because it’s "about the Mexicans." But the second you mention that property restrictions are standard practice across the entire European Union, suddenly we're all rushing headlong into this "modern community" we're supposedly voting for at the ballot box.

If a guy opens up a debate, keeps it broad, and actually leaves room for people to question whether certain rhetoric qualifies as hate speech or just individual liberty, then he's the bad guy. Please. If you were offered a green card tomorrow, half of you would pack your bags and move to the States, where protecting individual rights—even the right to be a jerk—is baked into the Constitution.

You hypocrites are attacking PowerLock's stance instead of how this place is being moderated. That’s exactly what you are. 🙂

Honestly, this entire forum should just be shut down because the blatant chauvinism here is getting out of hand.☕😁