Republican Gerrymandering in a Couple Graphics

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Y'know DQ and Ike, there's a thread for this type of discussion. http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=7520

How about you take it there?

Regards, Bob

Point well taken. My response to this subthread is here: http://www.politicalchat.org/showthr...?t=7520&page=6

[piece-itpete]

We should get back to the point that the GOP is evil

Pete

[d-ray657]

If we were to crack down on folks who post for the purpose of provocation - even if it were limited to those who admit to such a practice - we would be several members short. If we were to police a political site by the same standards as AK is policed, we would again be several members short. If we were to abide by the AK standard that public commentary on moderation is not allowed, we would again be several members short. Simply put, 427 is not the only one who posts comments for a purpose other than political debate/discussion or other worthwhile social conversation. While the frequency of "attack posts" by 427 stands out, the nature of such posts is not unique. Consider the possibility that once we pop the censorship cherry, censorship would damage the forum greater than the annoyance of one with no sense of forum etiquette.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

We should get back to the point that the GOP is evil

Pete

Hear, hear!!!

[piece-itpete]

Well said as usual D.

"Pop the censorship cherry"?

Pete

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If we were to crack down on folks who post for the purpose of provocation - even if it were limited to those who admit to such a practice - we would be several members short. If we were to police a political site by the same standards as AK is policed, we would again be several members short. If we were to abide by the AK standard that public commentary on moderation is not allowed, we would again be several members short. Simply put, 427 is not the only one who posts comments for a purpose other than political debate/discussion or other worthwhile social conversation. While the frequency of "attack posts" by 427 stands out, the nature of such posts is not unique. Consider the possibility that once we pop the censorship cherry, censorship would damage the forum greater than the annoyance of one with no sense of forum etiquette.

Regards,

D-Ray

Well said D Ray.

Hey wait, I resemble some of that!

[donquixote99]

I will dissent.

I think that invoking a free speech defence for sabotage pictures is ridiculous. The 'speech' content of the pictures was zero.

You might as well say that if a guy went down the street shouting words into a super PA, physically harming people with 180 decibels at short range, he can't be arrested because that would violate his right of free speech.

You are harming a valuable principle by claiming there are no limits to it. There are limits to everything.

Are you sure you can't conceive of a rule against this that doesn't 'obligate' you to ban lots of other people? If not, 'rule of law' would seem to have severe drawbacks. Maybe it's not the great recipe for justice folks say it is.

Because I am asking for nothing less than justice. I think I am harmed by the conduct I have been objecting to, and I think it unfair, unjust, that I be required to put up with it.

[d-ray657]

I will agree that restrictions on oversize photos are content neutral, and will take action to address that issue. Generally, it will be the responsibility of the poster to make the photos fits and those that don't will be removed.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

We should get back to the point that the GOP is evil

Pete

I prefer not to talk about something that we all know. I want to talk about something we don't know; is Hillary brain damaged?

[bobabode]

Great googly moogila. I'm going to go listen to some Zappa. This boogie's a mess.