Comments on: Who’s The Tax Cheat?

By: lukematthews

lukematthews — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:37:00 +0000

I thought it especially hilarious that standing by his side is his own pet tax cheat Secretary Geitner. Seems he came in handy after all. Since he knew how to cheat he could figure out ways to catch the other cheats.

By: barker13

barker13 — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:59:16 +0000

Re: Sinz54; 5:23 PM --

(*NOD*) Understood.

Apologies for being pushy.

Re: Krove; wrote 8 minutes ago --

(*THUMBS UP*)

BILL (The Barkmeister!) (The Meisterbarker...???)

By: krove

krove — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:42:17 +0000

Barking.

I have had a fair number of posts removed without any reason given. Any criticism of some authors however mild usually results in a post being removed.

It has got better I feel lately. I do understand the reason for it however. It's a close call as unbridled freedoms also bring responsibility. I admit sometimes I have gone overboard when Lianne posts absolute BS.

The site should be grown up enough to take criticism. Authors too should accept that they will be challenged on what they write, that is only fair as they have a bully pulpit.

I'm not sure where the response to commenter's from authors went. That was a healthy thing in my opinion.

So I would rather err on the side of freedom of speech knowing that sometimes people will go over the top in arguments and make the site a free for all, which serves no one any good.

Regards Karen

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:23:32 +0000

barker13:
First, let me apologize for not seeing your posts on free speech, and "taking a stand," sooner. I just got back home from my thrice-weekly hemodialysis session (Tue-Thur-Sat), where I do not yet have Internet connectivity.

Now: I agree with you that the ONLY reason to remove a post is if it's abusive or threatening toward anyone, whether they're here or not here. Despite what the Supreme Court just ruled, I believe that even profanity has to be taken in context, e.g., "The situation in Pakistan is turning to s**t."

And WHEN any post must be removed, New Majority should email the poster and explain WHY the post was removed, using constructive criticism.

I've had one or two of my own posts removed, and I was never told why. So how can I know what I should do differently next time?

By: midcon

midcon — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:37:07 +0000

barker (Bill) (*GRIN SHRUG) is correct. Free speech is a founding, governing, enshrined right in America. Although this is probably blasphemy to some - it is more important than the 2nd Amendment.

That said, this is a private site and can establish its own founding and governing principles which it has done in it Terms of Service, Use Agreement, and Comment Policy.

To quote from the New Majority Comment Policy While we do not censor comments based on political or ideological point of view, comments that are abusive, engage in personal attacks, contain racist, sexist, homophobic or other slurs, express hatred, are off-topic, use excessive foul language, or include any other type of ad hominem attacks (including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise) will be subject to removal.

Any posts which violate that policy can and should be removed. In the absence of such a violation the post must be allowed to stand.

David you should understand that this may be the last refuge of many of us who were shouted out of the GOP and cannot bring ourselves to cross the aisle. Without this, we have no place to be and be heard. Your Comment Policy is sufficient, we ask only that your staff adhere to it just as we must.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:19:32 +0000

barker13
wrote 15 minutes agoRe: Ottovbvs; wrote 21 minutes ago --

I got over my infatuation with the Economist back in the '80's. I'm a WSJ, FT, IBD kinda guy...

.....That figures....I've been reading the Economist since the late fifties and it's as good as it ever was....I also have stock in Pearson so do what you can.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:15:52 +0000

barker13 wrote 5 minutes ago…..Barker….I stand 100% behind the 1st Amendment….Anyone should be able to say whatever he wants…I’m totally opposed to PC speech although I do think people ought to have good manners….David’s started a blog which I like as you clearly do…so he’s got to live with the consequences….NO POSTS SHOULD BE DELETED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES…Can I say it more clearly

By: barker13

barker13 — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:06:26 +0000

One last comment (for now...)

Assuming Ott remains silent on the issue of defending freedom of expression here at NM and as long as Sinz won't touch the issue with a ten foot poll and most other regulars seem unwilling to defend free speech here at NewMajority I take that as a symptom... an acknowledgement really... that the America I knew and respected and the Americans I respect are both a dying breed.

The refusal to stand up for what's right... that's a sign of societal decline.

BILL

By: barker13

barker13 — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:00:33 +0000

Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 21 minutes ago --

You're STILL not providing links.

(*SNORT*) (*SNICKER*)

Anyway... wow... they were predicting doom in 2006...

(*SNORT*)

Ott. I got over my infatuation with the Economist back in the '80's. I'm a WSJ, FT, IBD kinda guy... as far as magazines go I'm more one for professional journals and academic periodicals.

(*SMILE*)

"...you accept the recession will not last into 2011..."

It might. What I'm saying is that even when we get "out" of recession in a technical sense (re: growth) we'll be talking more about playing with numbers and stats than an actual recovery in the sense of returning to the boom-boom years of the earlier part of this decade, of the '90's of the '80's... in other words, what I tried to explain to you in earlier posts.

What I'm saying is that we're in a long term decline as a nation. They'll be good times as well as bad times, but I just don't see this nation EVER surpassing the (however much illusionary, built upon unsustainable debt and unsustainable incomes for so many) high water mark (if that's what you wanna call it) when such a high percentage of middle class folks were living the lives of upper middle class folks and upper middle class folks were living the lives of rich folks... all "financed" by (as we now understand) unsustainable (in fact, as it turned out, imaginary) pay packages and home equity.

We've largely squandered the wealth it took our ancestors a century and a half to create.

Setting aside the 1880's thru WW-2, we've definitely squandered much of the wealth created by those who built modern "Superpower" America between 1945-65 and then 1982-2001.

We ran out of capital year ago... now we're running out of credit.

BILL

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:00:14 +0000

barker13
wrote 11 minutes ago
"Anyway... enough ranting"

.....Alas you are....the US is going into a period of relative decline....it was inevitable with the rise of China, Brazil, and India...We're still going to be the pre-eminent country for a long time but increasingly we will become primus inter pares (first among equals). In a multi polar world interdependence will become steadily greater. Obama and the Democrats basically see this. The GOP is in denial about it.