Why lock?

[W brad]

Can we move this thread to ATF?

Why should only the politards have all the fun of discussing moderation decisions? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Once it was confined to one thread, I didn't care if RedBean made 1000 posts in a day about racism

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I thought that it was quite a reasonable suggestion to move it and am glad to see that Red Bean did so. I don't see where the thread needs to be locked. At most (and I disagree with this as well) the thread should be unlocked and Red Bean have a day off.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
At most ... the thread should be unlocked and Red Bean have a day off.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this idea. Paul's alleged racism is a legitimate topic. My main problem was with the spamminess of the posting in multiple threads. I'll unlock it when he comes back.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this is a standard the politics forum consistently adheres to?

The entire discussion was ludicrous, from RedBeans crusade to the ridiculous justifications some Paul supporters made, but I think it's obvious what happened: RedBean pissed off this forum, which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point, and one (or a few) of those pissed off Paul advocates probably PMed iron...and iron, who's mission in Politics mostly involves trying to satisfy the mob, did what he was told and brought the temp-ban hammer on RedBean. I may be completely wrong -- Iron says it was his decision -- but I doubt it. It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

Either way, "engaging in repetitive and fruitless discussions" and "hammering a point home" have never, ever been a moderating standard the Politics forum has been subject to. That it was applied here is, as I said, likely indicative of the fact that RedBean's form of crusading pissed off this forum's vocal, starry-eyed Paul supporting members.

[TVMH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this is a standard the politics forum consistently adheres to?

The entire discussion was ludicrous, from RedBeans crusade to the ridiculous justifications some Paul supporters made, but I think it's obvious what happened: RedBean pissed off this forum, which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point, and one (or a few) of those pissed off Paul advocates probably PMed iron...and iron, who's mission in Politics mostly involves trying to satisfy the mob, did what he was told and brought the temp-ban hammer on RedBean. I may be completely wrong -- Iron says it was his decision -- but I doubt it. It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

Either way, "engaging in repetitive and fruitless discussions" and "hammering a point home" have never, ever been a moderating standard the Politics forum has been subject to. That it was applied here is, as I said, likely indicative of the fact that RedBean's form of crusading pissed off this forum's vocal, starry-eyed Paul supporting members.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the "Watch Out" thread, I saw RedBean's behavior as disingenuous.

Regardless of the myriad examples that were presented that demonstrated Dr. Paul's criticism of racism, RedBean seemed to always retort something to the effect of "but that doesn't change the fact that he's a racist."

That borders on taunting, IMO (much like referring to those with particular political beliefs as "starry-eyed" could be construed as taunting.)

And for the record, I didn't send any PM's to iron; I exercised my right to ignore RedBean once I realized that he was being unreasonable.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit to this much: I did push the "notify moderator" button (before anyone else!) in one of the other threads where RB responded to some post about RP with a simple, out of the blue "Ron Paul is a racist" with no additional comment. Note, this was probably the first time he used the word "racist" in that spree, and it had nothing to do with the point being discussed (and RB has been big on yelling at others to "stay on the topic at hand").

Also note, I'm not "angry" and I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter. I mean, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote, I'd vote for him, but unless someone either does that or buys my vote, the smart money is on me staying home on election day.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit to this much: I did push the "notify moderator" button (before anyone else!) in one of the other threads where RB responded to some post about RP with a simple, out of the blue "Ron Paul is a racist" with no additional comment. Note, this was probably the first time he used the word "racist" in that spree, and it had nothing to do with the point being discussed (and RB has been big on yelling at others to "stay on the topic at hand").

Also note, I'm not "angry" and I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter. I mean, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote, I'd vote for him, but unless someone either does that or buys my vote, the smart money is on me staying home on election day.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I gave you a dollar? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit to this much: I did push the "notify moderator" button (before anyone else!) in one of the other threads where RB responded to some post about RP with a simple, out of the blue "Ron Paul is a racist" with no additional comment. Note, this was probably the first time he used the word "racist" in that spree, and it had nothing to do with the point being discussed (and RB has been big on yelling at others to "stay on the topic at hand").

Also note, I'm not "angry" and I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter. I mean, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote, I'd vote for him, but unless someone either does that or buys my vote, the smart money is on me staying home on election day.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I gave you a dollar? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd sell my vote for a dollar if YOU can go to the poll and vote it for me. If I actually have to drive over there and go through the rigamarole, and stand in line, it will have to exceed my opportunity cost. Copernicus claims to bill $500/hr, that sounds like a good number to start with.

[Misfire]

I don't care that racism was brought up 7498273489723 times. I do have a problem with the fact that RedBean, in all of his posts, did nothing but assert assert assert without answering the questions of those in opposition.

In the style of RedBean, I present the

FACTS:
<ul type="square">
RedBean found references to a newsletter attributed to Paul with questionable statements. This is evidence that Paul is "racist" even though none of the remarks proclaimed the inherent racial inferiority of anyone. Most of these would be more appropriately described as bigoted or prejudiced. Some were actually criticisms of the justice system, not of blacks.

Redbean found one article, published four years later claiming RP defended his "written commentaries" (which RedBean failed to show were even referring to the newsletter in question). The article also lacks an actual quote from Paul, instead relying on a reporter's summary.

RedBean found a statement Paul made five years later which said the newsletter remarks were written by a staffer who was then fired. RedBean characterizes this as Paul's admission that he had "lied" to his supporters. This is questionable given RedBean's failure to link the defensive statements to the actual newsletter. Without this link, there is no inconsistency in Paul's story.

Despite the questionable nature of his "evidence," RedBean repeatedly refused to answer any questions about the relevance of his sources (other than to re-assert their content) and the obvious discrepancy between the newsletter and the rest of RP's speeches, commentaries, and votes. These are legitimate concerns, and RedBean's argument would have been much more appropriate (let alone believable) had he addressed them.[/list]
In light of the above, I have to applaud Iron (who is by no means a shill for RP) for dealing with the situation as he did.
nh, sir.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, moderated by an Obama supporter. If the other candidates did anything remotely interesting they might be getting some support on here too.