"Unrecommend" . . . for the peevish, those who disagree, those who don't want

to know something, those who like to fondle the world with dirty fingers . . . like Glenn Beck.

I think I understand the purpose for the feature, but its abuse has far out-weighted its use.

Unstead of a considered opinion, people like to spit and foam . . . Doesn't this sound more like Fox News than moderates, liberals and progressives discussing the news?

and I can see how people are just clicking on "Unrecommend" for the hell of it.

I still don't comprehend its purpose.................

our feelings/views would only be partially known. But as it is with these adolescent mentalities (Freepers?), the feature obscures our feelings/views.

If you have a beef with the OP, why not state it?

This "hit and run" crap is worthless, and, in fact, destructive, allowing people to do things without any accountability.

I'd much rather disagree with an OP by stating my side of the matter in a response.

It's worthless, that's what I think...........

Democracy's really is awful, ain't it?

Destructive? What, because your thread doesn't show up on Greatest, because someone unrecced it anonymously? Wow.

The worst possible thing that can happen is that the account gets banned and they have to create a new one.

I have a feeling that a number (not all or in all cases) are simply looking for sometime to spit on.

a few have been banned for abusing the feature.

Both are good (not name calling or knee-jerk) arguments against my post.

:thumbsup:

but I thought accountability was standing in account or being answerable. How do we do that behind these fake names?

You have an odd way with words, and a strange need to attribute things to strangers that certainly do tell a whole lot about you.

How mortifying. TMI, indeed.

I'll pretend you didn't do this..................

:rofl:

And if you object to me having your fingerprints, please fill out this 43-page form. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

If a person has a problem with a post, they should explain what and/or why. Just hitting "unrec" is lazy and ineffective.

but if you're dominated by anger and a strange need to act out your emotional shortcomings on a message board, well, that sort of thing could be difficult.

Some basics are just beyond some people, and that's unfortunate, but they do enjoy waving those shortcomings (ahem!) in public, so I hope they're feeling better...............................

It helps me make informed decisions, but an "unrec" doesn't tell me anything other than someone may disagree. Then again they may not like the poster or feel the subject is inappropriate for the forum or the discussion is redundant, etc. If they aren't going to comment, they should just leave it alone.

I'm always interested in how others see something - isn't that the point of this place?

Some come to learn, some come to make mischief, some come because they don't have anything else to do.

Ah, well, life goes on..................................

I've been known to change my mind, especially when presented with persuasive evidence or informed opinions. It's nice to find people who agree with you, but that isn't the primary reason I come here. I sometimes find myself craving intelligent debate and new perspectives. I often find that here. If I wanted childish "hit and run" antics, I'd go to a right-wing site!

n/t

I'd guess that 3 out of 4 threads that are "unrecommended" are people who disagree with a legitimate view or story, didn't like to hear about a certain figure (Beck) and don't think others should be monitoring him, don't like the original poster and so "unrecommend" her or his each post, etc.

How much illumination does it cast, compared to how much it desires to obscure or shout down a thread.

Case in point. This thread was "unrecommended" at least once within its first minute of existence.

This insinuates that it's wrong to even discuss the feature. (Sounds a lot more like Beck and Limbaugh than a thoughtful intelligence.)

within its first minute of existence. I must be feeling peevish. But guess what? Your post is still here and active. Your views and feelings are not being obscured as you claim.

and I don't have the time and energy to bother tracking who the OP is.

I do unrecommend any thread whining about the feature. It was discussed ad nauseum, and I am tired of the discussion, and I certainly don't want to see it on my home page on DU.

I unrecommend threads of the "rec this if blah-blah-blah."

I unrecommend threads if they are the kind I would alert on. (Like using "gay" as an insult.)

From what I see on the home page (and what I don't see making it there from perusing LBN and GD) that's how the vast majority of the rest of DU is using it.

Do you have thread click tourettes? Lack of self control? Or do you just enjoy being ..... ah fuck it.

How many threads do you start? Or do you just piss on everyone else's?

...

and it is often simply ill-mannered.

and it is often simply ill-mannered.

..... to unrec any thread that discusses unrec. Ig go know this cuz Ig go get lots of unrecs from the same people.

the discussion is not worthy of being moved to the greatest page. There's a difference.

a Greatest lIst. That's a good argument against my position. But I still wonder if this effect is not lessened by those who "unrecommend" for non-substantive reasons.

And you think I owe you this because you took the time to slap a one minute post on the board?!



Start a thread that doesn't suck and I'll recommend it.

Hell, I can get that on t.v.

I implied conscientiousness would suffice.

Which is not supported by anything I'd said.

Perhaps it is curlish to point this out.

...so I find them the most interesting.

so many others want to hide or avoid?

...and head right for em'! :)

unrecommend the negatives posts. I've seen enough anti-Obama crap from the teabaggers.

happy to unrec yet another one of these tomes.

:)

how is lemming-ness a considered opinion?

Honestly, it's no big deal, unless one is extremely thin-skinned.

besides, what exactly is it about? If your thread has zero or (OHMYGOD!) >0 recommends, it just doesn't appear on the Greatest page. It's still fully visible in the forum, it still will get replies, it still will be worthy of discussion, if it is worthy of a discussion, so what's the deal?

Let's be totally honest here, regarding the abuse of it. Break even point is around 8 recs.

I love the feature, and no, I did not unrec nor rec this. Nor will I ever blame anyone unreccing my threads or equate them with being freepers. If you want blind followers who cry 'Huzzahh' every time you post something, how is this different form Glenn Beck's approach?

He's seems to be calling those who object to freeperish behavior on DU, freepers :shrug: "Unstead of a considered opinion." :crazy:

of course.

n/t

Sid

Some facts from a point in time of the General Discussion Forum sorted by last response. Four threads had a <0 rating:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6533238&mesg_id=6533238

some sort of odd and stupid truther idiocy

578 views 39 responses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6530510&mesg_id=6531489

a 'nuke event' that appears to be of highly dubious veracity and frequent reposting

1026 views 89 responses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6533495&mesg_id=6533495

a post lacking in content

28 views no responses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6530836&mesg_id=6530836

speculation that Hillary would not have been confronted with teabaggery.

500 views 34 responses

Any theory that unrec somehow keeps threads from being read has to contend with the data, such as that shown above, that clearly indicates nothing of the sort. All unrec does is make a post going to the greatest page subject to a consensus vote.

page for a while due to the quantity of responses. Many will make it to greatest page regardless of getting an 'unrec' from time to time.

The ones like this OP - not interesting, not really all that good to begin with and made even worse with the bad spelling, well, unrec.

The mods have kept it and explained why.

Or is it too often an action with which one can scratch her or his own negativity? I mean, there are people who like to scream (witness the town halls); is it not often silimar to that?

Your post was quite visible to me even though it has negative recs. It has nothing to do with visibility. My comment kicked it back up to the top of the GD thread.

It just isn't going to make it to the Greatest page. So? I don't even USE the Greatest to find threads; I use Latest or just go directly to the forum to see what's been kicked up.

As a matter of fact, someone pointed out that the threads with <0 recs are sometimes pretty hot topics because they're button-pushers. Sometimes that's the case.

Truly.

That's, again, the truth.

(I'm an old man and not very computer savy.)

Dialing Whine-1-1 and comparing DU'ers to Pig Beck and Fux News, however, is nothing but flamebait.

n/t

And you know it.

If you had wanted real "logical" discussion, I'm sure you could have done much better.

This thread has gotten the replies it was constructed for.

One DU'ers said he loves to hit the "Unrecommend"...to which I replied that his sentiment seemed "sick" to me.

its just a bunch of text on the screen that will scroll off. Sometimes in a few minutes. The really good ones will last a few days.

That number on the screen, doesn't affect anything at all.


Ultimately, what a bunch of anonymous people think about another anonymous persons forum post is about as meaningless as it gets.

because I sometimes find myself getting too wrapped up in some drama going on in a thread and I'm sitting here wasting a perfectly good day when I could be outside enjoying the (already limited this summer) sunlight.

Then I see people whining on and on and on about the rec/unrec feature. Like so many others have said, it's not even relevant if the thread has only 3 recs but 200 replies and it's hot hot hot and people are replying all over the place and keeping it going. So what if it doesn't show up on the "Greatest" page. If people want to be the center of attention, maybe they should start their own discussion boards and make their own rules.

But anyway, I agree with you...anonymous people worrying about what other anonymous people think about them on an internet discussion board. Meaningless.

There are people dying all over the place...starving...being abused...

but having one's threads unrec'd....aughhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Earth shattering!!!!

:scared:

when I enter DU. Prior to unrec, half or more of the posts showing on the home page were "rec this post if you think ...," much of it directed at "uppity" gays. I am grateful not to see it there anymore. Beyond that, I don't care about the impact of rec/unrec since I never bother to visit the greatest page.

On top of that, any time I've looked up a thread someone whined about being unrecommended it was really clear to me why it had a total recommend of less than zero. Tons of snips with no content added, gibberish, poorly written pontifications, etc. The one I looked up today had a grand total of 12 comments, the post wasn't very interesting material, and the OP added nothing to the snips from someone else's work. I personally wouldn't have unrecommended it - but it wasn't the "trolls" s/he imagined suppressing content - S/he just isn't as brilliant an orator as s/he imagine him/herself to be.

Grow up and stop whining (directed generically to the whiners, not specifically to the OP, who, for some reason, seem to have decided to crawl out again today to complain about the people who didn't vote them most popular).

we hear arguments, often very nasty ones, day and night (Fox News, etc.).

One could say we're reacting to it each time we take a swipe at someone, or that's it's becoming learned behavior, etc.

But maybe we're forgetting how to hosestly discuss, even among ourselves. (Seems a coarsening. Seems sad.)

"You lie," Joe Wilson tried to "unrecommend" Obama's speech with his middle-finger eloquence.

that's an interesting comment.

or redundant stuff that for some reason a poster and a few others think is novel because they are out of touch with anything in the news or on DU.

:rofl:

Either those who have a grudge against a given poster or those who like to stifle any criticism/opposition to their pet issue/fawning adoration.

Who are the biggest abusers of starting stupid threads, without regard to the number of threads they start or the stupidity of such?

Maybe we need a system that prevents from even starting threads those who get too many Unrecommend votes. The problem is not the Unrecommend feature. It's the chronic thread starters who don't realize they really do start lame, unworthy threads.

Starting threads is what makes boards like this run.

Imagine if no one said anything.

Imagine if all one does is piss in everyone else's threads?

Imagine a self-appointed Carrie Nation Asswipe.

"Chronic Thread Starters"??????? That's the dumbest fucking phrase I've ever seen. Chronic Thread Starters. Wow. From a chronic moralizing whiner.

If you don't, you'll get the unrecommends your threads earn.

Stop patting yourself on the back about starting threads. The type of thread you prefer to start is not needed. There's no shortage of angry, juvenile outbursts that are long on ranting and short on thought.

Like I said, if you want to get more recommends, start threads that are worth the time it takes to read them.

.... do nothing but piss on other people's thread.

Yeah, you piss me off regularly.

Of course, in only thread pissing and never staring anything, you're free to say whatever you wish and avoid the disdain of your fellow travelers. Good strategy.

Obviously you recognize quality.

You do have the capacity for actual thought rather than smart assedness, don't you?

I'd be thrilled to my core if I could sit at your knee and learn internet manners and good taste.

.... the Pedantic Prince Of Pissantery, I will now vow to change my ways.

one which is thoughtful, useful, or just informational (even something minor like pictures of the 912 march, say), and a couple other posters start a fight about something marginally related. People get mad and "unrecommend."

Ah, wisdom.

(By the way, I don't mind it myself nor am I "whining" about being "unrecommended" (I often post CAPTIONS and people don't like the idea of caption-humor if it doesn't have an outrageous photo . . . never mind that proportion of those Stewart and Maher do are with regular photos, or they don't like humor, or . . . whatever, and "unrecommend." Who cares? 10-20 other people will write humorous captions and 200-300 clicks will accrue. Some lives may have been briefly leavened, and that's enough for me. . . . Just one always wonders what toggle-switch people have deep in their inner recesses.)

n/t

If ya do, then see if you can make the logical jump there, skippy.

Perhaps, again, the site of some self-congratulation. "Look how stupid" . . .
etc. and I must admit . . .

Or perhaps something entirely different. (I'm always hoping to be pleasantly
surprised about people, though usually disappointed. . . . Even after teaching
28 years.)

"Skippy." Hmm. At least I have the guts to use my own name.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why? . . . Because people didn't want to know?

"Unrecommend" in some cases, then, seems to be a "head in the sand" reaction. How is that useful?

On edit: the post's link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6534242

so now the unrecommend feature would only be used people who are like Glenn Beck? I usually unrec about one thread a week, but for this whinefest I'll make an exception.

"For this I'll make an exception," is something cute to say. The site of self-congradualtion, no doubt.

Actually, I see many people do this. It makes them feel they have a punchline in this world.

Ah well . . .

Yes, you are truly a brave crusader against injustice. Unrec is the crowbar levering the bricks out of the wall of civilization that holds out a tide of madness. Keep fighting underdog! Save us all!

Of course, that wouldn't fit your narrative and you wouldn't have anything to mock.

I have OPs that I write get unrecced more often than not, but I assume that's because people see fit to disagree with them. I can't believe people are still starting tragedy threads about this feature months after it was introduced. It's beyond pathetic. Democracy is where everyone gets to have a say, or in DUs case comment and make posts. Popularity or agreement are not guaranteed. Dealing with rejection is an important aspect of maturity. I advise you to work on it.

n/t

You're right . . . it should be "evidence" not "proof."

Beautiful distinction. Deeply considered. Fairly weighed. Marvelously delivered.

n/t

n/t

This whining about unrec is getting old.

Of course.

Deeply reasoned.

google my name + "literature" or "poetry" and see . . . but perhaps evidence is inconvient.

Maybe people who question "unrecommend" might well be whining.

I tried to argue against its usefulness. And I have seen how it might be useful when applied by a certain % of people, but I feel still that many do it as an unconsidered reaction.

(Have you nocticed the unconsidere reactions here?)

why not take ti as such. . . . Or why not wonder why people take ti as otherwise?

An occasion to spew or to think?

Get over yourself.

Note: "SOME."

Go figure.

:shrug:

People who have no similar history, who speak logically, who refuse to call people personally out, etc.

Obviously nobody could be truly concerned about such an issue. Onlyt wants attention, etc. Even though he keeps coming back to the usefulness of the activity.

that on Beck and Fox. A verbal gesture in the stead of reason.

I have found many a good OP, only to unrecommend them when I see too much assclownery in the comments.

Unrec is about what gets to represent DU on the Greatest page. It shouldn't be taken personally, and isn't always the result of a temper tantrum.

Complaints about unreccing tend to contain an awful lot of spit and foam, too.

did the unreccs outfeed the sockpuppets?

I'm very pleased with the feature.

unrecommend means this post is not suitable for the greatest page. I typically use it for posts that are off-topic (think, Michael Jackson), irrelevant (e.g., My Latest Whine About the Unrec Feature), unsupported (Nobody Has Yet Proven That 9/11 Was Not A Conspiracy) etc.

It's not for 'those who don't want to know something'; it only keeps things from appearing on the 'greatest' page, which heretofore was a moronic collection of inanity dominated by random nonsense and blatant begging threads with 'Rec if you agree that' in their titles. I don't use the 'greatest' page; I don't use either 'recommend' or 'unrecommend'. I read OPs and threads that look interesting; I don't have the need to have other people decide what's interesting or not for me. I suppose I may not be as much of a weak-minded sheep as some around here.

Of course.

Though, I have to admit to the guilty pleasure of enjoying the "why was this thread unrecc'd" sputtering :)

Sid

Not to say there are not legitimate reasons.

But to go back to my original point, it is not useful over 50% of the time.

Nothing to do with me personally. I don't shiv a git, as they say. (I'm an old prof., 62 years old, author, etc.)

that the unrecommend feature is no big deal.

Are all of the threads you linked truly "Greatest" threads? Or are they merely mediocre? Maybe they're average or pointless or good or horrible or self promoting or arrogant or wonderful.

But are they greatest?

I unrec'd this thread because threads like this by no means measure up to the classification of greatest. Neither does a thread that points out what a TV network is estimating a crowd at or threads that generally insult. There are any number of reasons why a thread does not qualify as a greatest thread.

BTW, to the posters above who wonder who unrec's anonymously, count me in. If you ever wonder who might have clicked unrec on a thread, feel free to assume it was me. I've been around on this board for over 6 years and have been a contributing member for most of that time. If the fact that I might anonymously unrec makes me a troll, so be it. I've been accused of much better. ("Plucky bootstrap puller" being my personal favorite.)

I don't give a crap if others don't like it and I don't feel the need in the slightest to justify my actions or explain my motives.

What I've come to expect of many.

Usefulness was the criterion. The fact that "unrecommend" keeps dubious posts from the Greatest, makes perfect sense.

But how many people thinking about use and how many resorting their ill-tempered nature, or ar having a bad day.

"Use" is the reason, not how I feel. Even when someone likes to say (as Beck did recently) I don't care what anybody thinks. (He was talking about not turning down his thermostat or caring about his carbon footprint. Thumbing his nose, particularly at France.)

Note: The act parallels his. I'm not so childish to call you a Glenn Beck.

So? What I don't understand is why motive is so important to you. Who cares why someone would unrec a thread? Really. What difference does it make? People do all kinds of things for all sorts of reasons. Expecting everyone on this board to give careful consideration to their thought process when determining if they should recommend a thread or not is expecting an awful lot. Maybe they do it out of pure spite. Is so, so what?

If a thread is truly worthy of the title "greatest" in the opinion of only those inclined to vote on it at all, then it will get a majority of positive votes + at least 4 more. It's as simple as that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6534175

And, perhaps another one people perhaps didn't want to hear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6534242

They might have present moment, voyeuristic, value. But is there anything of any lasting impact in either thread?

I mean who really gives a shit about the tea-baggers little pout-fest.

Was that Patrick Henry? Maybe it's "the cost" not the "price." But the cost is a heavy price and we need not bury our heads in the sand.

Perhaps if Obama had realized the magnitude of idiocy/outcry he was facing he could have better contested it in August.

he might have miscalculated the corporate sentiment.

In any event, I doubt that it's a misuse of unrec to cite all references to the teabagger party as not worthy of greatest. I am not doing it, but I can see the argument and I don't think there is a sound counter.

come up with a different bottom line, but . . .

If not, no fair going back now to do it.

Logic.

that you were concerned about the unrecs they rec'd, but not useful/interesting enough for you to make a post.

It the second part is true, why the concern re unrecs? Not logical.

You, of course, may post back to every interesting post you read. Good, but I'd guess that this is relatively rare.

Logic needs application in the real world, otherwise you get Zeno's paradox and conclusion ("Everything is one thing and nothing is moving," he concluded, showing how strict logic is, well, mis-directive in the least.)

You are implying that everyone who reads an interesting post, returns with a post. Then why are the "hits" 10 times greater than the posts. Some logic needs thought about.

Neither, IMO, warrants a rec or an unrec but that just my opinion.

or knowledge. That's what I was bringing to the table.

Use, for me here, means mentally useful. Does something enhance my understanding or thinking? Seeing pictures of the 912 march enhances it. I better know what we are against. Etc.

Maybe this shouldn't show up on a Greatest Threads list, but I have a feeling that some are "unrecommending" because they don't want to see or think about the opposition. I could be wrong . . .

as I don't think it's Greatest Page worthy. I have read just a couple of threads (plus the two you linked to) on the subject of the 9/12 marches as it's just not that interesting to me. It may be of great interest to others.

childish reactions and toward employing the usefulness of the function. I wonder how many "unrecommenders" are thinking of such things. I hope many, but I suspect less than you might think.

to try to accuse those who you don't agree with as being freepers and "the other side," because you don't respect others' objections to inflammatory language, which you consider taking a dump in a punchbowl.

That's why Rec and UnRec exist. One punchbowl. Too many turds.

Pelosi said people who distrupt the towm hall were acting in an unamerican way, she did not call them unamerican.

There is a disticntion here which is often lost on some.

lost on you is that language matters. still true, even if you don't get it.

advance yourself, but to consider the issues.

How does this not make sense?

Or is it a game?

Geez. Didn't we conceive ourtselves better? I certainly did, and will not stoop to childishness.

The way you make grown ups whimper and beg for mercy is amazing!

Unrecommend, you sly dog you, how do you so handily vanquish all who stand in your way?



Without Unrecommend, crap like this thread would be on the Greatest page.

All hail the power of mighty Unrec!!

n/t

:thumbsup:

Shouldn't have one without the other. I like both features and do hope the current system is retained but if it's decided that the unrec feature is to be dropped, then drop the rec feature also and the Greatest Page.

Kicks keep the thread at the top, not recs. And really, it's an ego thing, the Greatest Page. Kind of the place that's really cool to be. Sort of like those couple of tables in the high school cafeteria where all the cool kids sat.

Are people crying about Unrec/Greatest Page just folks with still hurt feelings over not getting to sit at the cool kids table in school? Really, there are so many self help programs out there for you.

This thread, despite the number of unrecs it has received, has generated a lively discussion and is often near the top of the page. It won't be on the Greatest Page but one can't say the topic is being ignored or suppressed in anyway.

A kick gets your thread a better chance to be read.

no argument here. Unlike some others (I don't mean you) many of us aren't in this simply to get one-up on the next person.

Such a mentality I usually associate with the unthinknfg right: The distension of the identity = "I am that which I can displace." I.e., the mentality of big trucks and guns. Okay, perhaps, before one turns 30, but not really adult by any means.

Pretty weird that you associate fondling with Beck.

:rofl:

How about "unstead" of posting crap like this, you post something worthwhile and *then* you can FINALLY get on the Greatest Page!

would be appropriate.

I expected to be "unrecommended."

thread complaining about the Unrec feature.

Here it is:

"I Unrec every thread that mentions the Unrec function.

BUT, I also, like DUer Question Everything above, Rec everything that is under zero, unless it's something obviously stupid, freeperish, or badmouths one of my heroes *cough* The Ramones *coughcough*.

Frankly I think that change on this site is better realized through direct appeals to TPTB and not through actions such as this, which are doomed to fail by their very nature."

V-

I've not argued against good reasons, but I think (with some good cause) that there are more abuses with the system than legitimate reasons.

might not be the most reliable indication of what is worth consideration. They have attacked me for what I didn't say, for what they thought my motives, have blurted out responses that have nothing to do with the issue, and so forth.

The "unrecommmend" feature might be great in theory, but in practice, it seems as deft as a chainsaw in surgery, sad to say.

People seem often to value ones-upmanship over considered thought, impulsie reactions over potential usefulness, an aspersion of motives over reasoned questioning, etc.

thread titles:

"Joe Wilson Outburst Leads to Boycott"

"Boston Globe Editorial: 'We Now Have A Political Party That Is "Dedicated To The Nearly Deranged'"

"Exposing the Bottom Feeders in Debt-Collection Industry"

"Soldier's cancer death linked to depleted uranium (DU)"

Before the Unrec feature, things were..different. More...goofy.

But I wonder if it is useful since so many seem to "\unrecommend" fro frivoluous reasons.

:shrug:

It only takes ONE PERSON to put you in the negatives.

If *I* could change one thing about it, it would be to show the TOTAL amount, whether positive *or* negative (I was actually surprised when I realized it DIDN'T).

The composite total of positive and negative recommendations.

I understand your point, and have thought so myself, but it seems an abdication of our reasoning or, at least, a valorization of the peevish (in some cases) as well as the others who may consider the usefulness of the post.

If one cannot trust a majority of DUers to use the unrec feature wisely, then one can't trust the majority to use the rec feature wisely also.

but the recommend feature does not tend to discourage engagement with the ideas, whereas the "unrecommend" does.

Why make life more meager? There are thousands who do so every day and we usually find ourselves in disagreement with them.

Bur I agree.

This thread is a showcase example of how it hasn't.

In any forum, one will have to put up with snarky replies, put downs, have their words twisted, or be accused of saying something that wasn't said or even implied. That's the nature of the beast. Back in the old John Kerry forum in 2004, I made the comment once that while I believed John Kerry ought to be praised and honored for his service in Vietnam, I did not think he ought to be considered a hero. The Wrath of God was brought down upon me and several members openly called for my banishment from the forum. Only one member asked me to clarify what I said which I did and she thought my view had merit.

where just about every fucking politician lies their asses off to the people who elected them and then votes to make sure the corporate bastards steal as much money as they can from all of us. :puke:

"You lie" middle-finger eloquence last week.

I hope we're not like him.

You can't handle the voting results.