Some clarification on "hides" & censorship of material in this group.

It all good

Just click the "show post" link and voila.

but I will survive

The hidden post in question did not merely provide context, the person who posted it declared the ad "all true" despite the fact that it was a hit piece from the NRA which opens with a baseless attack on all liberals.

The rules of this site are very clear, right-wing hit pieces are not allowed here. The post would not have been hidden if the video had been merely posted for context, but when the person declared the ad from an organization that has a board member that threatened to assassinate Obama on more than one occasion to be "all true" that was asking to have a post hidden.

Calling this rule "authoritarian" is ridiculous, you agreed to the rules which prohibit the posting of right-wing crap when you joined. If you don't like that rule there are other sites that will allow you to post all the right-wing crap you want, but there is nothing authoritarian about having our own community standards on this site.

If you had a problem with my "all true" why not post a response and allow me to edit it down? I missed that first line and do not agree with it but the quotes from Bloomberg were all true.

I would have edited or clarified if given the chance.

I assume it was not you that alerted but the same applies to the person that did.

No, I did not alert and I did not even see it until after it was hidden. I do think the jury was justified in hiding it however, this is not NRA Underground.

I guess I am no longer as observant as I was. Like I said, I did not think you were the alerter. I think it is always a nice thing to give a person a chance to correct a mistake, don't you think so?

Another idea I can also think of, don't play the ad. As far as I know it takes an action to actually start playing the ad in question.

Ever since you started posting at this site you have been spouting NRA talking points, I don't think you surprised anyone when you declared their ad "all true".

Here is the truth though, you are promoting an organization which has a pants pooping pedophile that has threatened to assassinate Obama serving on their Board of Directors. They are an organization which spends a great deal of money promoting Tea Party candidates for office and a great deal more money spending money on attack ads attacking progressive candidates. They are a disgusting organization with a disgusting agenda and the fact that you declared an ad by such a repulsive organization to be "all true" should show everyone where you are coming from. This is not the first time you have posted right-wing bullshit and you don't deserve any more "second chances" when you keep posting NRA talking points over and over again.

Rolling Stone interview in context.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michael-bloomberg-isnt-afraid-of-the-nra-20140708
It attacked Bloomberg, no Democrats or anyone I would describe as liberal or progressive. As for Bloomberg being a progressive, are you serious? So he doesn't like guns. I guess that makes Tricky Dick a progressive too.
He is still a sexist, authoritarian, loves free for all Wall Street, loves stop and frisk, and pissed on the teachers unions. It doesn't fit my definition of liberal or progressive. He sounds kind of right wing to me.
AFAIC, he is just another arrogant rich asshole who feels entitled to shove his views down everyone's throats and buy elections.

I am not even a fan of Bloomberg's, but the NRA is much worse. The ad did not only attack Bloomberg anyways, it opened up with a broad brush attack on all liberals. You also spend a lot of time spewing NRA talking points on this site however so it is no surprise you would jump in to defend them.

and I get the distinct feeling you didn't watch it. Other than the first sentence about "liberals calling it fly over country." I don't know if I would call that an attack or not. The other 26 seconds was all Bloomberg. Bloomberg isn't even a liberal. He is just another billionaire asshole.
Actually, I try to avoid anyone's "talking points" and stick to what is proven fact, evidence and reason. That is how politics is supposed to be. If one is decent and honorable, but I disagree with on policy, he or she deserves respect just like the ones I do agree with. If the person is sleazy, dishonest, an asshole, I don't care what letter is next to his or her name, they are still a POS regardless of their views. I detest bigots, dishonest ideologues, and I pity fools. I don't care if they are right wing or left wing. I can't stand any of them. I detest and pity them all equally. Somethings are not right or left. It is either true, or it isn't. If the truth goes your or mine ideology, that's our tough shit.
I vote Democratic because it happens to be the party that shares my values more than any other in the US. That does not mean the party or any of its shills do my thinking for me.

I never claimed Bloomberg was a progressive like you suggested I did. The NRA is not about facts, evidence, or reason. They do tend to be sleazy, dishonest assholes however. If you truly detest bigots you would detest the NRA because that organization is filled with racist bigots.

but you are defending Bloomberg, because the ad is about Bloomberg.
There is no gun control group that is about facts, reason, or evidence. They appeal to emotion, bigotry, just make shit up, rely on people's poor critical thinking skills with all of their disinformation and logical fallacies. They are very astroturf and top down funded by a couple of rich people and a foundation. They also play on classim.
As for NRA and racism? I've seen more blacks at a gun show in Wyoming than I have ever seen at a MDA picket. In fact, they are all upper middle to wealthy whites paid by Bloomberg to show up. BTW, a lot of the current gun laws (like restrictions on concealed carry), purchase permits in NC and MI that date to the 1920s, Or the registration bill that almost passed in Mississippi in 1954. Who do you think lobbied for those? I'll give you hint: the organization had no black, Jewish, or Catholic members and they loved group bonfires.

I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's either, but that does not mean I am going to be defending any Tea Party ads against her. I don't care who the right-wing bullshit is attacking, it is still right-wing bull-shit whether I agree with the person it is attacking or not.

I don't have an opinion of Hillary as far as liking her or not, I just think she would do a lousy job.

An the person being criticized is more right wing than the source? You use the fascist a lot. It is kind of like the way the right uses "socialist". While La Pierre is stupid, and Nuget is loudmouthed and a kind of racist asshole, I wouldn't call them fascist. That is kind of a broad brush of five million people, including Democrats. While I may not like the NRA's politics outside of guns, I like Bloomberg even less.
If anyone is a fascist, it is Bloomberg. I have never seen the NRA support limits on the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth Amendments like Bloomberg has. The NRA has never pushed to have all public housing residents be finger printed, I have never heard of the NRA being sued for sexism or sex discrimination, and of course the obligatory soda thing. Bloomberg has done all of that.
There are good and honorable people I happen to disagree with on guns (but agree with most other things). The reverse is also true.
Bloomberg falls in neither of those. He is a corporatist and an authoritarian. That sound like a fasces waver to me.
I may not like a lot of what the NRA says, but I more than detest Bloomberg.

give me this list of "NRA talking points" so I can check them against my posts to ensure I do not use them so I can please you.
I have looked very hard for this list and as of yet have not found the list or has anybody provided me with it after I have asked many times as you must know by reading all off my posts as you stated you do.

Will you please provide me the list of "NRA Talking Points" you are speaking of?

As one who must have followed many of my posts I have many times in my posts not agreed with the crazy portion of the NRA. I have also called Teddy an idiot, a bozo and other things here on DU. I have also said the same things about the idiots that do the open carry stunt bullshit. So what you just stated is just plain wrong sir. Some of us on DU actually believe in the individual RKBA. It is even in the democratic platform and President Obama also believes the same thing.

Please link to all of this "right wing bullshit" that you say I am constantly posting. Just one or two would be nice.

You are quite right I do not agree with billionaire Bloomie and his Astro-turf organization. The quotes in that ad were accurate in what he has said.

Nice to have a civil conversation with someone that disagrees with everything I post. It makes me feel good that at least one person is reading them.

If you post an NRA ad you are posting NRA talking points.

That I was WRONG in agreeing to that first line.

I guess you just can not accept the fact I can admit my error.

So there is no list. I guess I was wrong in responding to a DU members request to be able to look at the ad in question to make an informed comment.

Thank you very much kind sir for setting me straight.

They can be found between Obama's secret plan to establish a caliphate in
Washington and Stanley Kubrick's daily call sheets used while faking the Apollo landings...

when asked to provide a list of the "NRA talking Points"

They never can as there is no such thing. Just whatever goes against the position they have taken they say is an "NRA talking Point".

They change the subject, get defensive, start name calling, throw in a penis reference or two, but can not ever produce that simple list.

You can deny the words that come straight from the NRA are NRA talking points all you want, but ads are talking points whether you want to admit it or not.

the shows quotes from other news sources is now "NRA Talking Points"

Interesting take

It is pushing the NRA's position, to try and push it as a neutral piece merely presenting quotes is dishonest.

That way, I could similarly dismiss out of hand things I don't like
without actually refuting them

Unless the debate is about roads then I would agree there are roads in Colorado, but that has nothing to do with the gun issue so there is nothing to bother refuting. The ad is hollow talking points with no substance.

I know a DUer of impeccable credentials that uses this against their opponents
on a regular basis, and suggests others do so as well.

Let's see what they've had to say on the subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3796823

"These sorts of quotes need to be published everywhere"

"...quotes like this need to be thrown back in their faces."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2026925

"Time to quote you..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4390231

"Well what do you know, I found a quote from Chomsky about marriage"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4335888

"Do you have a quote of him saying that?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3796823

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022918853#post2

"I will quote him again..."

Yes, I have asked people to provide quotes to back up their claims. I never suggested that quoting people was wrong, not did I claim that the NRA quoted Bloomberg incorrectly. I just don't see how a quote from Bloomberg about roads in Colorado is of any relevance to the gun control debate and when the NRA tries to pretend it is in any way relevant it just makes them look like idiots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022779620



That was a good OP, btw- the world needs to be reminded on a regular basis
what an awful person Nugent is.

HOWEVER:

The disinterested reader will note that a) the NRA's favorite ephebophile didn't
actually say anything about gun control in that instance, and b) what's
sauce for Ted N. is sauce for Mike B.

If one political movement can be beaten about the head and shoulders because
of the sayings of one of its champions, so can any movement. Bloomie
doesn't get any gimmes

I do not agree with the hide and if the alerter would have been nice enough to ask me to remove or modify I would have. I missed that first line and do not agree with that part. I had no chance to edit or modify but I will survive after this.

Life goes on and I had a great day even though it got stupid hot again.

Now for a good Hefe Weizen

I was away (driving from Buffalo to Connecticut, bringing my kid back from a visit with his mom) while this was going on, and I'm at work now. After that I have some personal family issues to take care of (grandma in the hospital) but I'll discuss this tonight before I go to bed.

And get some rest.

Nothing here is worth putting that off.

The member who alerts on another member should have to do so publicly.

Better still, the jurors should have to be identified.

It's clear that there are individuals who wish to see other members banned, or even disqualified from serving as hosts, and this is itself very uncivil behavior.

First off, let me clearly define my powers (Group Host powers) and the powers of a jury.

I cannot undo what a jury has done. I cannot reinstate (un-hide) a post, nor re-admit a poster into a discussion thread from where that person has been barred from. My powers begin and end with the power to ban members from the group, to lock original posts (and ONLY original posts), and to pin threads to the top of the Group.

Likewise, a jury cannot unlock a locked post or overturn a ban on a member. They can, however, when called to duty, hide any post (including both the OP and replies to the OP). Hiding a post automatically results in the author of the hidden post to be banned from posting further in the thread.

Because both a Group Host and the jury system has power over OPs, this does make for an interesting dynamic. I have locked posts that a jury found acceptable, and I've had OPs hidden that I thought were okay.

A jury is convened to enforce the DU-wide rules on member behavior, such as content, civility, etc. An OP is brought to a Group Host's attention regarding the appropriateness of that OP with respect to the Statement of Purpose of the Group itself. "You're a fucking asshole and I hope you die in a fire" goes to a jury, while "Cute kitten dressed in a tuxedo plays a miniature cello" posted here goes to me.


In my opinion, we should have the opportunity to blacklist jury members (even though they are anonymous) as a way to filter out the most obviously partisan ones from judging us. A member can block up to 15 people from judging them, and I don't why some of them can't be unknown (to you) jury members that voted a certain way for certain reasons.

But, I am neither an Admin or a programmer, so I will stick to what I do best.


Having said that, there is a difference between promoting RW propaganda and analyzing or discussing it. Obviously, the reasons for gun ownership cross the political spectrum, with some people keeping them for competitive or hunting purposes (relatively neutral) and some people keeping them for the imminent race war/general revolution against President Obama/to repel the hoards of illegally-crossing immigrants, also known as RW bullshit.


There are facts to the debate over gun laws, and facts remain true even when said by people we have distaste for. Which is why the referenced NRA ad is not something I believe should have been hidden by a jury. The ad was pretty factually correct: Bloomberg did, as an elected official of significant power, promote and sign into law bans on large sugary drinks and trans-fats, and publicly created, supported, and funded gun-control groups. He also put his foot in his mouth talking about other parts of the country.


There are any number of articles up, in this Group as well as GD and GR, that link to scholarly and journalistic analysis of NRA talking points, advertisements, press releases, media campaigns, etc. And those seem to manage to avoid being hidden by juries or locked by hosts as RW propoganda.

So I don't see any problem with discussing pretty much any pro-control or pro-gun ad or media statement, with the caveat that agreeing with hard-RW reasons for doing so will probably land you in trouble as a RW troll.

Posting a video and supporting it by stating "Why yes, I think we need to be armed because of the immigrant Mexican menace" will probably get you nuked.

Posting that same video and stating "This pro-gun group is using dog-whistle politics to organize the white vote against minorities" probably won't.


Advertizing, marketing, talking-points, and even propaganda are all part of politics, and firearms are no exception. GG&RKBA is not a safe haven for one side or the other, so it is expected that the campaigns used by the various groups in the debate will be discussed here. And directly quoting such material (for the proper reasons) is, in my opinion, entirely normal and to be expected.






And for those of you interested, my grandmother broke her hip on Saturday, was successfully operated on Monday, and seems to be doing well. Of course, time will tell. Her husband broke his hip last summer, and after that his robust health declined such as he died a few months later. So naturally I'm worried what the next few months hold, but there is no immediate danger.

and makes a full revovery.

I appreciate your prompt and thoughtful reply. In the future, I will post examples of ads, videos, etc. as these are necessary to gauge how Second Amendment politics are beginning to shift from in-house mailers, or splashy ads in outdoor and shooting sports publications, to campaigns aimed at a much broader and diverse demographic.

I also hope your grandmother fully recovers. Until I researched it, I did not realize how bad a broken hip can be.

Thanks very much for your input on this issue. I give you great credit in running this group and allowing free discussion from all viewpoints unlike the other gun related group that blocks any opposing viewpoint and requires a safe haven. I have noticed that the other host has posed another question in ATA why posts in GD that are not in compliance with the SOP are being locked.

All you have to do is look at the number of blocked members between the two gun related groups to show which one allows free discussion on OP's.

Last thanks to all of the posted that supported me on this. I do also think it was a bad hide but I am a grown man and am over it and still will attempt to be a polite and add to a lively discussion on DU as much as I can.