About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind

January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

[snopercod]

I really can't think of any reasonable scenario where shooting down an off-course airliner would be the best - or even a good - course of action. But this thread is not the place to argue that.

I do think the Posting Guidelines should be clarified regarding violence. The word "materials" should be removed.

[wallcrawlr]

Of course when the world is one race one culture of one mind under one leader then there will finally be peace

I agree. Lord Jesus come...

[Rebelbase]

see 100

[Howlin]

Howlin, I don't see anything wrong with what Junta said, but I think I could be said in a more refined manner:

Which was my exact point; filled with hyperbole and jingoism.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Well said.

[Mo1]

but what about my cross-border catapult idea, for use in returning illegal aliens to their country of origin? Isn't that a cooler idea?

*L* .. Not sure that would work

But I'll give you an A+ for creative thinking ;0)

[Columbine]

I'll say it once again. Bush is a neocon of the likes Ronald Regan would have spit from his mouth.

I have no doubt that Reagan might be appalled at some of the spending that's going on but let us acknowledge that Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens during his term in office.

And I think it also is fair to acknowledge that Reagan would probably applaud President Bush's foreign policy.

[Mo1]

anger and frustration is one thing; racial epithets, vicious attacks, and the like are another.

Exactly!

[GraniteStateConservative]

I'll post what I posted on the first Lead Moderator thread. Why does it matter what the subject matter is. We don't care if a rapist was a rapist because he was distraught over being from a broken family. We punish him for being a rapist. Period.

Here's the rule: Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.

Just enforce the rule!

Treat everyone equally. No prejudice based on the topic of the thread. Just delete the post and then delete the poster for a string of deleted posts.

Is it just that it's too much of a headache for the Mods? Is this an easier way to deal with it without really dealing with it?

[Lead Moderator]

"To: CWOJackson; Lead Moderator; Texasforever We anti-illegal immigrationists would appreciate your explaining the new rules governing civility on illegal immigration threads on FR to CWOJackson and Texasforever, LM.

CWOJackson has contributed more than 10 posts that are nothing more than bait to draw FReepers on the other side of the issue into a full-out flame war and that's exactly what this thread is beginning to degenerate into.

I call your specific attention to CWOJackson's #22 "I guess that beats menopause.", LM.

Count the number of times CWOJackson and Texasforever resorted to name-calling and personal attacks in the first 79 posts on this thread for yourself, LM.

If the new rules don't apply to FReepers on both sides of this issue, than nobody's going to follow them.

How many attempts at baiting anti-illegal immigration/anti-amnesty Freepers does the other side get before you sit them down, too?

81 posted on 01/07/2004 12:02:20 PM EST by 4Freedom (America is no longer the 'Land of Opportunity', it's the 'Land of Illegal Alien Opportunists'!!!)"

Thanks for the question, 4 Freedom.

I think a bit of history behind this effort is in order to give an explanation. First, you can review what Sabertooth posted at the top to get how it came to be.

I put this thread up on the 4th. As I stated in it, I started the next day, the 5th. When an immigration thread would go up, I would tack on a little foreward explaining that the thread was going to be monitored and providing a link back to that thread. As my time allowed, I monitored those threads carefully. I didn't pull anything, as it worked out, but I did call out whereever I saw something out of line, on both sides of the issue, as Sabertooth mentions above. If you go back and look at my posts on the 5th, I think you will see examples on all sides of the issue being called out and my reasons explained.

Then yesterday, three things happened. One was my day was busier. I was not around as much. Second, news regarding the issue hit and more threads than I could possibly have given the same amount of attention were going up. And third was that while some were working with me and trying to help out by abiding, a whole lot more were not and were trying to rally people to how unfair everything was- to the point where I was very close to scrapping the whole effort and returning to the recent status quo. I even posted as such on that thread (post 267).

This morning, I did go through and hit some of the threads that had gone up last night, including one where one of the people you named here had mixed it up pretty good with someone else. There were things that were against what we are trying to accomplish from both sides on that thread, and I did call them out. It wasn't the thread you just pointed to. I didn't hit that one because of time (I do have a life, you know) and because I was still burnt out and wondering if I was going to continue this effort.

As I stated on that post 267 I just linked to, this effort is not going to work without considerable assistance from Freepers on all sides of the issue to assist with a healthy amount of self-policing. Hopefully some of that will come out of this thread.

Regards, LM

[Dane]

Bush is a neocon of the likes Ronald Regan would have spit from his mouth.

Now your ignorance is showing. You pit Reagan against Bush, which Ronald Reagan would slap you silly for doing, IMO.

Reagan signed a tax increase, didn't sign one piece of legislation restricting abortion, and signed amnesty for illegal aliens, and yet you try to pit Reagan against Bush.

Does this mean I think that Reagan was a failure as a President, hell no, the failure is with the likes of you who do the liberal playbook of trying to pit people against each other.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I do suspect it has something to do with the outright anger and frustration we feel over the outright betrayal of our country by this administration which I used to admire.

Yep.

I was actually suspended the other day for posting/bumping someone else's post!

Can anyone top that? LOL!

[William Terrell]

I will make an offer, for today and today only.

Does that mean that if I see a removed comment on 1/8 or 1/10 and ask you what it said, you wont' tell me?

(P.S. A lot of times you can get a hint of what was said by posters responding to the comment before it was pulled. Ah, but hints only make the appetite sharper.)

[F16Fighter]

"I’ve also observed a shifting coalition of posters who are less than sincere on the other side of the debate; who are prone to using Democrat talking points to smear posters who are concerned about Illegals as anti-immigrant and closet racists. When reading their posts, one half-wonders if they aren’t moles for the L.A. Times."

LOL, makes me wonder as well...

There is simply one primary point to be made regarding illegal aliens:

Either one supports enforcement of America's sovereign borders in accordance with federal law and the Constitution, OR ignores enforcement.

If it's the latter, the Republic has indeed succumbed to foreign invasion, and thus surrendered to a New World Order -- without a shot being fired.

[rintense]

Ha! I got a newbie apologist asking me 'why so much hate' when I said I should have learned Spanish instead of French. LOL.

[blackie]

Rush is talking about this right now.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The "mexicanization" of Bush with the Vicente Fox mustache is the only thing controversial. I'd probably pull it for that reason. Making it look like he's a white guy as president of Mexico shouldn't make an image delete-worthy.

[dben]

I disagree about the ReAgan comment. Ronaldus Maximus would have understood that post 9/11 required extra bugetary needs.

I will wait until I hear POTUS speak this afternoon before I form opinion about the Immigration issue

[elli1]

I agree w/ the decision to remove the post which amounted to nothing more than an invitation to a juvenile round of ''Let's call George Bush names'' and avoidance of discussion of the substance of what he hasn't even yet said.

[hchutch]

How about you define "Open Borders" first?

As to VDARE, you yourself have said some of their stuff was questionable, have you not? If so, why won't you call them out on it? Why won't Michelle Malkin? Based on past immigration threads, I can only come to conclusions that would not reflect well on you or her.

PRND21 posted the link to VDARE and it was pulled by the Moderators, AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, despite his motivations for posting it.

If you want me to believe this thread is legit, then I want to see it reflected with some concrete actions. No more "quips" like calling Bartley a "mole" because he disagrees with you on this issue. Call VDARE and Sam Francis out when they say questionable things in columns or on the web. Otherwise, I will have to assume that you and Mrs. Malkin have no problem with the questionable stuff that comes out of VDARE, and my future posts will reflect that assumption.