Log in ·
So would you vote for the anti-incumbent even if they espoused views entirely opposite of your own, just because they aren't the incumbent? (and, yes, I realize the JW will likely not allow you to respond.)
Posted 9 October 2013, 11:28 p.m.
"Wolf's campaign issued a statement ahead of his formal announcement, saying the nation is "threatened by the politicians in Washington.""
And he's eager to become one of them, because the existing threats to your life and livelihood aren't nearly fascist enough for the Koch Bros.
And statements like the one I just made are why the JW has decided to limit comments to those that pass muster by the Koch Bros., et al.
Posted 9 October 2013, 10:18 p.m.
Yes, I'm sure that you'll be very happy with the unbridled boosterism the new format will encourage.
Posted 9 October 2013, 12:31 p.m.
Brownback to those who the Koch Bros won't hire-- "Let them eat dirt!!!!"
Posted 9 October 2013, 8:15 a.m.
"There shouldn't be any more arbitrary and capricious comment deletions as there have been recently."
Once forum administrators start deleting posts for more than a few very well-defined reasons (obscenity, direct insults to other posters, etc.) "arbitrary and capricious" soon become the deciding criteria for moderation, as this forum has well demonstrated.
Posted 9 October 2013, 8:11 a.m.
This is about pushing Roberts even further to the right. It's an example of the paranoia that the Koch Bros and other creators of the TeaParty have instilled in all Republicans (and even some Democrats in conservative districts) that unless they toe the fascist line, they'll get primary opposition.
Posted 9 October 2013, 7:44 a.m.
This is about controlling content, not enforcing "civility." The only reason to read it from now on is to know what the Chamber of Commerce and the owners of this newspaper want you to believe.
And how much will the JW make from tying this to lords of the internet at Facebook?
Anyway, I gave up on this site months ago, which was years too late.
Posted 9 October 2013, 7:34 a.m.
I understand your point, but replacing the old system with a worse one, even more susceptible to corruption and favoritism, is a step backwards that even you should be able to recognize. (yes, the federal system of appointing judges is a bad one-- emulating it on the state level makes it even more prone to cronyism and corruption.)
Posted 7 September 2013, 9:07 p.m.
That's because you want pavement more than you want to spend the 10 seconds it'd take to understand the relevance.
Posted 7 September 2013, 9:02 p.m.
You left out inflation and outright profiteering by our well-connected pave-it-over industries, but Armstrong has already demonstrated his predilection for pulling out numbers from some dark space or another.
Posted 7 September 2013, 8:31 p.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2017 LJWorld.com