Redstate

If any of us were doing it because we were getting paid to do so.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Like you, I'm tired of the wanton attacks on Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I was beginniing to think this was a site specificly put up to bash Mike Huckabee and anyone who might not be Mitt or Fred or Rudy...

'Good to know it's not.

Jim Tomasik

I just started blogging here, and my first post has received several complaints (many from people who are big Giuliani supporters, and several anti-Huckabee folks) of which a few seemed to imply that I was doing something wrong and could get banned or something. I can't figure out what I've done so far that is against the rules or "too close to the line", and I've read the rules a few times now but still am at a loss. It's not my intention to offend anyone, and I definitely don't want to get banned. I did "recommend" my blog, but I just clicked the button absent-mindedly frankly because it was there and I didn't think about it first. It was pointed out to me and I immediately unrecommended it, and will never make the mistake again.

Also, there were a few comments posted that I didn't understand at all but that seemed somehow relevant and from possible moderators -- they usually had no text except the subject lines, and said things like "under n/t" and "you're down ..over …not much though.. n/t", then one said "Sorry…you lost…7 Hours as I post this n/t". Someone else said "You can't post odds anymore, Neil" as subject line, with "You have the power to ban" as the text. Can someone please tell me what that meant, and if there's something I'm doing that's a problem? If so, I assure you I will fix it.

I've been curious about a lot of the same things this poster pointed out. There does seem to be a lot of posts that have some sort of secret code message and I haven't yet received my secret-decoder ring.

Could someone please help this poster that has been accused of having blonde roots understand these posts or at least put a secret-decoder ring in the mail to me?

Thank you

I was guessing how long before a troll got banned. A reader suggested it's not fair, since it was widely believed that once I got promoted to the front page I would have the power to ban. Obviously if I can ban it's not fair for me to set an over/under on a ban time.

As it turns out, though, I don't have the power to ban. The Directors either don't trust me, or (more likely I'm thinking) they just don't NEED to worry about whether to trust me right now, thanks to how wonderful a job our current moderator staff is doing, so it just hasn't come up.

HTML Help for Red Staters

This is the part I was questioning:

Also, there were a few comments posted that I didn't understand at all but that seemed somehow relevant and from possible moderators -- they usually had no text except the subject lines, and said things like "under n/t" and "you're down ..over …not much though.. n/t", then one said "Sorry…you lost…7 Hours as I post this n/t". Someone else said "You can't post odds anymore, Neil" as subject line, with "You have the power to ban" as the text. Can someone please tell me what that meant, and if there's something I'm doing that's a problem? If so, I assure you I will fix it.

What do all of the n/t's mean, posting odds and other stuff like that? Sometimes, I get confused too and would like to know what I should do if I have a question.

And odds are a gambler's way of expressing a probability. We were pretending to be gambling on when the person got banned.

HTML Help for Red Staters

like "what is NT?" are answered in the RedState Unofficial FAQ, which is linked in my signature below...

but IMHO, as long as you stick with the tenets that Erick just listed, and the other guidelines for posting, your thoughts are welcome (probably not agreed with, but tolerated). We'll just hold our noses while we read your opinions. :-)

To your points, at risk of threadjacking (since you bring them up): I think you'll find that most who post here, based upon my long-time lurking and short time posting, are here because they hold to conservative ideals. They are interested in how our elected officials reflect those ideals in the decision- and policy-making in DC and beyond. "Corporate power" is one thing that drives those decisions and policies, whether we like it or not. Personally, I abhor the fact (well, probably a fact) that corporate policy and desire is driving some (much?) of the current push by GWB and the others towards CIR. But that's the way it is, and I will do what I can to influence my legislators to resist the corporate lobbying. And of all the things I'd accuse GWB of, the last thing I'd accuse him of is that his Iraq policy is what it is because of corporate greed (cue the Haliburton KnownFacts™)

years of BlameAmericaFirst™ thinking (OK, I lied), but you might want to read this food for thought:

The Americans and their Asian and Free World allies did not fight the Vietnam war simply to save the South Vietnamese from the barbarous rule of a totalitarian Stalinist regime. That would have been reason enough but there were much wider stakes involved.

The war was just one part of a grand, three way strategic regional conflict between the Soviet Union, China and the US and its allies for control of Southeast Asia and in particular the Indonesian waterways running between the Indian and Pacific Oceans which carried nearly all of the trade and oil between Europe, the Middle East and East Asia and most of Australia's trade. At the time of the US and Australian commitment to Vietnam in 1962-64, the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) was threatening to take over Indonesia, Soekarno was trying to undermine Malaysia and there were wars being fought against Soviet and Chinese backed communist revolutionary guerrilla movements in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines as well as Laos and Cambodia. Had South Vietnam gone communist in 1964-65, as it nearly did, the PKI would almost certainly have taken control of Indonesia and the whole strategic balance in the region stretching from India through Indonesia to Japan would have changed drastically. And that is what the domino theory postulated.

It turns out, that it was all about OIL! Well, oil, and commerce, and the free world -- you know, all that stuff.

At any rate, I am in the process of working up a rather long piece tying together American foreign policy in Vietnam, the Domino Theory and how it actually worked to prevent all of the Pacific from falling into Communist satellite states.

We were unable, largely through the anti-War movement in this country from saving Vietnam, Laos and Cambodlia, but we did delay the USSR long enough for their own shortcomings to topple them, while allowing the Pacific rim the time they needed to combat their own Communist insurgencies.

Stick around until I get it finished. If nothing else, it should make for a lively debate!

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

A bit too obvious of an answer, though.

And Rightly So!

Thompson / Romney

==== 13 ====

I assure you your longevity here will be brief.