There seems to be confusion about the Politics rule in non-politics threads.

Discussion of policy is fine. Discussion of execution of policy is fine.

Random partisan hackery irrelevant to GM or the discussion at hand is not fine.

...but Ralph Nader raped my mom. You can't just expect me to let that go.

...but Ralph Nader raped my mom. You can't just expect me to let that go.

Your Mom's name is Corvair?

...but Ralph Nader raped my mom. You can't just expect me to let that go.

and that's how we got you.....

>>"Discussion of policy is fine. Discussion of execution of policy is fine."<<

How about the discussion of the people executing the policy ??

I can follow this to the best I understand it, but not sure how far I do. It seems to me as long as one doesn't invoke generalized partisan sterotypes, mostly everything else is OK. I've seen 'back it up' stated, but anyone can make an argument about anything and 'back it up' via the internet- doesn't make it true... but if that's a requirement, none of these sources should be discounted merely because one disagreeing individual "knows" it isn't true.

See... as soon as one tries to create a 'line' in the cybersand, all the fun goes out & unpleasantness washes in.

I still vote for the manner in which it was run prior to the election, which got abrasive at times but was much more spontaneous & honest.

Since there is acknowledged confusion regarding the 'line' here, I would ask in return for some lienency and accomodation until the 'line' becomes more clear.... as opposed to -say- the editing of member's posts for something deemed "political hackery" at the first or 2nd 'instance'. And the enforcement of the line had better likewise be devoid of 'partisan hackery', or WTH is the point of any of this?

Well that's what the Politics Forum is for.

homosaywhat

Not nearly as amusing when typing it out

Carry on

What?

Start by deleting the first post that turns political and do the same with the rest.