Gary Johnson removal? - Page 7 - About the Forums

ArcadianSky · 08-15-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

It is absolutely 2+2's right.

Yes...it's 2+2's right...but is it a user's right?

It's not fair that user SpankedTwice can create a thread about the politician he supports, but if I were to do it, it gets deleted. I have no problem if it's coming from the mods, but I have a giant problem with it coming from someone who has no vested interest in the site or it's direction. It's not right. All users should be on a level playing field.

PromethEV+s · 08-15-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcadianSky

Yes...it's 2+2's right...but is it a user's right?

It's not fair that user SpankedTwice can create a thread about the politician he supports, but if I were to do it, it gets deleted. I have no problem if it's coming from the mods, but I have a giant problem with it coming from someone who has no vested interest in the site or it's direction. It's not right. All users should be on a level playing field.

Is it not obvious that the site is going to support threads that support whom they support, and delete threads that support whom they don't support?

Booker Woodfox · 08-15-2011, 05:52 PM

If he has any hope of winning I agree, Gary Johnson must go on the offensive.

Playing defense this close to 2012 is a fools errand.

ArchRival · 08-15-2011, 05:56 PM

2+2 is absolutely correct if it wants to take any paid/unpaid advertisements. Do you stop watching a channel if it airs a Rep/Dem Ad? This forum is similar to that. Its a media. The owners have the right to do whatever they want with their commercial space. I don't understand how you don't see it....

PromethEV+s · 08-15-2011, 06:12 PM

Poll needs a third option: neither supports his cause nor thinks Gary Johnson-related ads/threads should be removed.

ArcadianSky · 08-16-2011, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PromethEV+s

Is it not obvious that the site is going to support threads that support whom they support, and delete threads that support whom they don't support?

It's incredibly obvious...which is why I'm voicing my distaste...

What's your point, exactly?

lol_gossip · 08-16-2011, 07:22 AM

Not only does his unearned sudden rise to importance on this site tilt me, but what is with his pic at the top of the page? Is that supposed to be his poker face? Or does he not like to smile for a picture that will pop up on thousands of computer screens world wide for the next few months?

TomCollins · 08-16-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulgibbo

Does anyone else find it offensive that 2+2 is promoting Gary Johnson?

Well I do. Sure he is on the right side of the poker player's agenda... but who, if anyone, would cast an important vote just for that?

Historically Repubs have been against online poker - bravo that a few have found a way to support it... (couldnt possibly have been financial, not moral)

And, if you are a right-wing Republican who has no problems with Johnson, what if...

the face of 'support' from 2+2 was Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinic (the two sanest legislators)...

Lets keep this a poker site, for poker players and not promote politicians who have to vote on a range of issues just because they are correct on one...

(And if 2+2 decided promoting Republican candidates was its 'right' - that might be true, but that would be the end of my participation and my dough)

I think you spelled insanest wrong.

Anais · 08-20-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lol_gossip

Yeah seems pretty trashy to just have a politicians face everywhere just cuz he likes the game of poker. He stands a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president, so why is his face all over the site? Gtfo imo

Is his face still everywhere after he couldn't pull the needed 2% or whatever it was to get on the Repub. debate/Ames straw poll or whatever?

paulgibbo · 08-20-2011, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by formula72

Since this country has been around politicians have been forcing for peoples votes over basic statements such as this. This is nothing new and will never end. We cant give someone the boot because he agrees with a side of ours whether morally or finacially and boot him becuase we dont know anything else about him.

what an absurd remark as a general statement... if we were to find out he was a paedophile, we'd take interest... of COURSE, when promoting a guy you care about what else he thinks and does.

and, picture your opposite on the poltical spectrum, Sanders or Santorum - if you found their face being promoted where you come to do your poker - would you not find it offensive.