15 votes

"Content on the Daily Paul is the opinion of the original poster, not necessarily of the Daily Paul"

To add to a post earlier directed at Jon, every post made to the DailyPaul contains this verbage in search engines such as Google, therefore even though the site may be private property, one would technically not be trespassing or amassing liability upon the site itself. The original poster is the one supplying their "opinion" which should be protected by the First Amendment if such a disclaimer is going to attach and indemnify the site of agreement or support, right?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Too True BUT

I am accused of being delusional for saying as much. BTW, since I pointed out the Most Contentious thread crap there are now LOTS of "most" threads all of a sudden. Not usual to my knowledge. Maybe I am reading too much into it. Not sure anymore. I KNOW I am not imagining the 403's though. Someone here is censor happy.


That thread was posted in 2012.

It is not a thread about you, just like "Most Viewed" and "Most Discussed" these threads/comments are automatically added.

As can be seen here, there are many different "Most" threads: http://www.dailypaul.com/most

Comments with the lots of down votes and up votes make it to the the "Most Contentious" thread.


Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard


The thread was posted this weekend and had all NEW comments on it. It was spite plain and simple. It's not there now. Go figure. Jon has the power to delete at will. I and others pointed the thread out and it is now gone. Not even sure we are dealing with Jon anymore. He is so un Jonish lately. Besides, my comment had 3 upvotes when it made that list. Sorry dude but I am not sure of your intent here either. I very seldom ever agree with you on any issue so I don't really pay attention to what you think.


I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

The thread was originally posted in 2012, not last weekend.

Every 6 hours it automatically updates itself with the latest comments that have a comparable downvote to upvote ratio, meaning that the comments are highly contentious because lots of people either upvoted or downvoted them.

If you don't get it now, then there is no use in me continuing to explain it to you.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard


Why would this comment make the most contentious list?

Submitted by skippy d on Sat, 05/11/2013 - 09:46. Permalink

They Deleted My Post

for thinking you should be a mod? Hmmmm. I thought you and Michael were friends. You contribute a great amount to this site. I see your logical and open-minded posts everywhere. Why SHOULDN'T you be a mod if you took a mind? Anyway, sorry to hear that. I personally don't agree with Jefferson that we are all out of control kids tearing down Michaels house while he's gone. I find that insulting. But I am too tired to worry about it anymore. BTW, I LOVE gsneil's comment.



If you are just tuning in...

certain users posting privileges have been revoked, typically the conversations in which Jon has been involved with, so as to remove ones ability to disagree with his personal moderation choices.

Others are not able to comment, others have had posts become 403'd for no other reason than Mod Power struggles.

Like I said, I have no problem with Jon, it just seems odd that the censorship tree has a similar root.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

You Have Censored More

threads and comments and alienated more people here in a week than Michael does in a year. How come you are even going so far as to turn off comments of threads that merely debate with your policy? That is the kind of crap they do on Fox Cnn etc and videos on youtube about Romney and Obama etc. It is chicken and turns people off. Stop using that BS about it being private property.