47 votes

Why Your Husband Was Banned from the Daily Paul

Originally titled: Why was my husband banned from the Daily Paul?

Tonight my husband, Brent Hartman, commented on the "Super Boycott of A&E already at 1,100,000+ likes..." thread. His subject line read, "Homosexuals are Clearly Confused." The body of his comment read,

On one hand they petition to have Christians fired for their religious views. On the other hand they sue Christians to force them to do business with them. A little consistency would be nice.

My husband then linked to two stories, one in the Washington Post, and one by Breitbart, which discussed a Christian photographer and a Christian baker that lost lawsuits for refusing to provide services to gay weddings.

My husband has been a member of the Daily Paul for nearly 6 years. Why would his comment get him banned? Was it wrong to point out that Christians have been forced to contract with gays? Is that not relevant to the discussion about the Duck Dynasty guy? Can the moderators here please provide us with an explanation?

- - - - -

Site Owner Nystrom's Response:

While I have addressed this below, my comments are likely to get buried as other comments pile up, so I will leave my response here:

I cannot take responsibility for other people's opinions, but as the owner of this site I can take responsibility for who is allowed to post here.

With regards to the specific comment:

Characterizing "homosexuals" as a kind of collectivist group is wrong-headed and shows a lack of understanding for the basic tenants of Liberty. What Ron Paul taught, and what those of us here should be aware of as a result, is that all people are individuals. To collectivize "homosexuals," or any other collection of individuals as such and ask that they behave in a consistent manner is not a position I wish to encourage or support.

Asking for some kind of "consistency" from a falsely created group is ridiculous. It would be like someone saying "Christians claim to be pro life, so why do Christians assassinate doctors who perform abortions? Some consistency would be nice."

Such reasoning sets up a false argument, a false choice, and I'm tired of this kind of low level divide-and-conquer, "culture wars" discussion on the Daily Paul. It is not interesting to me. I do not wish to participate in it, nor do I wish to subsidize it.

Before I make a ban, I always look at posting history, try to get an idea what this user is about, where he or she is coming from. What stood out when I reviewed your husband's posting history was this post:

Is Mitt Romney A Servant of Satan?

Somehow this post was missed by me and the moderators during election season. When I found it, I immediately unpublished it for the same reasons as stated above: This is not the kind of content I wish to use my time, resources and money to subsidize or support. I have since republished it not because I agree with it, but only as further illustration as to why I banned your husband.

A post like that speaks of a mindset. And a collectivizing comment like that speaks of a mindset. I have been running interactive web forums for over a decade, and I'm very familiar with where that type of a mindset leads and what it attracts. I've been there, done that, and don't wish to do it again, thanks.

If your husband comes from that mindset, that is his business. Fine. This is America. It is a free country. People can believe what they want. But to reiterate: It doesn't mean that I have to subsidize it with my time, money and labor, which is what the Daily Paul represents. I personally do no find this kind of MSM, divide-and-conquer, culture wars BS interesting or relevant, and do not wish to associate with it.

That is why I banned your husband from making further posts at the Daily Paul.

This site supports Liberty, but not some abstract concept of it. It supports Liberty in the very concrete sense, beginning with my own. I'll manage it and prune it as I see fit. On my property I'll associate with whom I choose.

If people don't like it, or think that I'm too heavy handed, fine. That is your opinion and your right. You can go elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it that is best for everyone.

Because I'm not going anywhere.

The Daily Paul is private property, it is not a public utility, available freely on an equal basis to everyone to (and abuse). Posting here is a privilege, not a right, as the posting guidelines clearly point out.

Obviously I reserve the right, and I do discriminate as to who I choose to associate with.

I hope this answers your question.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

All washed up & ready for come what may.

Steady work... clean up is. About 10 cubic yeards each. Or, Christmas shopping ...

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

I could be considered a conservative Christian--

and most of my 'church' friends are neo-conservatives who get very upset about "homosexuals" and "Muslims" or even, sadly, about people with brown skin--

It is the people with brown skin, in their minds, who are robbing *us* of America.

Well, Dr. Paul didn't feel that way. Even though some who wrote for him at one time said some inappropriate things about other races, Dr. Paul is a very inclusive man--

it is because of Dr. Paul that I came to understand that the government/state should have NO control over or licensing power over any kind of 'marriage'--

that these issues are private issues--

not in the public domain.

IF Dr. Paul were heeded by more people, there would be no war between collectivists.

Years before I came onto Daily Paul I had become highly suspicious of collectivism--

and then when I came on here I found a home. I do believe that Michael Nystrom represents Ron Paul's beliefs.

And there are a lot of people who appreciate that.

I think that the greatest danger to America are those who are dividing Americans based upon: race, marriage and economic 'class'--

Here on DP people of different races and religions and even different beliefs about marriage--

can come together and learn from each other.

Unfortunately, I am all too well acquainted with those who believe that the worst enemy "freedom" and America have are people with brown skins on welfare and homosexuals.

I've heard those arguments, and they take a person who believes in liberty on a train to nowhere--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Bunch of whiners... That's

Bunch of whiners... That's what I hear from both sides. Whaaaaaaaa!!! Someone hurt my feeeeeeelllinngs.... I'm going to cry....

Grow up babies. When I was young we had a saying (back when we could actually TOLERATE someone having a different viewpoint) "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me". It's hard to imagine but way back then (the 60's) we would even tell someone we were going to "kill" them if we were mad enough at them. It's no wonder this country is falling apart, everyone has their pet peeve and if someone speaks against it they about have a heart attack.

Ya know what? I'm a "Christian Anarchist"... I get it from both sides but I let the attacks roll off like water off a ducks back (oops, can I say "duck" here?)

Beware the cult of "government"...

well...

here's my opinion.

Brent was nowhere near the annoyance level of another poster..

yet... (sigh)

nevermind.

The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.

- Calvin Coolidge

Bottom line: No one should

this all started because of a TV SHOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Bottom line:

No one should ever be Discriminated & fired from a job based on religious beliefs.

You're all jerks for wasting anytime of your day on this topic, including me.

End Thread!
End Thread!
End Thread!

Support the Daily Paul by using this link when you visit Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=bullnotbull-20&lin...

Daily Paul will earn a commission on all of your purchases.

...

Well said. It would be nice to prune some of the police and harassers as well. Collectivism, titles and labels may be worst.

HOMO. Lat. A man; a human being; male or female; a vassal, or feudal tenant; a retainer, dependent, or servant.

SEX. The distinction between male and female; or the property of character by which an animal is male or female.

SODOMY. The crime against nature; carnel copulation, against the order of nature, by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner with woman, or with a beast.

-Black's Law Dictionary, 1st Ed.

Look up some more...
http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

...

Down vote the Dictionary all you want. We call this denial.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

The truth is,

My husband is very sad. Very sad. For him the Daily Paul died. The sad thing is that he was not alone. It died for other people as well. It's not Brent who is forcing people away. He doesn't have that power. That belongs to the owner of the house. Please escort me to the door, Mr. Nystrom

Michael Nystrom's picture

As per your wish

.

He's the man.

I'm glad your husband was banned.

I left the DailyPaul, because I simply couldn't stand bigots like your husband. I'm Catholic. The bigots here have also attacked me. Bigotry has no place HERE or the liberty movement in general. It's not compatible. Move along and form a church and create your own website. This is a liberty website, not a website focused on creating a theocracy.

deacon's picture

what a lair

You attacked everyone with your bigotry remarks
because your church was called into question
You are the worse bigot I have met here on the DP
You just hide behind your religion,and call people names for questioning it.
If you left,maybe you should still be gone,oh and your nonsensical drivel with you

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I came back to the DP when the Duck

commander made his comments to see what the reaction would be. I was not surprised by all the support he received here. Micheal Nystrom, by posting this thread, has given me HOPE. The individuals that attacked me and my faith did more than attack my "church". Bigotry is far more dangerous when the individual bigots refuse to admit what they are. Their bigotry and refusal to admit it, presents a very dangerous threat to liberty in this country. Ban them ALL.

deacon's picture

Well then

You should be banned first,you said it yourself,you are a bigot who refuses to see it.And the worst type.You hide behind it,and then try to bash others with your own form of it,You deny the scripture,but do try to use this against others,there is no love in you,there is no liberty.You,yourself will be your own downfall
The only reason you came back was this,you wanted to try to bash others
for their own personal beliefs.Denying others their own,is not liberty nor freedom,you have a quagmire.You cannot hate one group,but profess to love one another.The only freedom you want is for your own,and oh so willing to deny others their own,and just for seeing things differently.Deny that

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Nice rant.

It makes no sense. I never debated "scripture" etc. I am simply Catholic. That's all it took for me to be attacked. We are dealing with extremists here. Bigots. I suggest you look up the word and contemplate it. Bigots don't really want liberty. They want a country of individuals that share their beliefs. Not diversity. They don't want true liberty and they have no business pretending to be in the Liberty Movement.

Mr Nystrom

Can you explain then, how Christians can express their belief that homosexual acts are wrong without being fired, censored, or banned?

Or are they not allowed to voice dissent, even on a "liberty" website? Your response to that woman's question was pompous and dictatorial. You even spoke for Ron Paul. Why don't you quote him. I can, "Other people have no right to impose their definition of marriage on me."

You can delete my account as well.

If I may

add my view, not for Mr. Nystrom, but myself...

Dr. Ron Paul, as a politician, was openly Christian. However, he said he wouldn't let his own beliefs trump his oath of office. I don't think Dr. Paul would have any problem participating here.

For example, if we were discussing gay marriage issues he could state his view, which by the way (as you remind us) is that people shouldn't have others impose their definitions of marriage on them. He might say, and I think he has said, as a Christian he doesn't agree with gay marriage.

That IMO isn't inciting intolerance/hate. It would be different if Dr. Paul posted a new separate thread saying "Homosexuals are blah blah blah" or "Satan is happy with so and so" . In doing that he is promoting a position which can encourage intolerance. See the difference?

What?

Then why do we have a 1st Amendment?

Maybe you should re-write it: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, unless it encourages intolerance and makes me feel anything but warm, fuzzy, and accepted.

you're really starting from

you're really starting from square 1 if you think the 1st amendment has anything to do with voicing opinions here.

The First Amendment

wasn't written for, and does not apply to private property.

If you're in my house I can kick you out whenever the hell I want.

Mr. Nystrom put clearly in his response it's not his right to tell people what to think. He isn't trying to.

But by that same token he sure as hell doesn't have to allow people to promote intolerance standing on his back. If you or anyone is dying to promote some intolerant religious, racial etc. view then go find somewhere to do so. That's not the mission of this site (as I understand it).

I can but I won't

Okay, so if the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, how is it then that the government can mandate who I can and can't serve based purely on their 'lifestyle' choices?

In other words, if A&E has the right to fire a guy based purely on his Christian beliefs, then I as a private entity damn sure have the right to deny service to someone whose values are immoral and antithetical my own.

Ah but see, that's just not how it works now is it? Which is what the poster was getting at... and banning someone simply for pointing this out is a mistake however you slice it.

Ya know, I didn't say anything when Michael went out of his way to coddle a certain shill... despite their being ostracized by the entire community for repeatedly spreading misinfo (long time users know exactly who I'm talking about here). But this is too much. I thought this site was supposed to be about the constitution, and the freedom to say what's on our minds, not based around the admins own personal MO.

So go ahead and cancel my acct too. And keep defending crap like zionism and the homosexual agenda, all in the name of "liberty". I'm sure the good Dr. Paul would be proud. phht.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
https://www.youtube.com/user/dasruda

'Twas the week before Christmas...

This post and the debate/arguments that have followed in the comment section just make me plain sad.

Guess we better start packing our virtual bags because I don't see how Mr. Nystrom can deal with people's BS much longer. You can feel the strain in his replies.

Selective thinking

Well if you were proving a point and the point was "many individuals who have the need to state: "individualism versus collectivism"" do not necessarily like to be kicked out of groups they feel they belong to and won't hesitate to kick someone out of their group" .... then you proved your point ... uhhh ... both of you did. :/

What does that say about these concepts? individualism or collectivism?

To me it says we have "selective" thinking (brought on by our own experiences and beliefs) about the concept of individualism and collectivism. Our selective thinking keeps evolving.

Today I read that an individual with Down Syndrome has been accepted to attend a four year college. My thoughts have changed, I admit I use to group all Down Syndrome individuals destined to be dependent on the state. No matter how I scream "Individual Liberty" I still have my collective thoughts.

All I ask for Christmas this year is "World Peace".

Many days I envy Michael

Many days I envy Michael Nystrom this would not be one of those days. I don't imagine having to put up with and answer for this garbage is what you signed up for. You OWE none of us an explanation.

Pedantic, perhaps for most of

Pedantic, perhaps for most of you, but I find myself wondering what's even meant by collectivism in the context of speech -- or, I suppose, even the context of a concept.

We have words that we use to to delineate groups among all of humanity in order to speak and discuss more clearly and succinctly. These are collective nouns and adjectives. We recognize, and the definitions of such words often state, that such words are applied broadly to groups and don't mean there aren't exceptions or even inaccuracies.

If we are too uptight about collective speak, we lose a lot of pretty valuable words and it seems to me that our speech would get laughable wordy.

For example, if I conceive of your use of the word "woman" as the collective for a group of humans who have vaginas, that's a pretty nifty shorthand to allow us to know what type of people we're talking about. If I get all upset because your use of the word doesn't take into account the women who don't have vaginas (yes, there are some who have had their v's removed for medical reasons), then we don't get to talk about the actual subject you had in mind. We end up arguing about the injustice of collectivizing individuals. Or simple stuck without words to talk about a set of humans with generally agreed upon characteristics.

It may be that there are lots of homosexuals who don't want anyone fired for expressing anti-homosexual views. It may be that there are lots of homosexuals who don't want to force business owners to do business with anyone who doesn't appeal to them. I don't know.

But coming down on speech because it uses a handy collective noun...well, it feels weird. Rather than discuss the actual issue, we get caught up in second guessing what words are "safe words."

It feels like the words are running roughshod over us rather than being tools -- and always imperfect ones at that -- to express and share ideas.

I enjoy the DP. Mostly as a daily check for liberty news. Secondly, as a quick way to follow how folks are digging into issues/ideas from a political philosophy. Sometimes to take ideas I'm playing with out for a spin. Sometimes because something someone writes either provokes me to admiration or irritation.

I'm not sure I could figure out how to not use collective nouns for people in some way that wouldn't get someone's panties in a wad. We all have our pet issues with this or that part of a collective idea. I may not like it that someone assumes a vagina when he or she uses the collective "woman." Micheal may not like it that certain political views are assumed when someone uses the word "homosexual." Collective nouns are always in a state of flux. People change; groups of people change. The character traits we assume when using collective nouns change -- slowly, contentiously at times.

Nystrom smaller than website

I come to this website not because it is run any differently than any other website, but because of the content other people post. I understand you legally own this site, but YOU specifically are not the reason people browse this website. In your statement, to me, You come across as being a bit full of yourself. For you to say "I know where that kind of mindset leads" is just a another biased generalization from a person who was irked by a comment with which you don't agree. Kinda reminds me of the DuckDynasty fiasco.... That being said, I am a daily visitor here and commend the work you've put into overseeing this website.......I just hope I don't start seeing a lot of bans here and bans there when it comes to peoples personal opinions!

Actually Michael

you should consider changing the sites name to Daily Nystrom - don't forget to add the portrait.

Oh please

I can completely see Michaels desire to keep this site in compliance with the emphases on the individual and not get into the collective mindset of "group think" as Ron Paul has championed. Its not the daily Nystrom, it's the Daily Paul and anything said here can be a reflection on Ron Paul, and Michael has a ethical responsibility to protect that. It is troubling that any thing said about race is immediately considered racism, that's a shame for our country as well as the libertarian movement. I would like to quote Walter Williams who said, "The government has done what Jim Crow laws and slavery could not do, and that is the break up of the black family"

Maybe if these racial issues are put into that perceptive, we can understand that the governments well intended programs have devastated not just the black, but lower income white families as well. Maybe we can put blame where blame is do and not think of it as racial thing, but as a big government failing and offer a libertarian solution. Oh, my answer to D-503s racist comments, for what its worth.

http://www.dadsworld.com/parenting-statistics/importance-of-...

I agree with everything you stated regarding racism

but the fact of the matter is, the post in question has nothing to do with Racism. All the original post did was claim the fact that the Majority of Gays are hypocrites.

Don't really know why Romney being Satan's follower was even inserted into the argument. Got me there.

I know what the post was referring to

banning people for comments. Many of the comments on this post mentioned racism, dislike for being gay, marijuana users, demeaning certain groups for religions reasons, etc. One of the reasons Ron Paul was attractive to so many of us is that he was able to allow us to understand that it's about the individual and not the group collective.
Its too easy to simply paint any group with a wide brush and that causes divisions that's not healthy. Having come over to the Ron Paul individual freedom philosophy for me has been enlightening and it's the right mindset to have.
i don't even hate the Harley Davidson biker group anymore, but I still wish they would put mufflers on those damn things! LOL

There are times his ego gets in the way, yes

I agree with you. Sometimes people we don't entirely love/respect make a product we like. I don't have to view Bill Gates as a great guy to use Windows. Conversely, one can decide that an individual's behavior goes so far that patronizing their business is unseemly. For instance, I won't eat at Chik fil A. But that's a personal choice.

I've left DP several times because of Michael's management decisions. He gets to make those calls. And I get to make the call about whether or not to stay, leave, return, post, donate, etc.

So, I find this comment humorous and am troubled by those who downvoted it. It's as if we have a Cult of Nystrom here sometimes.