Defend Our Border A View From The Froint Lines
It's Long Past Time To Get Control of Our Borders
"ALWAYS REMEMBER
 Don't believe anything you read on this web page,
 or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal
 Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you
 already know to be true, or unless you have taken
 the time to research the matter to prove its
 accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as
 "doing your homework."" Neal Boortz
Number of Illegals Caught Today
Number Of Illegals Entering Arizona Today

Jim Kline Booted from StarNet for telling the truth

Print the article

This entry was posted on 5/1/2008 6:10 AM and is filed under Defend Our Border, TheRedStar.

Jim Kline Booted from StarNet for telling the truth.

Yesterday a close friend was booted from StarNet for telling it like it is. If you dare post the truth about the invasion of our home by millions of scumbags from Mexico the pro illegal alien Arizona Daily Star boots you.

Jim had many posts removed the last few days that did not violate the guidelines.

The posts were removed because they told the truth, a big crime in liberal Amerika.

I've asked Jim to send me his removed posts, when I get them I'll post them here so everyone can see how biased the liberals at the Arizona Daily Star are, then you can see how shopping at the advertisers in the Arizona Daily Star helps them sell out our State and Nation for the vote of the invader scum.

As always removed posts are welcome here as are your opinions.
===================================================================================



 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 5/1/2008 7:38 AM catwoman wrote:
      I'll miss Jim Kline's postings. His was the voice of reason and spoke for the vast majority of Americans. Perhaps the Star was displeased because Jim didn't stoop to name-calling and personal epithets like many of it's liberal cronies?
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 2:00 PM Anonymous wrote:
      Jim Kline was booted because azstarnet has a practice of censorship. Censorship is dangerous in our community because it leaves azstarnet as one of the few voices for us. Is anybody up to researching how to set up a local bulletin board in order to get "our" voice out?

      You have a board right here, it's free (to you) the problem is getting people to use it.

      H

      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 2:05 PM Anonymous wrote:
      Harry, I would hope you notice Bolton does not target JUST non-libs.

      The Star is one of the few local presses we have. Their censorship practice is a danger to our community.

      If ALL of us could ban together, we may have a chance to use new technology to stop local censorship within our community.

      True but forcing a change will only happen when advertisers understand we won't shop at stores that advertise in pro illegal alien paper.

      H
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 2:56 PM Jim K wrote:
      Harry here is am example of a post that was removed then used as a reason to boot me.

      "Jim K. (Jim Kline)



      Mr. Scott 35 Might I suggest the one upset about that post you site is the one in need of that "Grip" you rant about.



      My advice, no charge"




      Mr. Scott's post told another poster to "get a Grip" and was not rejected by the Bolton. But my reply was. Double standard.


      Can someone please show me where that violated the guidelines? I asked Bolton and he never answered because it did not violate his guidelines yet it was removed, not for any violation but to be used as a reason to boot me.
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 4:58 PM Harryiswrong wrote:
      It is much more likely that "Jim Kline" was booted because he is clearly Harry under a new name.

      Harry is being misleading on this topic to serve his agenda. Here's the truth about the "double standard". Scott's post was not removed because it was not reported. Only reported posts get removed.

      You can see from Scott's post #45, it still has the "Report this comment". Once a comment has been reported, and determined to be OK, that link is no longer there. Had somebody reported it, it likely would have been removed.

      http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/comments/index.php?id=236478

      Take a look at today's Letters to the Editor, once the first few posts are restored (because they were wrongly reported) there will no longer be a link to report the comment.

      Sorry to burst your agenda's bubble.

      As far as being "censored" when will ya'll understand that the Star is a private business, it's not a "right" of yours to use the site?
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 4:59 PM Harryiswrong wrote:
      Wait, what did that message say when I submitted a post? It has to be reviewed by the "moderator"? Now THAT'S a double standard
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Only in your tiny mind.
      Was your post remove?

      Even nonsense like yours is allowed.

      But because you are clearly to childish to understand I'll take the time to "splane" it to you in simple and small words.

      Boards like this get spammed by advertisers, a lot! And I'll not be responsible for allowing you to post threats, which the liberals are prone to doing.

      Post something that poses a danger or       liability and it will never be approved. It will be kept as evidence tho.

      Most adults understand this.

      H


      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 5:05 PM Anonymous wrote:
      Bolton does not follow "his" guidelines as for the reason to ban people. He, the Star, have ulterior motives and we will never know what they are. In my opinion, it's censorship for someone's benefit. The Internet is here and with a lot of work another form of press can be created for "our" communities.

      Harry, I don't believe this site can be used because it's for immigration discussions. It has an "ulterior" motive.

      I've checked a few bulletin boards. I didn't bookmark those, so will have to look around again and post suggestions here.

      Hmmmm good point about having a       "ulterior" motive tho I'm not sure I'd call it a "ulterior" motive.

      This board has a mission, no two missions. 

      DOB page is all about the border or should be tho I do often enough cross post the Red Star stuff. (My Bad)

      Which brings me to Mission #2 that is to wake up the people to the power they have to change the Red Star's blatant pro-invader agenda.

      Personally I think the Editors of The Star belong in prison for helping the invaders who want to turn our  State and our Country into a 3ed world cesspool like their beloved Mexico. But that's only my opinion.

      H

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 5:22 PM Anonymous wrote:
      I agree the Star is a private business, however their "private press business" is changing drastically due to the Internet. AND I wonder if Bolton's behavior (with the pressure from those above him) could possibly hasten a change locally.

      Times are changing. A private press can now be replaced with a more "free" press in order to block the danger of the customary "censored" press our communities became accustomed to.

      If another "press" came into being, it can attract advertisement such as google ads, etcetera. As an example, Harry's mantra of immigration possibly can attract Internet hits with words such as "immigration." (Someone HAS to be making money off this for sure and Google, Yahoo, a robot can find their revenue producing web site)
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 5:23 PM Harryiswrong wrote:
      Ah, OK. Checking posts due to Spamming is certainly understandable. As well as the threats. It's funny though, you make it sound like only "liberals" make threats. I assure you there are plenty of "conservatives" that make threats on sites run by "liberals".

      most adults understand that only posts are only removed if they are reported, do you understand this?

      Of course I understand that "       only posts are only removed if they are reported". There lies the rub, non liberals don't "report" every post they don't like the way whinny liberals do.

             Why does Bolton not have a employee reading all the posts? It's not that big of a job if you exclude the sports posts. No this way to be square the cons would have to morph into cry baby liberals then all you would see is one big "reporting" fight.

             The post in question did not violate the Red Stars Guidelines yet it was removed. Or can you show me where it did violate the guidelines? Please because I sure don't see it.
      H


      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 5:28 PM Harryiswrong wrote:
      (I hope this isn't a double post)

      Ah, OK. Checking posts due to Spamming is certainly understandable. As well as the threats. It's funny though, you make it sound like only "liberals" make threats. I assure you there are plenty of "conservatives" that make threats on sites run by "liberals".

      most adults understand that only posts are only removed if they are reported, do you understand this?
      It is. 2 is my  limit, any more and they stay in limbo.
      H
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 5:44 PM Harryiswrong wrote:
      "Of course I understand that " only posts are only removed if they are reported". There lies the rub, non liberals don't "report" every post they don't like the way whinny liberals do."

      Then why did you try to portray it as being different? Shame on you Harry, you knew how it worked and you intentionally mislead! I'm not surprised, that's been your game for a looooooong time.

      "Why does Bolton not have a employee reading all the posts? It's not that big of a job if you exclude the sports posts."

      $$$, that's why. You're right, it's not a big job, which would mean having somebody read them all would be a bigger waste of money.

      "The post in question did not violate the Red Stars Guidelines yet it was removed. Or can you show me where it did violate the guidelines? Please because I sure don't see it."

      It was clearly a personal attack, Harry. Just like you did back when you had your original screen name. Sorry that they realized it was you and booted you a 2nd time.

      Some things never change, Harry. Here you are on your site, attacking liberals while trying to act like your hands are clean. You're just as bad as you claim them to be. I'm sure your reaction will be one of denial. You'll never see the truth, which is sad.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I don't think I ever portrayed it as different.  My bitch is removing posts that never violated the guideline, then boot you for having so many posts removed.

      This seems to happen only to non liberals.
      Yes some liberals get booted most often when some liberal goes so far overboard The Red Star  can't look the other way, so they get booted.

      I asked you to point out how it was a personal attack. It simply SUGGESTED that it might be Scott who needs to get that grip not the person he attacked.

      Scott by attacking the other poster clearly violated the guidelines and so need some friendly advice which is what it was.

      So again, please show me how that post violated the guidelines. It was not a       ad hominem attack which is what is  prohibited and Scott did.

      H

      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 6:26 PM Anonymous wrote:
      I agree the Star is a private business, however their "private press business" is changing drastically due to the Internet. AND I wonder if Bolton's behavior (with the pressure from those above him) could possibly hasten a change locally.

      Times are changing. A private press can now be replaced with a more "free" press in order to block the danger of the customary "censored" press our communities became accustomed to.

      If another "press" came into being, it can attract advertisement such as google ads, etcetera. As an example, Harry's mantra of immigration possibly can attract Internet hits with words such as "immigration." (Someone HAS to be making money off this for sure and Google, Yahoo, a robot can find their revenue producing web site)
      Reply to this
    • 5/1/2008 6:51 PM Harryiswrong wrote:
      "I don't think I ever portrayed it as different."

      In your header you did. By stating that Scott's post wasn't removed when you knew it had to be reported to be removed, you did.

      Harry, Scott's post was a personal attack, as was your response that got removed. Yours was reported, his wasn't. They probably yanked your new screen name off quicker than they would other users as it was clear that you had a new screen name.

      "Scott by attacking the other poster clearly violated the guidelines and so need some friendly advice which is what it was."

      Scott's only "attack" was telling you to "get a grip". But when you said it back to him, it's not an attack? Do you see how foolish that is? You just lost your argument.

      Harry, here you are running around in circles like you always do. I pointed out that the post has to be reported to be removed, you acknowledged, but then you turn right back around and try the same tired argument.

      Have a nice evening, Harry.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I am having a great evening thanks,  1st off Scott attacked another poster not Jim.

      Jim's remark was not an "             ad hominem attack" because it was admonishing Scott for something he did. That is not a violation of the guide lines.

      What sort of administrator would remove a post like that and not go see why it was said allowing the original offender to go Scott free (pi) ?

      One with an agenda.

      H




      Reply to this
    • 5/15/2008 6:09 PM Not John Bolton wrote:
      John Bolton apparently answers to no one in regard to ban some posters from the Arizona Daily Star-rhoid messsage boards even when they have committed no offense under the terms and conditions for use of the boards, while tolerating other posters who agree with his pro-illegal alien agenda who constantly violate the terms and conditions for the boards.

      John Bolton is unethical, unmanly and a disgrace to his profession.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright . http://DEFENDOURBORDER.US. All rights reserved.