Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Thriller, May 9, 2017.
Clinton was elected Pres in 1992.
so this is why Dutch got banned???? trolling????
unibomber was something of a "liberal", some say. The dude who shot up the congressional R baseball practice was pretty much dedicated to making the world safe, and free from Trump-like Republicans.
It is actually factual that the Democrat Party from the Civil War era down to this time has quite a number of notable racists leading tickets and active in the party. Fulbright was Bill Clinton's most beloved/influential. Byrd the KKK man was a Democrat.
With Democrats I think I could make a fair case..... with reasonable balanced points pro and con.... that exploitation of race is pretty much a tactic.
People probably don't like the truth much, generally.
That's why freedom of speech is a necessary line item on human rights, and I would argue that we have a predominant sort of JFC member in the politics club that really doesn't like basic human rights.
Dutch was a necessary anti-dote to the stifling suppression of points of view I see in here. You need Dutch to pretend to be reasonable folks with a little humor or tolerance.
I see Bullet openly talking about and advocating running people outta here. You don't think that is offensive.
I have lost respect I once had for Colton since he followed Mitt's RINO hate campaign against Trump.
I respect Sean Hannity. I didn't back in the day when he wasn't a big supporter of Ron Paul. There was the crazy music intro. But basically I see him as asking important questions of the status quo existing in the D party, a R loyalist. I look for his sources, and he does have facts pretty well lined up in regard to the Clinton scandals and the DumpTrump campaign.
I don't care to try to have "reasonable" conversations with those in here who are still beating the drums on "collusion" between Trump and Putin. I mean I'm sure Putin might have tried, but he had a whole lot more business with Hillary.
totally discredited campaign against Trump.
You can try and spin this however you want, no one really cares. But for the record.
Dutch was banned for repeatedly making offensive comments an various subjects such as women, muslims and the political left. He was unable to express his views in anything other than an over the top, aggressive and offensive manner and he more then earned his ban. He was neither enlightening or a fresh take on issues because he chose not to. He refused to be despite me asking him to. Repeatedly.
As for @colton, he has done far more to build up, promote and sustain this site than you have. he is also far more promoting of discussion and rational debate than you are. Something that is far more deserving of respect. Also he didn't issue the final ban, I did. Happily, I might add.
As for @Bulletproof, he has openly advocated for a ban on dutch. Loudly and frequently. But it has only been Dutch he wants gone not "people" as you state. The way I see it is this. If I say good morning to someone and that person yells at me that person is a douche. If I say good morning to the next half dozen people I see and they all yell at me then I am probably doing something wrong. That's what he have here. Many posters have a problem with Dutch and few with Bullet. So in this case it's Dutch that is the problem not Bullet.
In short, "insert a bunch of things that would get me a warning with points or a ban".
Dutch had bad manners. I don't like people that can't conduct them self with a reasonable level of decency. That's why Dutch got banned, after possibly 100s of reported posts over the years. After several small suspensions and a few large suspensions. I absolutely did want Dutch gone. But I hadn't reported any of his posts for over a month because I had him on ignore.
Babe, this will be something like the 5th or 6th time I've had to remind you of this...
Between 2008-2012 I posted A LOT about the libertarian point of view. I considered myself a libertarian leaning towards objectivism. At that time you showered me with praise, sent me pos reps telling me to keep up the good fight, responded to threads telling people they need to listen to what I'm saying.
But there was always a problem there. For one, no one would believe me when I said I believed in the libertarian ideology I was advocating for as a philosophical point of view, not a practical political point of view. I would frequently say "You can't get there from here," meaning that libertarianism, as I envisioned it, was not something that could be inserted into the U.S. piecemeal. But that didn't mean I didn't believe in libertarian ideals. Well, I got tired of that misunderstanding. I got tired of advocating for a libertarian fantasy that could never exist in my world. So, eventually I stopped talking about the fantasy of a bright shining libertarian future and now talk more about the world we actually live in and ways to make that world work as well as possible, regardless of which side of the aisle wins or loses.
I believe in personal liberty. I believe that each of us owns our own existence and that we have no inherent obligation to anyone else other than our minor children. I believe that all interactions between people should be voluntary. I believe in the concept of non-initiation of force. I believe that lying, stealing, cheating and coercion are types of force one often uses against another, especially those in a position of power used against those in who are in need.
But all you see in me now is that I'm some sort of agent of George Sooros and a liberal trying to what, silence someone advocating for libertarianism. Babe, I could help dutch really understand what libertarianism means, instead of the elementary school version of it he has advocated for here. I'm not afraid of points of view I expressed FAR more successfully than Dutch ever has.
So who is it here who is hiding from the truth? You are babe. It's you.
Hey so anyway looks like we're either in the middle of or well on our way to a full blown constitutional crisis. Hello? Anyone?
When I came here, it's true as you say I found reasons to see the good in you. I used to have a good time with OneBrow because he took the time of day to try to straighten me out.... after actually listening to what I said.
I think the turning point in my view of you came when I was prattling about oh whatever... herbal remedies, maybe.... and you rolled out the hate and started asking who the hell I thought I was knowing as much as you thought I thought I did. I think in all fairness you applied that hate over a period of time, and it was evident you intended to run me outta here.
So I'm saying.... I think your claim about being exclusive to wanting to run Dutch out is false. I remember some other that have been treated that way in this forum, and I don't recall you standing up for any of them.
I think Stoked is just dead wrong.
I took Dutch as being perhaps abrupt, taunting, mocking, and insulting.... but I could see his point vis a vis the self-adulating politically correct fashions of thought prevailing in some peoples current views. The way you can tell when you're actually wrong is just this: If you can't bear being mocked, you are likely really, really wrong.
He indeed lacked manners and tact. He lives somewhere.... say in Holland as he claims..... says he's Jewish and black. When I was in Israel there were quite a lot of Ethiopian Jews there. Many of them were the most orthodox believers you could find. Standing at the wailing wall doing their prayers.
If he is Ethiopian, he's come from places where his life has indeed been under attack. I don't think he was all that bad you couldn't laugh a bit sometimes or actually enter into a discussion of his points.
Dutch I think had a valid point of view. He was sad to see America going down the drain, so to speak, as the world's bastion of true hope..... human liberty and human rights.... under a rising sea of "liberal" statism.
Well that feeling is certainly mutual Babe.
Republican congressional investigation has gone to achieve some facts, unlike the Mueller campaign. It looks to me like several of Hillary's supporters maybe even Hillary herself might be charged with actual crimes.... and not just for fibbing under investigations. Kinda useless to prosecute Hillary.... except to clearly set a precedent that others will notice. She's coming apart at the seams, and the Dems have dumped the losers, this time.
The congressional doings have lacked support from Trump. Trump and Sessions have pointedly declined to express any support at all for charging Hillary with anything, or for charging Mueller and others for the crimes they've done. Trump is not a divider. Our mainstream Press ownership are the dividers.
Trump has more bona fides as a dealmaker, as someone willing to listen to his opposition and try to get them onboard with his goals in some way or another. That's what's he's doing with the DACA. He knows it's a bad move politically to hit the kids, even if they're 30 already. He's giving the dems a clear choice.... cooperate or look dumb.
The constitutional crisis is whether or not we are going to make a clear start at holding government officials accountable and subject to the laws of the land, or whether we're just gonna keep on filling up the corporate-contract jails with potheads. Jailhouses are perhaps the lushest cash cows ever invented by fascists. Trump will have to dump Sessions if he wants to focus on cleaning the crooks outta the gov.
I'll go ahead and give yall the cheat sheet, The Honest Congressmen List(people who really are only in politics because they view it as work, fighting for the ideals of Thomas Jefferson):
Up to 3!
If dutch is jewish and black i'm the mother superior of the local convent school for girls. I had him on ignore for ages, some of the stuff he posted was deeply offensive, frankly if a bloke spoke to me like or shouted stuff like that in pub i'd clock him. Good riddance.
well, you gotta be you, and I don't really care a whole lot about moderating the mods. I got to see a little more of Dutch than you did. He sent me some really good information he thought I'd be interested in. Stuff about his religion. I hope he'll come back.
Y'all want to know a great line to blow people's minds!??
Try this one:
We should haven't women's rights, african american's rights, gays right's. They should be no distinction.
We are all supposed to have the same rights, there is no need to divide!
https://qcodefag.github.io/ <-- updated record of posts from an supposed military intelligence source close to the President
I have no desire to run you out of here. I have never, as far as I can remember, reported a single post of yours. I have said multiple times that while I may disagree with you on specific points, you are being honest and you are, in your own special kind of way, trying to find truth. Both for your benefit and for the benefit of those who have a dialogue with you.
But you are absolutely ridiculously esoteric so much of the time. It makes it hard to take you seriously. And them come the accusations of ulterior motives. And then comes the pigeonholing of people who are disagreeing with you. And then comes the grand evil conspiracies, of which you imagine forum members are party to. It gets silly babe.
Cool rant bro. Just in case anyone was wondering I was referring to the legislation passed by Congress, signed by the president that he is unwilling to enact. Legislation that was passed to sanction Russia in response to their criminal behavior in the 2016 election. Seems bad.
maybe I didn't notice all that. maybe it was his shtick. I saw a little humor in his taunts about folks like you.
I have had people mock me sometimes, but I laughed with them sometimes too. Or I just felt sorry for the stupidity I took it as. And sometimes they were just right.
owning your own thinking is an accomplishment some folks never see as a necessary thing in life. So comfortable to be agreeable, to fit in, to run with the trend. It always attracts mockery from ignoramuses and well-educated conformists alike. Some folks in here could mock right back and be done with the issue when he got obnoxious. I don't think that's all wonderful and I don't think deliberate insults are really cool. If you have a something worthwhile to share on a point, you deserve some tolerance and respect.
I tried to suggest some points of manners to Dutch, but I think he's just on the edge with actual threats at hand in his life, and deeply worried that we're sinking into a sort of "Prison Planet" government system. I know there's a lot of folks who see it pretty much the opposite, sincerely, and feel we're working things out to make the world a more humane place. But it is my hypothesis that Dutch lives under circumstances... where ever that may really be.... that reasonably can be that alarming.
I have noticed a number of articulate advocates for American constitutional principles and limited governance coming from places like Iran, Russia, various Eastern European places and even China where in general I think the public has gone against totalitarianism. Dutch might have some similar life experience.
The British and Western European and American governments are trending towards totalitarianism generally. I see some folks in here like Red and maybe Bullet, and Colton for sure, who see Trump as the figurehead of that fear, perhaps. There's pushback now against it in all those places.
Marxism and other utopian ideals are pretty much failed ideologies. We really need to address practical realities. Trump is seen as a hopeful start in that direction, and while he's plenty smart he lacks polish. Well, we're never gonna get really polished practical leaders. You can be one or the other, not both. But some manners will go a long ways towards winning public support. Mitt has the manners, but his association with the Bush dynasty and established politicians means he really would not clean house.
We need to clean house.
I follow Russia stuff. As soon as we started the Russia meddling probe, he went to his equivalent of Congress and did a huge rant about investigating how the US is meddling in Russian politics.
I think he'll have a damning case against us if we push any case against him. I think the sanctions are childish.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the president neglecting his duties under the constitution to enact laws passed by Congress.
I think you superimpose some bias on your analysis. But I could hardly deny being a bit silly when I proudly claim I often laugh at myself.
You're not the only one who has ever thought I must be a knowitall, either.
It's a fairly common error to oversimplify another person with labels or boxes or pigeonholes. We all resent and deny such labels.