|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On April 06 2016 05:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:46 brian wrote:On April 06 2016 05:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On April 06 2016 05:25 brian wrote:
let he who is without sin cast the first stone That allusion kinda falls short, unless I missed the passage where the adulteress was bragging about her past adultery. what? the quote isn't about the victim of the stoning...? rather that* only those who have not been banned should criticize the previously banned. Fine. BOOO. Down with jealous!!! Evil PBU! Am I doing it right?
Haters gon' hate, been 9 years it still ain't stop me from being me.
EDIT:
On December 01 2012 02:36 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 13:41 Jealous wrote:
Just want to bump this to officially say that I am sharing the crown with CharlieMurphy as of a few weeks ago. 1. Nothing to be proud about. 2. So you are fanatacist? I couldn't have guessed. Apparently, bans do work to better one's posting. You are one of the very few people who left a long-lasting impression on me when I joined TL - mainly due to a plethora of very obnoxious posts...
See, I've gotten better though!
|
if anyone wants to see the post
On April 06 2016 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 06 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 04:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Why are you belaboring the obvious about voter suppression? This is 100% voter suppression, but don't pat yourself on the back about how you're particularly enlightened on the issue. It's something you didn't give a single crap about (one might even venture to say you didn't even know about it) about until, what, 4 months ago? I live in the South and I live this shit. Around election time, I volunteer to help disadvantaged voters make sure they had everything they need to vote so they don't have problems (they still do). People who have actually spent time on the issue find your attitude insanely off-putting. gtfo with that bullshit. You know I'm fucking black, if you think this is the first I've cared about voter suppression you're dumber than I was giving you credit for. You going to man up on NY or bitch out? I know you're black, and I really don't give a shit. It doesn't automatically mean you understand the sort of shit that people where I live deal with. It's a stupid bet and we've already got a much better one going on. You sound incredibly immature with that nonsense about manning up. It means you should watch you mouth before saying I don't know or give a crap about it. It's offensive as all hell and you don't know a fucking thing about what I know about it obviously. I have family that hasn't been able to vote because of voter suppression laws and I fucking mentioned it during Obama's 12 run on this damn forum. so you can shove that nonsense where you keep your head. Here's me in 2014 talking about it. Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 20:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2014 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2014 20:04 RvB wrote:On April 05 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote:*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy  I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars? the vote ID laws aren't going to stop people from voting. We've had them for years in the Netherlands and i've never heard anybody who won't vote because he has no ID. Even the far left parties don't think it's a bad idea here. The difference is that the ID's are mandatory in general over here. When the Republicans tried to introduce Voter ID laws they did so on very short notice before the elections. The Courts actually struck it down because of that. Plus I believe IDs are more expensive in the US aswell. Yes and there are people in the south without birth certificates or the ability to drive with the closest place to obtain an ID being dozens of miles away. Several reasons they were a bad idea particularly implemented like they were. Also it wasn't just ID laws it was also attempts to reduce voting. They tried to reduce early voting, same day registaration, voting hours, voting locations, and more. It was blatantly clear to everyone but republican zealots that it was a direct attempt to suppress democracy and democratic leaning voters. This guy had to step down after letting the cat out of the bag... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-23-2013/suppressing-the-voteafter the interview caught backlash he decided to double down. "The comments that were made, that I said, I stand behind them. I believe them," "To tell you the truth, there were a lot of things I said that they could've made sound worse than what they put up." User was temp banned for this post.
|
wow that list brings back some memories. Im in the double digits for bans but I haven't been actioned on in quite some time
|
The US politics thread might almost be readable for the next two days o.0
|
The primary results are gonna be a lot less interesting without him though.
|
As much as I disagree with GH's presentation and argument style, he definitely contributes a great deal to the thread. Whenever I feel inclined to throw a "fuck" into my post, I know its time to take a step back 
|
|
|
Ayeeeeee. Like seriously. Green. We know your passion but, seriously.
|
fun fact.
GH has more than 4,250 posts in the politics thread.
farvacola (op and all around shitposter) has only 1,640 posts in his own thread.
|
There's always a bigger shitposter
|
I think we need to look at shit/post to truly determine who is the greater one 
|
Damn, GH was always a pretty vocal guy but I'd never expect him to be banned.
|
On April 06 2016 07:28 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Damn, GH was always a pretty vocal guy but I'd never expect him to be banned.
He is imo a little to invested in the Bernie campaign and its effecting his temper when people don't buy the spin.
Its been let slide a lot but I guess some people had enough and they kept pushing him about false statements.
|
Well, the ban was after a heated exchange in which he got a ban and the other guy got a warn.
But yeah, politics gets heated sometimes. Especially international politics where people have very polarized opinions, but in domestic politics as well.
|
Gh bud.... I know you'll be back
|
I'm not surprised to see him get a tempban; while productive, he's had a tendency to cause some problems for a long time.
|
Well I think I got a clean record, so can everyone that has gotten even an official warning please line up, so I can throw stones at you, tyvm. Maybe also put a sign around your neck saying what bad things you've done so I know why I'm throwing stones at you.
|
i posted a sexy pikachu and the sjw tl mods were triggered.
On July 21 2012 09:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:23 Synwave wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
gloves have come off. all out ABL brawl. You and me, in taiwan (I dont trust your japanese influence in the orient) we fight over the pet! pikachu, i choose you~! + Show Spoiler +User was warned for this post
|
On April 06 2016 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:i posted a sexy pikachu and the sjw tl mods were triggered. Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 21 2012 09:23 Synwave wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
gloves have come off. all out ABL brawl. You and me, in taiwan (I dont trust your japanese influence in the orient) we fight over the pet! pikachu, i choose you~! + Show Spoiler +User was warned for this post
I know this isn't the place to complain about moderation, but I'm puzzled by this. This woman seems happy and not in any way oppressed or forced into this costume. It's not NSFW in terms of nudity. The context might be slightly forced but is by no means completely out of the blue. What gives?
|
On April 06 2016 08:59 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:i posted a sexy pikachu and the sjw tl mods were triggered. On July 21 2012 09:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 21 2012 09:23 Synwave wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
gloves have come off. all out ABL brawl. You and me, in taiwan (I dont trust your japanese influence in the orient) we fight over the pet! pikachu, i choose you~! + Show Spoiler +User was warned for this post I know this isn't the place to complain about moderation, but I'm puzzled by this. This woman seems happy and not in any way oppressed or forced into this costume. It's not NSFW in terms of nudity. The context might be slightly forced but is by no means completely out of the blue. What gives?
1) I sure don't want that crap on my screen at work. I don't care about context.
2) Google seems to run a pretty strict (automated) categorisation, and TL doesn't want to be in the nsfw category, as you get less add money I think. Or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.geekologie.com/2009/07/30/pika-6.jpg)
