|
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/ |
You never know, maybe the next US president is a TLer.
|
On June 04 2018 05:26 micronesia wrote:
I lost interest in his future here when I pointed out it's actually a bad idea for Germany to just forget about the nazis and he ignored it.
He recently asked about Le Penn and if her father believed in racial purity or had killed people. He framed it as this rhetorical question where the automatic answer would be “no”. He seems to be all about forgetting the terrible acts of recent history.
|
If the next US president is a TLer I don't expect him to conduct policy through TL. Then again the current US president makes policy from Fox news and through twitter, so that would be a step up.
|
On June 05 2018 06:24 a_flayer wrote:
Your country is a joke.
User was temp banned for this post.
a_flayer was just temp banned for 30 days by BigFan.
That account was created on 2010-04-28 04:12:55 and had 1745 posts.
Reason: For crying out loud, why would you think that your recent US pol post is reasonable especially in a thread where the rules have been changed to help promote discussion? What were you thinking? Was there really no better way than to say that you disagree?
You've been banned from similar threads before and your mod history is already starting to fill up. Here's a nice month off so that you don't post as terribly next time. Please heed thread rules in the near future!
This BigFan response haha
|
sc-darkness was just temp banned for 1 week by KwarK.
That account was created on 2017-08-15 04:42:15 and had 671 posts.
Reason: Hey, buddy, you're posting like a cunt would post.
Work on that.
I feel somewhat vindicated now for the ban kwark gave me a while back, wherein I insinuated that he (scdarkness) was some combination of rude, autistic and stupid. The only suprise I have is that it took this long, given his propensity to walk into loaded threads, take an asinine, insulting position and then leave 2 posts later.
I feel greasy even posting in this cess pool of a thread, eugh.
|
Ironically his shitposting did more to promote discussion than the new rules. He just happened to be the worst part of it 
|
There are times when I question if he ever looked at a globe or just thought all nations were the same size.
|
Mohdoo was just temp banned for 2 days by BigFan.
That account was created on 2007-08-10 02:28:39 and had 9948 posts.
Reason: You got warned recently about calling people out. No need to post such remarks that can start a shitshow in the thread!
Alas, his remarks were correct
|
On June 08 2018 20:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +Mohdoo was just temp banned for 2 days by BigFan.
That account was created on 2007-08-10 02:28:39 and had 9948 posts.
Reason: You got warned recently about calling people out. No need to post such remarks that can start a shitshow in the thread! Alas, his remarks were correct
You mean mine, right?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 08 2018 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant to West Virginia. It's not. GH just posts inflammatory things so that people will respond to him so that he can have another one of his rants about embracing the left. This has happened a million times and it will just keep happening. This thread regularly goes through phases with GH tries to get as many people to reply to him as possible. User was temp banned for this post.
...well, Mohdoo does post like that once in a while.
|
Mods called out Mohdoo for callouts. Very meta.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 09 2018 03:10 Danglars wrote:
Mods called out Mohdoo for callouts. Very meta.
Too bad piss is in Disneyland or else he would call the mods out for it.
|
On June 09 2018 10:36 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 10:27 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 09:57 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 09:31 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 09:05 Kyadytim wrote:On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. I didn't say that he was a Nazi sympathizer who was okay with the holocaust. I said that he is like someone who was willing to completely ignore all of the harm of voting for the Nazis might bring about (and boy did it bring about harm) because he likes how voting for them might benefit him. The point is that historically, we know what happens when people do this. It leads to things like the holocaust. I did not say that he wanted to kill me. I said that his espousal of policies that if implemented would be good for him but also extremely bad for me makes his willingness to ignore the negative consequences to me of his votes for himself a threat to my life. There's a huge difference between what I said and the foul tasting words you shoved into my mouth to disguise what I said. EDIT: I'm also Jewish by decent if not in practice, so Danglars literally defends the rights of the ideological heirs of people who killed my ancestors to continue advocating for that ideology. Liberal hostility to white supremacists and how that infringes on their free speech is pretty much the only issue Danglars gets really passionate about in this thread. So anyway, he votes for people who will defend the neo-nazi's right to advocate nazi ideology and also have promised to remove as much of the changes to US law that ensure I can get health care as they possibly can. There's not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. There's really not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. You said he and people like him are a threat to your life. You compared him to people that supported the nazis. Your edit is even more explicit in connecting conservatives and nazis by calling conservatives the "ideological heirs to nazis". Danglers gets passionate about a lot of things you're the one thats trying to frame him specifically as a nazi. There is every way to dress up your disagreements with someone that isnt bearly thined appeals to the holocaust to support your stance. I compared him to people that supported the nazis prior to the holocaust. You were the person I was going to write something sarcastic about nuance to, because you seem to be missing a huge amount of nuance there. You're also continuing to put words in my mouths. I did not call conservatives ideological heirs to nazis. I called the neonazis, the ones who were marching around with the actual, literal nazi flag in Charlottesville, the ideological heirs to nazis. I didn't say Danglars was one of them, just that he was very enthusiastic about defending them. Again, you're shoving words in my mouth, metaphorically speaking, to completely change what I'm saying and then argue against that. Stop it. I'm sick of having to choose between leaving your attempts to deflect my statements by twisting them into attacks on my character alone and wasting my time pointing out how you twisted my words into something that you could use to attack my character. Im not making these metaphors for you you're the one who keeps bringing up nazis and the holocaust. Just say that hes a threat to you and people like you because more expensive coverage and less coverage leads to more deaths. Its a simplier and stronger metaphor that doesn't bring up nazis and the holocaust. Who made you the metaphor police? If you knew what he was saying, why did you accuse him of things he didn’t say? I had an objection to comparing someone to nazis and the people who supported the holocaust. I knew what he was saying and everything I accused him of he did. When confronted he disputes that it was what he was doing and then at the ends of his posts confirmed what I accused him of. His last post agreed with me saying what he was doing and then cited a source supporting that danglers opinion was just like nazis and the people who supported the holocaust. These arnt opinions I'm simply stating what he's doing and instead of elaboration he gives confirmation. What do you want me to do? Are you high or drunk? Legit question. You have misrepresented what people wrote, or have not cared to read it, or you cannot read it. He has not said any thing of the sort that you are accusing him off in this very post. I already did an explanation on a couple of his sentences and how to read them in a foreign language to me. I'm done explaining your native language to you. Go to a fucking school. Try not to get shot while doing English 1. I read this freaking thread almost daily but I don't post very often and this is exactly why. I wanted an honest opinion different from my own to educate myself. I ask for it politely and I get 3 pages of personal bashing, because we can't do anything else when people fail to read and get offended by insults that weren't thrown. User was temp banned for this post.
Not going to lie, I had a sensible chuckle at “Go to a fucking school.”
|
not sure where the right place is to ask but what did ProTech do to get unbanned and featured?
|
usopsama's in KeSPA eSF jail again for one of his average hateposts.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Poor zlefster. His campaign to see USPOL a more effectively moderated place suffers yet another setback today.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 10 2018 08:06 IgnE wrote:
how's that?
Being on the bad boy banned list makes it harder to accumulate the credibility needed for becoming thread moderator.
|
or maybe having been on the receiving end of the justice system will give him the perspective and wisdom needed to effect true reform?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 11 2018 08:00 ticklishmusic wrote:
or maybe having been on the receiving end of the justice system will give him the perspective and wisdom needed to effect true reform?
Definitely not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
