Sounds like you are talking about leftists to me.

Please see my response in the free speech thread. Also, I haven't even looked it up, but I would bet money that the National Review editorial staff did not support that violent Republican.

You are mistaken to group people together as you have done above.

Quoting this, just because I think it likely that I will some day need to avail myself of it.

ok cool you personally dont support such actions. I believe you. but there have been plenty of studies and a huge portion of the so-called "conservatives" do absolutely support the guy.

and cmon. you would support him too. there is 0% chance that you would not vote for him if you lived in montana.

bc you and the rest of the deplorables believein your team. you dont believe in america, freedom, equal rights, freedom of speech, due process, equality, inalienable rights.

you believe in your team. you believe that your team should be crushing the opposition in any way possible. you believe that your team should be oppressing the rights of everyone else.

you are not an american. you are not a patriot. you have succeeded in destroying the country in unimaginable ways.

congrats.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I would decline at this time. I just don't have the time for it.

I think chezlaw is a good mod.

This is total nonsense.

Well to be fair Trump would probably say he believes in all those things too, but he has very different definitions of them to the accepted ones.

Now go and post it back in the thread where it belongs, along with the source so that we can translate it ourselves.

Why is it such hard work getting simple citations from you in place of "here's the name of a book that supports what I'm saying" and "here's a source-less graphic in a foreign language" that could be a depiction of the consumption of different types of Danish lager as far as we know?

Another swede who pretends to understand the dynamics of American politics but totally doesn't. Shocker.

Also Marn, when you say

and don't, it comes across as highly disingenuous on your part.

It's almost as if you don't really think you have any supporting evidence at all for your views.

Shocking, I know.

I am not talking about American politics.

jalfrezi, you are boring me, if you have any arguments of your own to make then go to that thread and make them. Every time is the same thing, I make a claim, you ask for proof and in the end I prove everything and after all that you will have contributed ZERO to the discussion. I am not falling into that trap again. Now put up or shut up.

You made sweeping claims in that thread, why don't you post supporting evidence?

You have no ****ing idea what proof means, and you're probably boring everyone who doesn't speak Danish.

What if someone else asked you?


Well?

You're doing a very bad job of that.

can we take it to the other thread?

Yes everyone continue in the immigration thread please.

and dont make it about the posters Marn (or anyone else).

I'm a little confused here. Why are you comfortable saying that you approve of the decision but not provide the reason? I don't see any reason not to disclose the "over the line" clincher, let alone an obvious one. If he posted horse porn you don't need to quote the picture, but you could say "he posted horse porn".

To me, it's pretty obvious that conduct that catches a OTB&C should be clearly spelled out. What's the point of vagueness here, besides creating a generalized culture of fear of future punitive actions? If he went over the line, so far over the line he deserved a ban, seems like a description of that conduct would be helpful. Especially in the context of you and chezlaw's well known tactic of shamelessly lying, specifically the most recent ban of that very poster.

You're going to have to take that up with Mat.

It's not a Pv7.0 mod decision so ATF is probably your best bet if you want to pursue it.

Mat has asked me not to divulge more information on this.

I will say that Mat chose to ban LG/AJ for reasons having little to do with the Politics v7.0 forum.

SUPER SECRET reasons

Best part was that Mat picked the fight with Joe to begin with. Guess he didn't like getting dunked on.

I think I know the posts. he said he would go around the internet and give 2p2 books bad ratings and link to the white supremacist posts in this forum and link to that massively homophobic post in smp.

so ya, matt banned him bc he threatened to link to the effed up posts on this forum that the admins are intent on defending.

Shhhhhh...

I kind of assumed Mat didn't gaf about the 2p2 corporate image or else why would he create unchained in the first place?

well I think in general the simplest reason is the most likely. and it seems pretty obv from his posts in this forum and the existence of this forum and smp why he allows it to exist.

bc he supports those viewpoints and wants to to allow for a platform for such ideas.

at least he has the self awareness to understand that they are deplorable and racist and unacceptable to a large (but shrinking) portion of society.