It was shortly after you angrily vouched for the character of a poster who has since been banned for defending pedophilia and bragging about his willingness to commit hate crimes, if that helps you place it.

Was that wil or Silverman? It’s sad that I can’t narrow this down to one person.

You are a diamond man, never forget that!

I'm sure another one will be found but admittedly it is a difficult job to attract candidates if Wookie still holds the ultimate veto.

You've never shown an example of this.

Please ignore the fact that the jiff was hotlinked from MasculineImpressionableGerbil, that was merely a happy coincidence

This reminds me of a certain moderator asking for sources for well known political positions.

It reminds me of someone who pounds the table when they don't have facts to support their position.

How many ATF political threads have you posted in that were started because of moderating decisions again?

One conclusion from my wall of text is that, IMO, adding me as a moderator to the main forum doesn't accomplish anything unless I'm supposed to be making dramatic changes to the way the forum is moderated, which would make a lot more people really, really unhappy and thus doesn't sound like a very promising idea :P

The idea of having multiple politics forums and labeling them more accurately sounds better, but still suffers from the problem that there doesn't really seem to be enough people interested in a second forum of the type I was interested in, and given the ****show that would follow I don't have enough free time right now to manage all of that anyway. Someone else could do it of course, but I think the first problem is the real problem.

Hence the arrival at your original conclusion.

Also, for the record, this is all false.

Fair enough. I had a feeling that you wouldn't do it for this reason.

LOL

I mean, I sorta do? Like, when I started on at the forum, it was shortly after Mason had reopened it after closing it for rampant anti-Semitism. So I generally kept out the odd white supremacist, sexist, and whatnot, and discussions were mainly about the existence of government. But in the past 4 or so years especially, it's been increasing that conservatives want to argue that being racist, sexist, anti-Muslim, and occasionally anti-Semitic are core conservative values that I'm not allowing and therefore I'm anti-conservative. That's the whole ballgame here. If juan or bundy were strictly talking about the right level of the top marginal tax rate or how dividends shouldn't be considered income for tax purposes or even that old people should **** off and die if they don't have enough money for health care rather than having a government program to cover them, they'd still be there.

A Bundy containment thread is the obvious comporimose solution. Like, that’s basically what this thread is but moving it from atf to politardia would make life less annoying for tptb.

it has to be wil. i still like wil.

Exactly. Bundy juan et al want to be taken seriously as if they were a failson federalist dip**** with elbow patches proposing reasonable "centrist" nonsense. But they're ranting about the shape of the negro skull and the devastation of the lives of prep school *******s at the hands of evil lying women. Try posting something not instantly worthy of ridicule and you'll have a better time of it.

You don't really want to go back to how I was banned do you?

I'm fine with it. Make your case.

Politics needs a "Poker Economy" subforum, tia.

As you have access to my three reported posts, i would ask that you repost them here and provide the time i reported them as well as when they were acted on.

...because it was obviously going to be a terrible thread by a terrible poster, and that's exactly how it turned out. You (and Loki) parenthetically mention that the conservative posters who get dog piled are usually awful, but that's not a sidebar, it's the main point. I really hate the way you constantly frame that part as an aside, or minor contributing factor. The Politics regs aren't intolerant of right wing views so much as they're intolerant of stupidity and bull****.

You know who else gets run out of the forum every time he shows up? einbert.

Remember Deuces? How about Jiggs? There are plenty more, too.

This is the exchange that Gregorio cherrypicked to claim i must be lying and a Rapeologist because of my thorough study of rape. (Forgive my inability to multiquote on my ipad)

Re: Brett Kavanaugh - Interest & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by patron View Post
He probably raped her. Even if he didn't though - do you think that a person who is part of a gang rape club, who participates in and encourages the overall behavior even if he doesn't himself vaginally penetrate her, who never recants such behavior and instead lies about it to this day - do you think such a person should be on the Supreme Court of the United States?



Generally speaking, i prefer a liberal SCOTUS over a conservative one. Miranda, right to privacy and Roe v Wade all came from a liberal court. Kav certainly is more conservative than Kennedy, so I would prefer someone else, preferable a Dem nominated candidate. Even if kav goes down, i dont see this happening. I think we will see another Trump nominee on the court.

Does a person who committed rape or part of a gang rape club belong on the SC? Absolutely not.

But, has a high school kid who threw a girl on a bed at a party and groped her committed rape? No. Has a college guy who publically exposed himself at a party committed rape? No. Not by the legal definition.

Do i think its important to hear the actual testimony of Ford, Judge, Ramirez, Swetnick and Kav before making up my mind if Kav is a rapist or part of a gang rape club? I appear to be one of the few. (And a preemptive go **** yourselvesw to wookie and his fellow rape apologist labeling aholes).

Do i think Kav portraying himself as a choirboy and lying about his past is enough to disqualify him, even if the others allegations are not credible? Maybe.

I think Avenatti may have left out some details that will be later dropped as bombshells in oral testimony.... not nit-picking the level of detail provided. This is likely a multipart revelation.
Last edited by jjjou812; 09-26-2018 at 01:03 PM.
jjjou812 is online now Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2018, 12:54 PM #2

Part of my complaint with the forum would be that I think some of you are overzealous in your reactions to perceived stupidity and bull****, which is not to say that there isn't also plenty of stupidity and bull****. In any case, I mentioned this same thing that you are saying:

I only used your post because it was a convenient example that was already posted in the thread; I wasn't intending to comment on the specific context in which your post occurred.