Asking Paul McCartney to apologize

67 posts / 0 new

Asking Paul McCartney to apologize, you have got to be kidding!!!!! You should be asking Bush-Cheney to apologize for: 1. Gutting government regulations from everything from EPA to Wall Street…This led the US to the crisis on several fronts. Bank failures, oil in the Gulf and unemployment never seen since the 1930’s….I want a government that is big enough to protect its citizens from the greedy corporate CEO’s. (Tea Pot Dome, Enron ring any bells?????) 2. Lying us into a war for profit. (If you call this a war on Terror, please explain the connection of Iraq to what happened on 9/11)….I am listening......... 3. Passing TWO tax cut to the ultra-Rich that was strapped to the backs of the middle class. 4. Allowing the US corporations to move off shore to tax havens and avoid paying taxes while be given BILLONS in government contracts….(Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater.....) Again you do not speak for ALL Americans, so just SHUT UP and stop stirring the pot with your spoon of hate……

postwc's picture
postwc
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Who wants Mc Cartney to apologize, and for what?

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Some cry baby made the demand . . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/john-boehner-paul-mccartney_n_6...

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I thought It was pretty funny seeing how Bush earned a MBA from Harvard and married a Librarian and Paul is just a singer

Roboute's picture
Roboute
Joined:
May. 7, 2010 4:23 pm

Yeah, that Harvard MBA really looked good on the wall, and Laura Stepford always looked like the Prozac overdoser.

McCartney might apologize for Wings, but not for saying what the whole world thinks about our war criminals.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

McCartney might apologize for Wings

LOL! Hey, I liked Wings. But I'm also a sucker for silly love songs.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Maybe Mc Cartney should show some gratitude-that he lives in a country where the populace has the common sense to keep numbnuts like Boehner out of public office.

P.S.: Wings was IMO a decent band... but maybe he should apologize for those lamo collaborations with Michael Jackson he did back in the '80s.

Hmmm... I liked "silly love songs" too (at least back when it was in the Top 40).

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Bored me to hell.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why would McCartneys opinion on much of anything matter? I would consider him an expert on pop music, and if he was to opine, it would be an educated opinion.

He wrote and sang some catchy tunes. He has groupies. He's a vegitarian. He's from England.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote Roboute:I thought It was pretty funny seeing how Bush earned a MBA from Harvard and married a Librarian and Paul is just a singer

A little more than "just a singer", I'm afraid.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Doesn't everyone in the world think Bush is a moron. Its going to take a long time to go through all those apologies.

Funny story. Gee conservatives are so sensitive when it comes to commenting on one of their heros.

Paul McCartney, just a singer. I guess that's like saying Darwin was just a scientist.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

Paul McCartney, just a singer. I guess that's like saying Darwin was just a scientist.

Indeed, he has had a much bigger influence on the world (good influence, that is), is bestowed with many more honors, and is, in fact, wealthier than Bush. He can do or say whatever he wants, it's not only how the world works, it's how the cons want it to work (wealthy rule). And so, they should suck it up and stop being cry babies about it.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think he's a genius with bad manners.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

Paul McCartney, just a singer. I guess that's like saying Darwin was just a scientist.

Does Darwin comment on musical theory?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Everybody in the world has a right and reason to call Dubya everything from idiot to criminal and to look at Cheney as pure pathology. One does not have to be an expert in political science to know when criminals and idiots are breaking the government and giving away the treasury for nothing of value.

The citizens of Britain are particularly entitled to a "special relationship" because of their "poodle."

I do have a small spot of compassion for those trying to defend Bush or make something less negative out of his rap sheet--record. Sort of like having to make the argument that BP is a green company. Look, the logo!

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Everybody in the world has a right and reason to call Obama everything from idiot to useless and to look at Biden as a pure empty suit. One does not have to be an expert in political science to know when criminals and idiots are breaking the government and giving away the treasury for nothing of value.

The citizens of Britain are particularly entitled to a "special relationship" because of their "poodle."

I do have a small spot of compassion for those trying to defend Obama or make something less negative out of his destructive record. Sort of like having to make the argument that BP is a green company. Look, the logo!

Yet, if one critisizes Carter..........Poof!

Only the "correct" opinion really matters in a free thinkers paradise.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Nope, we criticize both Carter and Obama, but we don't demonize them. Did not have to do more than report the facts about Bush and Cheney's crimes and lies. We got it on tape.

Obama's 'destructive record?' If Obama had named the people I want and done what I would have cheered, you would have gone apeshit with the rhetoric even beyond this stuff. He went centrist, and you guys blame him for not being different enough from the arsonists and saboteurs.

It is less about defending Obama than wondering where your rhetorical nonsense comes from. I basically try to turn the argument to policies and structures and away from the mind and character of the President. When Bush and Cheney lied and used the White House to run an empire, their actions confirmed their superficiality and paranoia. The question for 9/11 and Katrina was incompetence or criminality. There was no way to justify how either were handled.

BP's disaster is not where government has traditionally been responsible for having the resources and competence to take over the clean-up. The government regulation was broken by Bush's clowns. The safety investments were not made as the clowns gave BP a pass. Obama inherits this broken government and the BP arrogance. He has no miracles to solve this mess. The money and the power are all against doing the right thing. Is his 'sin' that he opposes their power or that he serves it?

Suppose his superb diagnostic senses had told him that BP was a criminal gang and he had acted on that insight to nationalize the American wing of BP. Can you hear the "socialist" "government control" anti-business rhetoric on the big sound system?

American public opinion on corporations is getting an apocalyptic learning opportunity. What Obama can do may change a lot as public opinion supports a more aggressive confrontation with Commerce and Corporate. The power is all arranged to defend Corporate, and the Supremes have given it more than enough legalistic blessing to crush democracy. Can we promise Obama that the money spent in the coming elections will not fool us or sway the minds of those who don't know? No. So when you judge his response to impossible situations, do better than hysteria.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote slabmaster:Yet, if one critisizes Carter..........Poof!

Only the "correct" opinion really matters in a free thinkers paradise.

Criticize Carter 'til the cows come home...Nothing.

Mis-characterize statements made in other members' posts about a thousand times despite numerous warnings about the possible consequences... MAYBE something will eventually happen. I know this about as well as you know it was for criticism of Carter. Only difference is, the rules of this MB specifically prohibit one behavior while pretty much condoning the other. Please find a new thing to harp on.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I know this isn't a thread about Sawdust, but one thing I do admire about him, is at least when he was banned, that's it. He didn't pathetically attempt to reinvent himself under 100 different names.

The man has pride, I admire that.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

I know this isn't a thread about Sawdust, but one thing I do admire about him, is at least when he was banned, that's it. He didn't pathetically attempt to reinvent himself under 100 different names.

The man has pride, I admire that.

The place is a lot less interesting without him. Now it's just a festival of sycophants.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote PeeWee Returns:
Quote meljomur:

I know this isn't a thread about Sawdust, but one thing I do admire about him, is at least when he was banned, that's it. He didn't pathetically attempt to reinvent himself under 100 different names.

The man has pride, I admire that.

The place is a lot less interesting without him. Now it's just a festival of sycophants.

I would have to agree with both of these statements. When Saw was banned, I recall being possibly the lone liberal on this MB to openly disagree with that decision (having seen another poster allowed to stay after directly calling Obama an "Uncle Tom", which to nearly everyone in the U.S. is seen as a racial slur on par with the "N word", but aparently not to the moderator- at the time anyway). However, I don't think that the rest of us need to read conjecture that is laughable on its face about how that happened every day.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I for one grew quite fond of Saw, even though we agreed on almost nothing. Funny how that happens.

I've almost always been against the con purging that goes on here. I think it does come off as a double standard. I'd much prefer to see equal protection of the law, and instead of bans, perhaps just put people in the penalty box for while. (oh my god, did I just use a sports analogy, I hate sports!)

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

I know this isn't a thread about Sawdust, but one thing I do admire about him, is at least when he was banned, that's it. He didn't pathetically attempt to reinvent himself under 100 different names.

The man has pride, I admire that.

He lost interest after being banned for calling Carter a tottering old fool for his stupid remarks in politics of which he has turned into an embarrassment. Retired Presidents should STFU in my opinion. If the board degrades down to a small collection of yes men and one minded groupthink, what is left to stimulate discussion?

The attraction was the differences of opinion. The hit counts and activity come from lively debate. Some people just can't stand a different opinion in politics. It goes against their programming. I see it daily. Some counter with a better argument and I learn something. The witch hunt for the evil neocon trolls is pretty comical, and what is truly surprising is the powers that be don't see why the activity shrinks. 5 or 6 paranoid nodding heads will not pay the bills fellas.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Most radio listeners, I think, want confirmation of their beliefs, not information about the beliefs of others.

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

I've almost always been against the con purging that goes on here. I think it does come off as a double standard. I'd much prefer to see equal protection of the law, and instead of bans, perhaps just put people in the penalty box for while. (oh my god, did I just use a sports analogy, I hate sports!)

I agree.

Look at why bannings occur. Political differences and attacks on Thom. The conservative viewpoint is banned for arguing a different philosiphy regarding politics.(Sawdust, RRuthorford, Loganthor, DR Buckly, ect...) The liberal people that have been banned attacked the host. (Miles, ChrisD, ect...)

I would expect someone banned for attacking the guy that pays the bills. I think it's weak to eliminate differing opinion because your argument is so weak, you can't counter opposition or admit you may be wrong.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

How do you know why he got banned? Was he given a specific reason? Anyway, my point was more how he has conducted himself since his banishment.

And Slab, those other conservatives you mention. All still here, just under different names. Playing the same games they always do. I guess Saw really was the only grown up in the bunch.

Okay, now I see this thread has really gotten off track. But if I tried to have it on the open thread section, no one would read it. I always forget to scroll that far down on this board...

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is a big difference between an intellectually grounded debate and a flat out cock fight. Unfortunately, all too often message boards like this become cock fights. When they do, the guests are the first to go. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it usually happens. The conservatives on this board are the guests, like it or not, and are thusly held to a different standard (I've been on the other side of that equation on conservative boards).

I'd like that not to be the case, but I'd also like the cons to understand that this is a left wing/liberal/progressive home. That type of understanding could really help a lot in changing the policies of double standard here.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote slabmaster:

I think it's weak to eliminate differing opinion because your argument is so weak, you can't counter opposition or admit you may be wrong.

That does much to explain why more than a few of the members of this MB have posted about getting banned from conservative MBs. BTW, I'm about 90% sure that a certain lib on this MB was banned primarily for attacking you. Any comment on that?

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote BcDct:

Most radio listeners, I think, want confirmation of their beliefs, not information about the beliefs of others.

How does one establish their belief system?

I listen to the radio and post on internet boards. I look at differing opinions to decide what I believe is accurate. It gives me the ability to decide. If the goal is mindless nodding heads, censoring opinions will get ya there. Jim Jones would be proud.

Some of the biggest viewership ratings on (for example) the Glen Beck show is when his guest is 180 degree opposed in political viewpoint. It gives the viewer a chance to see if what they believe can stand any scrutiny and if the person they listen to has their facts straight. Thom has some great debates with Micheal Medved. I think it should be expanded if people want to actually learn about issues and make informed decisions. Just my opinion.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

I certainly would not characterize every radio listener as narrow-minded, slabmaster. I will stand by my assertion that most are narrow-minded. I have no way of knowing this for certain. It is just the feeling i get. I have also heard others, including on-air talent, making similar generalizations.

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm
Quote drew013:

That does much to explain why more than a few of the members of this MB have posted about getting banned from conservative MBs. BTW, I'm about 90% sure that a certain lib on this MB was banned primarily for attacking you. Any comment on that?

So, because another board bans for differing opinions, this one should too?

I understand that being a conservitive leaning poster comes with flack. I don't mind and expect it from some. I know of no one that was banned for attacking me. BTW, Why would it be any different than attacking anyone?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

This is a topic for discussion? Boehner's an idiot and his opinion doesn't matter because he's an idiot looking for any media attention he can get. The issue should be why morons vote for this dupe, not that he thinks Bush is owed an apology.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote slabmaster:So, because another board bans for differing opinions, this one should too?

As far as I know, this one doesn't. If that isn't the case, how do you wind up not getting banned? Are you made of Teflon or something? When you accuse the management of this board of banning because of a differing opinion, you are exercising projection.

I understand that being a conservitive leaning poster comes with flack. I don't mind and expect it from some. I know of no one that was banned for attacking me. BTW, Why would it be any different than attacking anyone?

Unless either all the cons on this board have their own separate chat room or something where they can strategize or whatever about their activity on this board, or you are psychic, you don't know for sure why anyone got banned from this board. Neither do I. I don't pretend I do, either. However, in some cases, you can make a fairly safe bet. (one word: DugFmJamul)

If you didn't notice the over the top zeal with which Bulawayo2 used to go after you, that would explain much about why you say some of the things you do. Since that ended, I haven't seen any posts from Bulawayo2. I can only guess that he went too far in going after you.

And no, it isn't any different from attacking anyone. If Bulawayo2 got banned for it, I'm sure he was warned beforehand, and therefore got what he deserved. Rules are rules.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drew013:

As far as I know, this one doesn't. If that isn't the case, how do you wind up not getting banned? Are you made of Teflon or something? When you accuse the management of this board of banning because of a differing opinion, you are exercising projection.

[quote] Doesn't? LOL. If a certain moderator had his way, I would be. Haven't broken any rules, just have a different opinion on political issues. Can't have that now can we? It ain't projection, it's fact. The good news is that higher ups didnt agree. Simularely, I think Paul McCartney can opine about whatever he wants. It's good to know where he stands if one was at all interested in what he thinks (which I'm not). I think if Ted Nugent slams Obama, he has every right to do so in the same vein. Who really gives a damn is a choice. Asking McCartney to appoligize is silly IMO.

[quote]Unless either all the cons on this board have their own separate chat room or something where they can strategize or whatever about their activity on this board, or you are psychic, you don't know for sure why anyone got banned from this board. Neither do I. I don't pretend I do, either. However, in some cases, you can make a fairly safe bet. (one word: DugFmJamul)

I talk to several via email and personally know Sawdust, Loganthor, DaveM,. I've talked several times to Kulak, DR Buckley, RRuthorford, etc... No one "strategizes" about this board, or anything else for that matter. Your paranoia about the evil "cons" is what makes us all laugh, actually. The truth is, moderators talk, and those people talk, and those people talk. No big secrets. Cleansing due to political differences happens. I get it and it's Thoms choice. I just think it's short sighted.

If you didn't notice the over the top zeal with which Bulawayo2 used to go after you, that would explain much about why you say some of the things you do. Since that ended, I haven't seen any posts from Bulawayo2. I can only guess that he went too far in going after you.

And no, it isn't any different from attacking anyone. If Bulawayo2 got banned for it, I'm sure he was warned beforehand, and therefore got what he deserved. Rules are rules.

Don't know about Bulaway2 other than he responded strangely to me. I know why. I'm the evil "con" that most liberals are so paranoid about. Ewww....he doesn't like unions and stupid tax hikes....kill him...burn the witch...the only good con is a dead one...

Oh well, I stopped reading his responses after the first half dozen silly insults. The guys I spoke with that were banned received no warnings. Maybe thats reserved for the ones of similar programming.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote meljomur:

How do you know why he got banned? Was he given a specific reason? Anyway, my point was more how he has conducted himself since his banishment.

And Slab, those other conservatives you mention. All still here, just under different names. Playing the same games they always do. I guess Saw really was the only grown up in the bunch.

Okay, now I see this thread has really gotten off track. But if I tried to have it on the open thread section, no one would read it. I always forget to scroll that far down on this board...

Mel, he was given the heave ho without a blip of reasoning after 10+ years of suppoting this site. I read what he said and the comments critisizing Carter were the last thing he wrote. Can't critisize the actions of certain politicians.

My dear, you used to call me Log and Loganthor as well. I don't think you know who is who, but it is hillarious to watch you guess incorrectly 99% of the time. The paranoia of evil "cons" infiltrating. God, next thing I'll hear is all about the secret "code words" and master plans being hatched.....I gotta say, it's entertaining as I don't see much of this in the real world.

This thread has gotten more interest discussing contriversial topics than anything else. If you opened a thread about political differences and let people voice their opinions, I'd wager it would run in the hundreds+.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote slabmaster:
Quote drew013:

As far as I know, this one doesn't. If that isn't the case, how do you wind up not getting banned? Are you made of Teflon or something? When you accuse the management of this board of banning because of a differing opinion, you are exercising projection.

Doesn't? LOL. If a certain moderator had his way, I would be. Haven't broken any rules, just have a different opinion on political issues. Can't have that now can we? It ain't projection, it's fact. The good news is that higher ups didnt agree.

Why? Sorry, but I'm having a hard time getting this to pass the smell test. How would you know that a moderator wanted you gone, but some "higher-up" saved you if all the others were banned without warning?

Simularely, I think Paul McCartney can opine about whatever he wants. It's good to know where he stands if one was at all interested in what he thinks (which I'm not). I think if Ted Nugent slams Obama, he has every right to do so in the same vein. Who really gives a damn is a choice. Asking McCartney to appoligize is silly IMO.

In principle, I totally agree with this assessment.

Unless either all the cons on this board have their own separate chat room or something where they can strategize or whatever about their activity on this board, or you are psychic, you don't know for sure why anyone got banned from this board. Neither do I. I don't pretend I do, either. However, in some cases, you can make a fairly safe bet. (one word: DugFmJamul)
I talk to several via email and personally know Sawdust, Loganthor, DaveM,. I've talked several times to Kulak, DR Buckley, RRuthorford, etc... No one "strategizes" about this board, or anything else for that matter.

Really? So just how was it that all you guys gravitated toward each other? Whatever happened to the "rugged individualist" mantra we keep hearing the cons spouting off about? More empty rhetoric, I presume? And if you are discussing what happens on this board, that would be by definition strategizing. Get a dictionary. Look it up.

Your paranoia about the evil "cons" is what makes us all laugh, actually.

I ain't paranoid about anything. I don't operate on fear. I don't own dozens of guns. I don't have two panic rooms in my house. Don't you ever get tired of using the same projection tactic ad nauseam?

The truth is, moderators talk, and those people talk, and those people talk. No big secrets. Cleansing due to political differences happens. I get it and it's Thoms choice. I just think it's short sighted.

Maybe, but you are still here, as are several others. It still don't pass the smell test.

If you didn't notice the over the top zeal with which Bulawayo2 used to go after you, that would explain much about why you say some of the things you do. Since that ended, I haven't seen any posts from Bulawayo2. I can only guess that he went too far in going after you.

And no, it isn't any different from attacking anyone. If Bulawayo2 got banned for it, I'm sure he was warned beforehand, and therefore got what he deserved. Rules are rules.

Don't know about Bulaway2 other than he responded strangely to me. I know why. I'm the evil "con" that most liberals are so paranoid about. Ewww....he doesn't like unions and stupid tax hikes....kill him...burn the witch...the only good con is a dead one...

I'm sure some libs feel that way; Bulawayo may even be one of them. Crazies on both sides are nothing new. But most? That would be like me saying that most conservatives agree with the likes of Glenn Beck when he says stuff like...well, take your pick. There is no shortage of outrageous comments made by Beck out there that I for one am convinced that even the staunchest of conservatives would generally disagree with.

Oh well, I stopped reading his responses after the first half dozen silly insults. The guys I spoke with that were banned received no warnings. Maybe thats reserved for the ones of similar programming.

Or maybe for no one. I still have a hard time believing that people don't get warned about recurrent bad behavior before being banished from a MB. Especially this one in particular.

But that's just me. And I don't pretend to know things that I obviously have no way of knowing. One thing I do know for a fact, however, is that a single incident of calling Jimmy Carter a "tottering old fool" on this MB has in and of itself NEVER resulted in the member being banned. Observation and a thimbleful of good old common sense tells me that much.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drew013:

And I don't pretend to know things that I obviously have no way of knowing. One thing I do know for a fact, however, is that a single incident of calling Jimmy Carter a "tottering old fool" on this MB has in and of itself NEVER resulted in the member being banned. Observation and a thimbleful of good old common sense tells me that much.

How would you know that "for a fact"?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

OK, Slab, I do know it "for a fact." The banning was about repeated posts with insults and rants instead of argumentation. I did not call the shot, but I do know the basis for it.

I would be fine with Sawdust back if he wants to discuss stuff. He was not doing that.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drew013:

[quote]Really? So just how was it that all you guys gravitated toward each other? Whatever happened to the "rugged individualist" mantra we keep hearing the cons spouting off about? More empty rhetoric, I presume? And if you are discussing what happens on this board, that would be by definition strategizing. Get a dictionary. Look it up.

Some people just aren't afraid to socialize I guess. Some don't hide from society and blame everyone else for their issues. Some are not paranoid and running around creating demons where none exist. I've found that the people I've met from this board have been normal well adjusted folks. I've offered to meet liberals as Loganthor has, and none take us up on the offer. Scaaaary. DRC is always welcome at one of my BBQ's as he is a man with good culinary taste and appreciates adding fire to fresh meat as one of lifes simple pleasures.

If you actually read my posts, strategizing isn't part of what we talk about. It's usually who is buying the next round or what vacations we are taking, etc....Don't know what "rugged individualist" has to do with internet board gossip.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote DRC:

OK, Slab, I do know it "for a fact." The banning was about repeated posts with insults and rants instead of argumentation. I did not call the shot, but I do know the basis for it.

I would be fine with Sawdust back if he wants to discuss stuff. He was not doing that.

DRC,

I have been insulted daily for the 4+ years I've been posting here. I consider the source. Rants are on every thread.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote slabmaster:
Quote drew013:

And I don't pretend to know things that I obviously have no way of knowing. One thing I do know for a fact, however, is that a single incident of calling Jimmy Carter a "tottering old fool" on this MB has in and of itself NEVER resulted in the member being banned. Observation and a thimbleful of good old common sense tells me that much.

How would you know that "for a fact"?

Observation and a thimbleful of good old common sense. In other words, I've seen people get away with way worse. A whole bunch of times. Your explanation of Saw's banning doesn't make sense in that context.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote slabmaster:

[quote=DRC]

OK, Slab, I do know it "for a fact." The banning was about repeated posts with insults and rants instead of argumentation. I did not call the shot, but I do know the basis for it.

I would be fine with Sawdust back if he wants to discuss stuff. He was not doing that.

I rest my case. Thanks, Don.

P.S.: I'd also be happy to see Sawdust back.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yeah, don't come to our White House and bad mouth any of our Presidents. Shut up and sing. Otherwise, get lost.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So I forget, should Paul McCartney apologize? :)

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

So I forget, should Paul McCartney apologize? :)

Should he, Maybe. does he have to, No. Then again the world is a crazy place.

Reboute1's picture
Reboute1
Joined:
Jun. 10, 2010 12:22 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

So I forget, should Paul McCartney apologize? :)

Should Jay Leno?

McCartney can zing whomever he chooses. I don't care. Politicians are targets for critisizm.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote DRC:

OK, Slab, I do know it "for a fact." The banning was about repeated posts with insults and rants instead of argumentation. I did not call the shot, but I do know the basis for it.

I would be fine with Sawdust back if he wants to discuss stuff. He was not doing that.


Why let any teabagging neocon into the group.
We should maintain a standard for members that is as least as progressive as Thom's.
Your problem is trying to maintain a thin veil of objectivity. This is a progressive forum and as such it should have rules to direct such ideals. From other forums they allow the troll-con neocons to occupy the "playpen" area or are just banned as soon as their true character comes out. Nothing wrong with Thom having two sets of published rules as some forums also do.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm
Quote DRC:

OK, Slab, I do know it "for a fact." The banning was about repeated posts with insults and rants instead of argumentation. I did not call the shot, but I do know the basis for it.

I would be fine with Sawdust back if he wants to discuss stuff. He was not doing that.


Why let any teabagging neocon into the group.
We should maintain a standard for members that is as least as progressive as Thom's.
Your problem is trying to maintain a thin veil of objectivity. This is a progressive forum and as such it should have rules to direct such ideals. From other forums they allow the troll-con neocons to occupy the "playpen" area or are just banned as soon as their true character comes out. Nothing wrong with Thom having two sets of published rules as some forums also do.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm
Quote quaestorchickpea:

Nothing wrong with Thom having two sets of published rules as some forums also do.

Especially if you can't make a point. Limit the conversation to exactly what you want to hear.

Two sets of rules. 1. Allow thoughts to be debated from those in society to explore ideas. 2. Limit input to only those that agree with me and will nod in unison.

Do you think think we should also have separate bathrooms for whites and blacks? maybe jews and Arabs? Maybe we should just lynch all Evil teabagging neo-con bastards in the middle of the night. We could wear hoods. They think different.....they is evil.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Here, go listen to some more people at your intellectual level: Beer Diplomacy, Beer World and all.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm

Didn't Obama engage in Beer Diplomacy with is racist Friend Gates and Sgt. James Crowley?

Leman Russ's picture
Leman Russ
Joined:
Jun. 10, 2010 1:27 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system