There Are Rules On This Forum

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
polycarp2

1. Abusive Posting: Ad Hominem attacks, death threats, racism, anti-Semitism, and trolling are all prohibited and can result in a ban.

That includes name-calling.

The rules aren't  that difficult to adhere to. The rest can be found here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/04/message-board-and-chatroom-rules

Retired Monk - Ideology is a disease"

Comments

Capital1
Capital1's picture
polycarp2 wrote: 1. Abusive

polycarp2 wrote:

1. Abusive Posting: Ad Hominem attacks, death threats, racism, anti-Semitism, and trolling are all prohibited and can result in a ban.

That includes name-calling.

The rules aren't  that difficult to adhere to. The rest can be found here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/04/message-board-and-chatroom-rules

Retired Monk - Ideology is a disease"

Pierpont not going to like that

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont not

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont not going to like that

Yup, I admit I don't suffer fools gladly and as a TOS offender I probably should not even be allowed to post here. But it's amusing to see you, of all people, pretend you haven't completely violated this term.

BTW... Is that your FORTH new name, three just in the last week? Were you banned even again?  

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
Perhaps I haven't been

Perhaps I haven't been asserting myself enough.  I've been here for well over a couple years and never been banned.  There's always tomorrow.

ah2
poly stop being such a

poly stop being such a ninny...

lols.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:  Yup, I admit

Pierpont wrote:

 Yup, I admit I don't suffer fools gladly and as a TOS offender I probably should not even be allowed to post here. But it's amusing to see you, of all people, pretend you haven't completely violated this term.

BTW... Is that your FORTH new name, three just in the last week? Were you banned even again?  

Put it this way, There are just certain people you should not engage in discussion with on this forum, their repressed anger and proximity to forum controls is a toxic mix. While they claim the high moral ground, That is merely an false front.   But that is life... Thom's is merely a microcosm of the real world.   

For the record,  there is a big difference between Banning and clipping the account name.  The latter could easily be defined as suspending. 

Forth...  Funny. 

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Capital1 wrote: There are

Capital1 wrote:
 There are just certain people you should not engage in discussion with on this forum, their repressed anger and proximity to forum controls is a toxic mix. While they claim the high moral ground, That is merely an false front.   But that is life... Thom's is merely a microcosm of the real world.   

For the record,  there is a big difference between Banning and clipping the account name.  The latter could easily be defined as suspending.

I personally have often wondered why so many people who are clearly not progressives, and are clearly working for the oligarchical right, spend so much time here, when they could so beautifully go to a Neoconservative Liberalist site where they would be welcomed ... and loved as equals!

LOL.

WorkerBee
WorkerBee's picture
Karolina wrote:I personally

Karolina wrote:
I personally have often wondered why so many people who are clearly not progressives, and are clearly working for the oligarchical right, spend so much time here, when they could so beautifully go to a Neoconservative Liberalist site where they would be welcomed ... and loved as equals!

LOL.

I'm here because I find the conversation interesting. While I rarely agree with the progressives here the conversation does help to  understand the thought process behind certain points of view.

anonymous green
Karolina wrote: I personally

Karolina wrote:

I personally have often wondered why so many people who are clearly not progressives, and are clearly working for the oligarchical right, spend so much time here, when they could so beautifully go to a Neoconservative Liberalist site where they would be welcomed ... and loved as equals!

LOL.

And the spies in your neighborhood

they tell us what we should

think and feel and do

Yes, they will take care of you

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Karolina wrote: I personally

Karolina wrote:

I personally have often wondered why so many people who are clearly not progressives, and are clearly working for the oligarchical right, spend so much time here, when they could so beautifully go to a Neoconservative Liberalist site where they would be welcomed ... and loved as equals!

LOL.

Do you like being in a room where everyone agrees all the time no matter how completely asinine. I find it annoying.    Thom came on my radio station in my town and invited me here to discuss topics with the “radical” middle.    I have never been disappointed or bored since coming here.   This board has transitioned more than you could imagine over the years.   From the care free, free-for-all  early days, to the tyrannical, Jack-booted Middle,  to the happy medium of today.  It’s been a Fantastic journey. 

Just this year,  I am now applying my years of political discourse into the practical application of Politics.  You can address me a City Councilor.  I certainly can Talk the Talk….   Now can I walk the Walk.    (so far so Good)

 

anonymous green
Capital1 wrote: You can

Capital1 wrote:

You can address me a City Councilor.  I certainly can Talk the Talk….   Now can I walk the Walk.    (so far so Good)

 

Another Manchurian American given power over real Americans by Manchurian Voters.

May God have mercy on whatever city you're about to destroy.

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
polycarp2 wrote: 1. Abusive

polycarp2 wrote:

1. Abusive Posting: Ad Hominem attacks, death threats, racism, anti-Semitism, and trolling are all prohibited and can result in a ban.

That includes name-calling.

The rules aren't  that difficult to adhere to. The rest can be found here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/04/message-board-and-chatroom-rules

Retired Monk - Ideology is a disease"

Progressives, liberals and many conservatives support an expansive view of the Constitution.  The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause are all used to expand the rules set forth in the Constitution.

Maybe we should do the same thing on this forum.  We can stretch and bend the forum rules.  After all, who is to define "trollling" for example.

anonymous green
LysanderSpooner wrote: After

LysanderSpooner wrote:

After all, who is to define "trollling" for example.

Lies and er... spoonerisms:

300 million meanings, for every single word

You better re-examine, every one you've heard!

300 million questions, running in your mind

They're going to keep you guessing, while they rob you blind!

polycarp2
LysanderSpooner

LysanderSpooner wrote:

polycarp2 wrote:

1. Abusive Posting: Ad Hominem attacks, death threats, racism, anti-Semitism, and trolling are all prohibited and can result in a ban.

That includes name-calling.

The rules aren't  that difficult to adhere to. The rest can be found here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/04/message-board-and-chatroom-rules

Retired Monk - Ideology is a disease"

Progressives, liberals and many conservatives support an expansive view of the Constitution.  The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause are all used to expand the rules set forth in the Constitution.

Maybe we should do the same thing on this forum.  We can stretch and bend the forum rules.  After all, who is to define "trollling" for example.

if we didn't have expansive rules, we'd probably have fewer posters. LOL

Actions usually aren't taken until complaints start rolling in...then posts are examined. to see if complaints are justified. There is enough to do just keeping commercial advertising posts at bay.

Most can discern the difference between civility and non-civility...and between trolling and discourse. Violaters will be directed to the rules thread and will hopefully take the reminder as a hint. This is my final posting on the matter.

Retired monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
anonymous green

anonymous green wrote:

Capital1 wrote:

You can address me a City Councilor. I certainly can Talk the Talk…. Now can I walk the Walk. (so far so Good)

Another Manchurian American given power over real Americans by Manchurian Voters.

May God have mercy on whatever city you're about to destroy.

At least the taxpayers of his town won't be paying to have their town destroyed. Cap's is willing to do it for free. His position is unpaid.  

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:  At least the

Pierpont wrote:

 At least the taxpayers of his town won't be paying to have their town destroyed. Cap's is willing to do it for free. His position is unpaid.  

Just  for the pleasure to serve my fellow man. 

anonymous green
This kind of snide threat of

This kind of snide threat of subterfuge from a Manchurian Candidate echoes the alien cookbook, To Serve Man, of course, from the Twighlight Zone.

I hope his city eats him alive once they realize they hired a spy.

What City is it, Cardinal1?

Give us a hint, we could warn them about what you've said here, or, are you going to keep this a secret, and lie to your constituents?

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green

anonymous green wrote:

This kind of snide threat of subterfuge from a Manchurian Candidate echoes the alien cookbook, To Serve Man, of course, from the Twighlight Zone.

I hope his city eats him alive once they realize they hired a spy.

What City is it, Cardinal1?

Give us a hint, we could warn them about what you've said here, or, are you going to keep this a secret, and lie to your constituents?

The irony is not lost on me that a person named anonymous wants to know who I am. 

Your hint,  A city in the Portland Metro Area. 

anonymous green
This is great! I was just

This is great! I was just considering visting again.

Is it the city with the private lake? Which is really public.

How many identities have you used on these boards?

Just a hint1, please.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

 At least the taxpayers of his town won't be paying to have their town destroyed. Cap's is willing to do it for free. His position is unpaid.  

Just  for the pleasure to serve my fellow man. 

I disagree with your politics but I admire you none the less.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green wrote: Is it

anonymous green wrote:

Is it the city with the private lake? Which is really public.

Lake Owsego,  NO. 

Quote:
How many identities have you used on these boards?

When you run out of appendages you generally stop counting. 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: I disagree

Bush_Wacker wrote:

I disagree with your politics but I admire you none the less.

Thanks,  I came to the conclusion fairly quickly, Criticizing on a forum is easy, Doing is a lot harder.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital1 wrote: anonymous

Capital1 wrote:

anonymous green wrote:

Is it the city with the private lake? Which is really public.

Lake Owsego,  NO. 

Quote:
How many identities have you used on these boards?

When you run out of appendages you generally stop counting. 

Every time I see your new name, Capital1, I can't help but think you're advertising for a credit card.  LOL

What's in your wallet? 

iggyvern
iggyvern's picture
Sounds to me like some

Sounds to me like some arrogant, self serving, special interest owned, career politicians could take some lessons from Capital 1, who is proud to do his civic duty, which is a rarity in today's world of greedy politicians.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

 

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

At least the taxpayers of his town won't be paying to have their town destroyed. Cap's is willing to do it for free. His position is unpaid.

Just for the pleasure to serve my fellow man.

Recalling that famous Twilight Zone episode, I'm sure that wasn't a Freudian slip.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: Every time

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Every time I see your new name, Capital1, I can't help but think you're advertising for a credit card.  LOL

What's in your wallet? 

It's actually suppose to be Capital Press,  Agriculture Newspaper

al3
al3's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

 At least the taxpayers of his town won't be paying to have their town destroyed. Cap's is willing to do it for free. His position is unpaid.  

Just  for the pleasure to serve my fellow man. 

Bedford Falls turns into Pottersville. And that will be considered a "success." LOL!

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
polycarp2 wrote:Most can

polycarp2 wrote:
Most can discern the difference between civility and non-civility...and between trolling and discourse. Violaters will be directed to the rules thread and will hopefully take the reminder as a hint. This is my final posting on the matter.
It would be nice if this forum software package did what normal forums allow for... a way to identify mods. I lost my prefered user name because someone went after me and I seriously thought the person was drunk. Then I found out s/he was a mod when s/he threatened to ban anyone who criticized Thom. That was clearly out of line and I said so. All those threads were nuked... and I, no doubt others were banned.

I'd like my old user name back... ulTRAX

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: I'd like my

Pierpont wrote:

I'd like my old user name back... ulTRAX

I remember you. 

 

sciflyguy
sciflyguy's picture
manning oregon?

manning oregon?

Capital1
Capital1's picture
sciflyguy wrote: manning

sciflyguy wrote:

manning oregon?

Been an oregonian my whole life and even I had to go look that one up.  No,  I doubt they even qualify as "Portland Metro area"

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

I'd like my old user name back... ulTRAX

I remember you. 

  I'm sure we crossed swords before. And your old user names back in 06-10 were???

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: I'm sure we

Pierpont wrote:

I'm sure we crossed swords before. And your old user names back in 06-10 were???

My original name is a name that may never again be spoken for fear of plague, Locust, invading Vikings, first signs of the rapture.   

Probably trigger the filter for insta-bans.    Rest assured it was a glorious time on the orginal board,  But somethings are better left dead.   

Brookesmith
It is very obvious that some

It is very obvious that some posters here are totally exempt from the "rules" , while others can be banned for little or no apparent reason at all. Depends on whether one has the favor of a wise monitor or not, I guess.

anonymous green
And the spies in your

And the spies in your neighborhood

they tell us it's all good

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
 Yes it is kind of a joke to

 Yes it is kind of a joke to see the rules when it is well known those in power here make folks disappear simply because they do not like their politics, whether it be too right or too left

Mauiman2
Mauiman2's picture
WorkerBee wrote: Karolina

WorkerBee wrote:

Karolina wrote:
I personally have often wondered why so many people who are clearly not progressives, and are clearly working for the oligarchical right, spend so much time here, when they could so beautifully go to a Neoconservative Liberalist site where they would be welcomed ... and loved as equals!

LOL.

I'm here because I find the conversation interesting. While I rarely agree with the progressives here the conversation does help to  understand the thought process behind certain points of view.

I agree, I probably will go to my grave and never vote for a Democrat.  At times I wonder why anyone vote for a Democrat (I'm sure there are many on this site who wonder why anyone would vote for a Republican).  So at least I know what the rational is for some of the position the other side takes.  And even I have to concede that at times the left does have a point.  Like why does the right want to limit government spending on everything but corporate bail outs?  Good point there, you'll never hear me arguing for government funded bailouts.

And the other big difference between the right and the left is that the left trusts government and politicians a lot more than the right does.  How much you trust government officials to do the right thing with your tax dollars will really affect who you vote for. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Mauiman2 wrote:And the other

Mauiman2 wrote:
And the other big difference between the right and the left is that the left trusts government and politicians a lot more than the right does.  How much you trust government officials to do the right thing with your tax dollars will really affect who you vote for. 

Of COURSE the Right trusts government... if the GOP is in control of it. For instance they trusted Bush and the GOP so much they approved round after round of irresponsible tax cuts that made debt paydown impossibe... even when Bush ran on that issue. The Right trusts government so much that they eat up GOP lies that there's no revenue problem even if in constant dollars revenues have been LOWER than Clinton's last year for all but 2 of the past 11 years. And the Right trusted Bush when he said Saddam posed a threat to the US... or that we need to outspend the rest of the world on the military to remain "safe".  I could go on... but you SHOULD get the picture. The Rigth is so irrational BECAUSE they trust the GOP to be truthful when they're just out to cynically manipulate the faithful.

 

Brookesmith
And the democrats are so

And the democrats are so "truthful" that, in the words of speaker Pelosi, "we have to pass the healthcare bill before we can know what's in the bill."

I don't think that they lie more. It may just be that Democrats are just worse liars.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Brookesmith wrote: And the

 

Brookesmith wrote:

And the democrats are so "truthful" that, in the words of speaker Pelosi, "we have to pass the healthcare bill before we can know what's in the bill."

I don't think that they lie more. It may just be that Democrats are just worse liars.

Your transparent partisan objection is amusing. The way the game is played is rather than condemn whatever crap your side does, you sweep it under the rug by finding something the other side does... which I ASSUME YOU OBJECT TO IN PRINCIPLE. But in realty you accept it if your side does it… else you'd be condemning the grotesque lies of the GOP.

BTW, I'm not a goddamn Dem so take your hypocritical pretensions and try them on someone else.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
This is not a time to be

This is not a time to be Democrats or Republicans, or left or right or middle. This is a time to be patriots and act to save our failing nation, unless you are already signed onto the Treason Party with so many top people. If we don't leave this path that we are on, there will only be one party soon — as that is the only thing allowed in a totalitarian state.

That is if we and all other human beings on the planet don't get nuked into extinction first.

Brookesmith
Hold on Mr. Pierpont, did I

Hold on Mr. Pierpont, did I accuse you of being a lying democrat? I don't think so. No need to hyperventilate. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of democrats when they accuse the republicans of lying. When in reality they both are guilty of lying. I believe you have already covered "the condemnation of the grotesque lies of the GOP" quite explicitly.

BTW, I am not a goddamn GOPer, so point your hypocritical blathering at someone else.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Brookesmith wrote: Hold on

Brookesmith wrote:

Hold on Mr. Pierpont, did I accuse you of being a lying democrat? I don't think so. No need to hyperventilate. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of democrats when they accuse the republicans of lying. When in reality they both are guilty of lying. I believe you have already covered "the condemnation of the grotesque lies of the GOP" quite explicitly.

BTW, I am not a goddamn GOPer, so point your hypocritical blathering at someone else.

You betrayed your partisanship with that Pelosi quote, taken out of context as the Right has done:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

So which of the "lies" was of greater consequence... Pelosi being taken out of context, or Bush lying us into an illegal war... and his stabotaging the fiscal health of the nation with the Right's Starve The Beast strategy?

You'll have to do better than that. But then my point merely was the rigthwing faithful are pretty slavish to the propaganda of the Orwellian Right.... and DO trust government... as long as it's run by the GOP.  

al3
al3's picture
Brookesmith wrote: BTW, I am

Brookesmith wrote:

BTW, I am not a goddamn GOPer, so point your hypocritical blathering at someone else.

Lemme guess, you're an "independent" conservative that votes 100% GOP.

al3
al3's picture
Brookesmith wrote: And the

Brookesmith wrote:

And the democrats are so "truthful" that, in the words of speaker Pelosi, "we have to pass the healthcare bill before we can know what's in the bill."

How was Pelosi lying with this quote?  Do you REALLY believe that Congress and/or their staffs didn't know what was in it before they passed it?  A working version was online for all to see during the whole laborious process of getting this bill passed.  So they blocked the GOP from viewing it online?  Nobody analyzed it?  All the hearings on CSPAN - Nobody watched them?  Did the Democrats censor them too?  Remember when GOP leadership made a huge deal of carrying in large stacks of paper to stress how huge the bill was?  They didn't read it then?  Of course there was a lot of last minute arm twisting at the end.  That's common though, remember the last minute frenzy for Medicare part D.

The quote's taken way out of context and given a life of its own.  I suggest you get your information from other sources than viral emails or Teabag blogs.

 

polycarp2
Many who have been previously

Many who have been previously banned are back on the board with new names. Their word useage, sentence structure, etc. are pretty easy to discern. I notice they are still here. Even Loganthor who has had more board names than long-winded emperors.. They probably will remain as long as they adhere to the simple rules.

It's fine to disagree with Thom, your host. Just don't follow the disagreement with an insult. Going into a man's house and calling him names or insulting him  just isn't proper etiquette. Try it on your neighbor, and you'll probably get the boot.

I'm still here after many years.. However, even though I sometimes disagree with my host, I don't demean him. Some of my "opinion" disagreements are simply from a different life experience. That means they aren't necessarily correct for everyone, doesn't it?

Thom supports Obama. i don't  and never have.  I think Obama is a neo-liberal twit in the same vein as his opposition, . and have given many examples over the years showing why I think that is so. Back your statements. Blanket statements to stir things up just don't make it. Ditto ideological platitudes...without backing. On-going patterns of that are trollish.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

Brookesmith
And it came to pass...Nobody

And it came to pass...Nobody had even read the bill , save and except its authors, the health insurance and hospital corporations and their colluders. I'll wage Pelosi has to this day not read the entire bilol and has no clue which is par for her. I will say right up front here, at the risk of getting banned, I am no fan of Pelosi.

Bush should be stood up before a firing squad with Cheney right beside him. But thart does not give Obama and his lackeys like Holder a pass either. That is the problem both sides are self-serving, arrogant, lying, greedy, power hungry career politicians. Romney will not get my vote, but he, at least had some dealings in the real world, however one views that. But Obama has never been anything but an Alinsky community organizer and has governed as such, IMO.

I like to pretend to be neither and call em as I sees em, I am for neither. And I doubt "your" sources are any less slanted to your view as anyone elses' are, al3. But that does not give you an exclusivity on political correctness, does it?

polycarp2
Brookesmith wrote;  I will

Brookesmith wrote;  I will say right up front here, at the risk of getting banned, I am no fan of Pelosi.

poly replies: My favorite term for Pelosi is twit...the same one I now use for Bainer, her replacement.. I'm still here. This is a progressive discussion board, not an arm of the Democratic Party.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
Quote:And the other big

Quote:
And the other big difference between the right and the left is that the left trusts government and politicians a lot more than the right does.  How much you trust government officials to do the right thing with your tax dollars will really affect who you vote for.

The main thing that separates the right and left is evident in your post. The right seems to be obsessed with taxes and are also under the illusion that you can vote for elitist, racist fascists and achieve a functional society. Conservatives believe in magic. Even as the United States' swing to the political right has brought so much misery to the American people, they persist in attaching the false, misleading label  "socialism" to that change. Even as trickle down economics is viewed almost universally as Voo Doo and a failure for our country and planet, they persist in advocating for the policies of Oligarchy.

It's pretty obvious that the amount you trust government officials is NONE. This experiment with democracy was under siege from the beginning, if you look at history,  and the enemy has won. You, and those like you, are proof of the effectiveness of fear, xenophobia and greed. Time and time again over our country's history we have been drawn back into the dark ages by the wealth-worshiping right. Today, traitors like Grover Norquist continue to use taxes as a lever with which they,  moral midgets,  have disrupted a mighty people's democracy. The pursuit of money being the root of all evil, they live out the opposite philosophy they claim to follow.

 

Now, as for civility on this forum, I find it very civil, in general. It's also understandable that putting magical thinkers in the same room with people who want a fact-based dialogue will result in incivility, at some point. I, for one, would rather be banned than pretend to respect the surface-deep opinions of some conservatives. I will continue to call fools by their proper name and if I am expelled, I am expelled from foolishness anyway.

polycarp2
It's fine to call what passes

It's fine to call what passes for conservatiism today as "foolish".  Old-line conservatives such as Pres. Dwight Eisenhower would probably agree with you. Conservative Paul Craig Roberts, a Reagan appointee calls them that himself...and worse.."Selling their souls for filthy lucre" was one description he made when he referenced conservative economists..

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/03/24/truth-has-fallen-and-taken-liberty-with-it/

Just don't label an individual forum participant as a fool. When they are, others who aren't fools themselves,  will see them as such. You don't have to point it out.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

Brookesmith
And only D_NATURED is in sole

And only D_NATURED is in sole mental possession of what is politically correct and factual. Just when has this "swing to the political right" supposedly to have occurred? We have had three plus years of the community organizer and he had a majority of both houses for two years. And who are "they" that persistent in attaching the false, misleading label of socialism to that change that has brought so much "misery" to the American people? I will agree about the misery of the middle and poor working class people but it is those that were in the majority that I blame that misery on. "They" still hold the office of the Presidency and the Senate and have since blocked anything coming out of the house.

And in the pursuit of money, Obama has lavished his Wall Street cronies with plenty of that and wasted plenty of it also on failed so-called green energy projects to his political allies. "They live out the opposite philosophy they claim to follow" There again, they must be the community organizer in charge and his democratic lackeys.

From what I have seen on this forum is that you and a few select others have the magical support of a wise monitor.