Thread Rating:

bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 2462
August 13th, 2019 at 9:38:14 PM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

The ones in charge decide of course. Pretty much all people want to do today is put others in confined boxes because they disagree with them and want to stifle their perspective from being heard or seen. I find that those with supposed liberal progressive viewpoints are the most guilty of this. You may be an anomaly in a sea of wannabe controllers.



Would click thank-you button twice if I could.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 2462
Thanks for this post from:
MaxPenRS
August 13th, 2019 at 9:45:01 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

I have always supported free speech. KKK or Nazis want to hold a rally and yelling "Jews will not replace us" I totally support that free speech right. I lean left and I totally support that right
but
This web site is private property. There is absolutely no free speech right on private property. Whole different ballgame




Kinda funny. Not ha ha funny, just funny. But you libs sure like to talk about Nazis. The Nazis were defeated 80 years ago and you are still whining about them. Maybe you see a Nazi under every bed. But the communists, who murdered 10X as many innocent people as the Nazis did, still exist. They exist big time. And I never hear you Fredos say squat about them. Funny.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3416
August 13th, 2019 at 10:10:48 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

Do you actually read source material or just believe a false description and because its Briebart, you will believe their lies. Sad
????????
Racist??????
I read the NY times article and watched the NY Times video
Its about the history of grass lawns.
Its interesting
BUT
Nowhere in the in the article says lawns are racist

Its simply about lawns. Breibart describes it as an expose. WTF. Its lawns. There is nothing to expose. Its a boring subject
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/video/lawn-grass-environment-history.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes


"“These lawns come on the backs of slaves,” he continues, zooming in on a painting of George Washington in a field to highlight men cutting the grass with scythes. “It’s grueling, endless work.”

“By the 1870s we also see American culture slowly start to embrace lawns for the privileged masses,” he states."
terapined
terapined
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
  • Threads: 76
  • Posts: 5248
Thanks for this post from:
bobbartopDeMango
August 13th, 2019 at 10:12:08 PM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

Kinda funny. Not ha ha funny, just funny. But you libs sure like to talk about Nazis. The Nazis were defeated 80 years ago and you are still whining about them. Maybe you see a Nazi under every bed. But the communists, who murdered 10X as many innocent people as the Nazis did, still exist. They exist big time. And I never hear you Fredos say squat about them. Funny.



"Jews will not replace us" is from Charlottesville, not 80 years ago
I absolutely agree with you regarding the horrors under Stalin and Mao. Millions of lives lost. Its not funny.
We need to get behind the freedom protesters in Hong Kong.
"Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine, I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines, Come to Daddy on an inside straight, I got no chance of losing this time" -Grateful Dead- "Loser"
terapined
terapined
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
  • Threads: 76
  • Posts: 5248
August 13th, 2019 at 10:16:25 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

"“These lawns come on the backs of slaves,” he continues, zooming in on a painting of George Washington in a field to highlight men cutting the grass with scythes. “It’s grueling, endless work.”

“By the 1870s we also see American culture slowly start to embrace lawns for the privileged masses,” he states."


???????
Its all true and does not make todays lawns racist
You must see racism everywhere assuming you believe Maxpen's statement. sad
"Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine, I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines, Come to Daddy on an inside straight, I got no chance of losing this time" -Grateful Dead- "Loser"
Puckerbutt
Puckerbutt
Joined: Sep 24, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 165
August 13th, 2019 at 10:47:06 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

The s*** I’m taking is mostly coming from members I’ve never even heard of before today. Cyrus.... who? “Puckerbutt”? What?!

???

I actually agree with your position on the new rule so you're "taking" what I'm not giving. I merely made a comment within the confines of this new great leap forward.
If'n I'd a knowed you wanted to have went with me - I'd a seen that you got to get to go.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4443
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
August 13th, 2019 at 10:54:32 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I'm still not understanding this. All the
myriad of threads that deal with TV
shows, climate change, how hot is
it today, unicycles, movies, Bitcoin,
on and on. It's still OK to post in
those threads because they aren't
political or religious?



Well...

Quote: Wizard

After some discussion, site ownership and management have decided to make a new rule forbidding non-gambling and non-Vegas topics, especially those concerning politics, religion, and sexuality.



"Forbidding non-gambling and non-Vegas" is pretty self explanatory. For the grey areas that I can see, I'll adjust like this...

I would define elections wagers as gambling, and understand this would/may invite discussion of actual policy. An example of what I would deem "appropriate" would be explaining why a pol's policy will result in an effect which will cause "x", where "x" is the event being bet on. This I would argue falls under fair discussion of details or circumstances of the bet. The addition of fanfare, derision, or derailment into specifics of the topic would be viewed as political, and assuming the thread was gambling in nature, the posters banned and the thread continued.

Another example in an attempt to clarify (and remember this is just my preliminary understanding that could be struck down), discussion about stock prognosticating based on info that is political, religious, or sexual in nature would/should follow the same. Stating that investing in XXX med firm due to advances in stem cell thanks to legal abortion, for example, would be simply discussing details of stock trading. Campaigning or politicking about abortion itself would/should summon the banhammer.

Bitcoin, I would argue, is speculation. I don't think any here argue that all investing is gambling. It (IMO) stays.

Climate change, perhaps, has a place if/when speaking about how it relates to a gamble, which it could in the cases of stocks or real estate. If done in this manner, then it is gambling discussion and fair. If not, ban.

This isn't an official statement. Just my understanding and intended plan of action.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 162
  • Posts: 9334
August 13th, 2019 at 10:54:50 PM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

And I never hear you Fredos say squat about them. Funny.



Are you pretending to be sly or clever with the Fredos reference. Seems like neither.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3634
Thanks for this post from:
AxelWolf
August 13th, 2019 at 11:36:51 PM permalink
Quote: Face

Well...



"Forbidding non-gambling and non-Vegas" is pretty self explanatory. For the grey areas that I can see, I'll adjust like this...

I would define elections wagers as gambling, and understand this would/may invite discussion of actual policy. An example of what I would deem "appropriate" would be explaining why a pol's policy will result in an effect which will cause "x", where "x" is the event being bet on. This I would argue falls under fair discussion of details or circumstances of the bet. The addition of fanfare, derision, or derailment into specifics of the topic would be viewed as political, and assuming the thread was gambling in nature, the posters banned and the thread continued.

Another example in an attempt to clarify (and remember this is just my preliminary understanding that could be struck down), discussion about stock prognosticating based on info that is political, religious, or sexual in nature would/should follow the same. Stating that investing in XXX med firm due to advances in stem cell thanks to legal abortion, for example, would be simply discussing details of stock trading. Campaigning or politicking about abortion itself would/should summon the banhammer.

Bitcoin, I would argue, is speculation. I don't think any here argue that all investing is gambling. It (IMO) stays.

Climate change, perhaps, has a place if/when speaking about how it relates to a gamble, which it could in the cases of stocks or real estate. If done in this manner, then it is gambling discussion and fair. If not, ban.

This isn't an official statement. Just my understanding and intended plan of action.



Who cares? I don't think you're really going to have to worry about it much. Most of the free thinkers and individualists are going to move on. I know I won't be doing anything, anymore than maybe checking in once a week to see what's new. Might find a topic or two that interests me a couple times a year but pretty sure that will be it.
Most people with libertarian mindsets tend not to support a whole lot of groupthink BS. Having to tow some sort of subjective line sounds like misery. Screw that, there's tons of other places to frequent in this world.
This site was good because it had rules formed around mutual respect but didn't try to influence subject matter. There was plenty of biased moderation of those rules but it was tolerable. Unfortunately, like most things today, this site will be stepping closer into the world of communism at 8 AM tomorrow morning. You should give members social ratings....lol
I am thankful that I had the chance to meet some of the great people that I have as a result of this sites existence. I can honestly say that some of the friendships resulting from that have changed my life for the better. I predict this place will become a shadow of its former self. Each additional rule implemented has proven that to be true thus far. This one is a real game changer. That's probably why it was left open to be changed back. It's hard to retreat though once you take that fork in the road.
Last edited by: MaxPen on Aug 14, 2019
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4443
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
August 14th, 2019 at 12:06:08 AM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

Who cares?



EB asked. Felt a duty to answer
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.

  • Jump to: