The first Poll.......Are you for or against Markle being banned from this forum?

Thanks for the bump.
I am guilty of rarely going to politics and then only catching the first few topics because some people like to post as if possessed. Most of it bores me and I have a low tolerance for bullshit.
I think RealLindaL summed it up for me:
"Well, I may not've put it quite as...er...strongly as VW, but as she quite correctly pointed out, herein lies the exact problem when attempting any reasoned discourse with Markle. Any source that most of us might quote to debunk him will not be considered "reliable" or believable in his book. In other words, trying to talk with him is a complete waste of time and effort.

I didn't take a stand here about Markle's banning because I'm still a "newbie" returnee to this forum and didn't feel it was my place, but I do understand where Boards was coming from. Since he's back now, a couple of my wisest friends have suggested I just ignore Markle's posts from here on out, to avoid the futility and resultant unnecessary stress, not to mention the waste of precious time. I'm sure going to try.

But Boards, don't go! We can still have great discussions among liberal, conservative and independent voices on this forum who will allow for intelligent and largely fair, even if sometimes heated, discussion. Not EVERYONE here dismisses every single thing anyone else besides himself and his World Net Daily-type sources say.

As for you guys who just want to poke holes in each other and call each other names all day long: Whatever turns you on, I say."

Well said Linda. I wish I had read it before I weighed in. It would have saved me some grief.

RottiesRule wrote:Thanks for the bump.
I am guilty of rarely going to politics and then only catching the first few topics because some people like to post as if possessed. Most of it bores me and I have a low tolerance for bullshit.
I think RealLindaL summed it up for me:
"Well, I may not've put it quite as...er...strongly as VW, but as she quite correctly pointed out, herein lies the exact problem when attempting any reasoned discourse with Markle.  Any source that most of us might quote to debunk him will not be considered "reliable"  or believable in his book.  In other words, trying to talk with him is a complete waste of time and effort.  

I didn't take a stand here about Markle's banning because I'm still a "newbie" returnee to this forum and didn't feel it was my place, but I do understand where Boards was coming from.  Since he's back now, a couple of my wisest friends have suggested I just ignore Markle's posts from here on out, to avoid the futility and resultant unnecessary stress, not to mention the waste of precious time.  I'm sure going to try.  

But Boards, don't go!   We can still have great discussions among liberal, conservative and independent voices on this forum who will allow for intelligent and largely fair, even if sometimes heated, discussion.  Not EVERYONE here dismisses every single thing anyone else besides himself and his World Net Daily-type sources say.

As for you guys who just want to poke holes in each other and call each other names all day long:  Whatever turns you on, I say."

Well said Linda. I wish I had read it before I weighed in. It would have saved me some grief.

Thanks for the support, RR, but, as mentioned on the other (current) poll thread, it didn't take me long to see what Markle was all about and how damaging his drip, drip, drip brand of poison was, and this time I most definitely did weigh in, and I'm naturally not sorry you did.  Yes, I had planned to just put Markle on ignore, but I decided that was a head-in-the- sand move.   I've stood up for principles here -- obviously not the same principles as certain others -- and make no apology to anyone for choosing Boards over Markle.  I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

RealLindaL wrote:

RottiesRule wrote:Thanks for the bump.
I am guilty of rarely going to politics and then only catching the first few topics because some people like to post as if possessed. Most of it bores me and I have a low tolerance for bullshit.
I think RealLindaL summed it up for me:
"Well, I may not've put it quite as...er...strongly as VW, but as she quite correctly pointed out, herein lies the exact problem when attempting any reasoned discourse with Markle.  Any source that most of us might quote to debunk him will not be considered "reliable"  or believable in his book.  In other words, trying to talk with him is a complete waste of time and effort.  

I didn't take a stand here about Markle's banning because I'm still a "newbie" returnee to this forum and didn't feel it was my place, but I do understand where Boards was coming from.  Since he's back now, a couple of my wisest friends have suggested I just ignore Markle's posts from here on out, to avoid the futility and resultant unnecessary stress, not to mention the waste of precious time.  I'm sure going to try.  

But Boards, don't go!   We can still have great discussions among liberal, conservative and independent voices on this forum who will allow for intelligent and largely fair, even if sometimes heated, discussion.  Not EVERYONE here dismisses every single thing anyone else besides himself and his World Net Daily-type sources say.

As for you guys who just want to poke holes in each other and call each other names all day long:  Whatever turns you on, I say."

Well said Linda. I wish I had read it before I weighed in. It would have saved me some grief.

Thanks for the support, RR, but, as mentioned on the other (current) poll thread, it didn't take me long to see what Markle was all about and how damaging his drip, drip, drip brand of poison was, and this time I most definitely did weigh in, and I'm naturally not sorry you did.  Yes, I had planned to just put Markle on ignore, but I decided that was a head-in-the- sand move.   I've stood up for principles here -- obviously not the same principles as certain others -- and make no apology to anyone for choosing Boards over Markle.  I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Poison? Do you know what "IGNORE" means? You are for squelching freedom of speech if it is counter to your own propaganda.

This is like Democrats who cry that media coverage is not fair and balanced when there is really only one station on the entire MSM networks that even tries to offer conservative views (FOX) out of how many? ONE versus the rest and Dems whine and cry. Rename this Forum boards to United States Socialists/Communists of Pensacola. It's sad grown people here cannot tolerate an opposing viewpoint to their own and it shows how insecure you are in your own beliefs.

Perhaps we should adopt this technique in our regular elections and convicting criminals. It is done in Italy with regard to conviction of criminals. If the prosecution does not get a conviction, they can try the suspect again.