A proposition...

othershoe1030 wrote:I think the phrase "posting in good faith" pretty much covers the problem I have with Markle. In my opinion he does not post in good faith; he posts to irritate, undermine and distract. He does not contribute to the discussion but enjoys throwing out shiny objects to derail any substantive conversations.

Considering how the forum is set up I don't see that Markle has a "right" to be here. He's like a pyromaniac at a lumber convention. Different points of view should and are welcome on a forum on politics but when arguments are not based in reality or points are totally irrelevant or mistakes cannot be acknowledged the posts become nothing more than pools of verbal quicksand that suck the vitality out of any constructive/interesting discourse.

othershoe1030 wrote:Different points of view should and are welcome on a forum on politics but when arguments are not based in reality or points are totally irrelevant or mistakes cannot be acknowledged the posts become nothing more than pools of verbal quicksand that suck the vitality out of any constructive/interesting discourse.

What? wrote:Yep a forum full of people with the same point of view....that really parallels the real world....not so much. Sheesh!

Defacto segregation from many who call themselves Democrats. Talk about hypocrisy!

othershoe1030 wrote:

What? wrote:Yep a forum full of people with the same point of view....that really parallels the real world....not so much. Sheesh!

Defacto segregation from many who call themselves Democrats. Talk about hypocrisy!

Not at all. If you want to tout the merits of Cruz or Trump or the flat tax or a gun in every closet etc. then have at it. Post something persuasive. We need to hear other points of view if for no other reason than to try and understand your thought process. Just go for it. It would be boring to just have total agreement.

Discussions should stimulate critical thinking and thoughtful comments with hopefully some humor thrown in but name calling and other similar antics do not facilitate the process.

PkrBum wrote:Y'all can rationalize and justify it anyway you like... but it is what it is... censorship plain and simple. It's been done this way countless times throughout the ages... from churches to  kingdoms to dictators to hitler. There were always "good" reasons.

Y'all can go ahead and drop the pretense of tolerance and enlightenment... this illustrates perfectly it's a falsehood.

https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

Someday it'll be the leftists that are enslaved by their own ethics... I bet the proletariat thght exactly as you do.

Salinsky wrote:Should Markle be banned, it will not be due to his viewpoints.

It will be due to his actions.

Y'all can whine and cry about censorship all you like, but the fact that his will be the first permanent banning of a poster in the history of this forum makes the truth about the matter abundantly clear.

What? wrote:Yep a forum full of people with the same point of view....that really parallels the real world....not so much. Sheesh!

Defacto segregation from many who call themselves Democrats. Talk about hypocrisy!

Just ensure an announcement is made when Markle gets banned. I will self-ban as well.

Vikingwoman wrote:

Hey, DE is looking for posters to discuss "mutually consenting adults" w/ family members. Maybe he will let you in on his forum where great minds think alike?

Salinsky wrote:Should Markle be banned, it will not be due to his viewpoints.

It will be due to his actions.

Y'all can whine and cry about censorship all you like, but the fact that his will be the first permanent banning of a poster in the history of this forum makes the truth about the matter abundantly clear.

PkrBum wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Should Markle be banned, it will not be due to his viewpoints.

It will be due to his actions.

Y'all can whine and cry about censorship all you like, but the fact that his will be the first permanent banning of a poster in the history of this forum makes the truth about the matter abundantly clear.

Since it's not the first permanent banning or the first person run off... what does that make clear to you now?

RealLindaL wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

What? wrote:Yep a forum full of people with the same point of view....that really parallels the real world....not so much. Sheesh!

Defacto segregation from many who call themselves Democrats. Talk about hypocrisy!

Not at all. If you want to tout the merits of Cruz or Trump or the flat tax or a gun in every closet etc. then have at it. Post something persuasive. We need to hear other points of view if for no other reason than to try and understand your thought process. Just go for it. It would be boring to just have total agreement.

Discussions should stimulate critical thinking and thoughtful comments with hopefully some humor thrown in but name calling and other similar antics do not facilitate the process.

Another great post by othershoe!  And it reiterates what I and others have tried to say, but no one is listening.  It's NOT about squelching other viewpoints, much less banning all conservative thought.  On the contrary!  It's about banning one very offensive, spamming poster who ruins things for everyone else.  Everyone!

What I just don't get is why his fellow conservatives are so desperate to keep him here, when all he does is diminish the value of their own contributions, hardening minds instead of opening them, and otherwise lowering the level of conversation.  This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  It has everything to do with wanting a valid, meaningful exchange of ideas and opinions with a reasonable level of factual truth and courtesy.  Period.

RealLindaL wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Should Markle be banned, it will not be due to his viewpoints.

It will be due to his actions.

Y'all can whine and cry about censorship all you like, but the fact that his will be the first permanent banning of a poster in the history of this forum makes the truth about the matter abundantly clear.

This was posted while I was writing my last response to othershoe above, and all I can say to Sal is:  AMEN.

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Salinsky wrote:.

The rest, if I remember correctly, were in your words "run off", a correct translation of which would be, "could not compete in the arena of ideas, got a bad case of butthurt, and took their ball and went home".[/font]

Telstar wrote:On the other hand is Markle's transgressions so awful that he deserves to be the first member banned permanently?

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Should Markle be banned, it will not be due to his viewpoints.

It will be due to his actions.

Y'all can whine and cry about censorship all you like, but the fact that his will be the first permanent banning of a poster in the history of this forum makes the truth about the matter abundantly clear.

Since it's not the first permanent banning or the first person run off... what does that make clear to you now?

Who else was permanently banned?

Was Chrissy?

If so, that was richly deserved and long overdue.

Anyone else?

I know T was put into timeout a couple of times for bad behavior.

The rest, if I remember correctly, were in your words "run off", a correct translation of which would be, "could not compete in the arena of ideas, got a bad case of butthurt, and took their ball and went home".

You know a lot about being "run off", don'tcha random internet guy?

Telstar wrote:

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Should Markle be banned, it will not be due to his viewpoints.

It will be due to his actions.

Y'all can whine and cry about censorship all you like, but the fact that his will be the first permanent banning of a poster in the history of this forum makes the truth about the matter abundantly clear.

Since it's not the first permanent banning or the first person run off... what does that make clear to you now?

Who else was permanently banned?

Was Chrissy?

If so, that was richly deserved and long overdue.

Anyone else?

I know T was put into timeout a couple of times for bad behavior.

The rest, if I remember correctly, were in your words "run off", a correct translation of which would be, "could not compete in the arena of ideas, got a bad case of butthurt, and took their ball and went home".

You know a lot about being "run off", don'tcha random internet guy?

It's been a while Sal but I think Chrissy finally decided to leave on her own.

gatorfan wrote:

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Salinsky wrote:.

The rest, if I remember correctly, were in your words "run off", a correct translation of which would be, "could not compete in the arena of ideas, got a bad case of butthurt, and took their ball and went home".[/font]

Too funny, BoF "ran himself off" after an extreme case of butthurt and as BoF's simpering toady so did you. But since both of you are childish to the point of being mere infants in a world of adults, poof you are back! With caveats!!!

Imagine that! Geez I've not laughed this much in years reading these pitiful little posts.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Salinsky wrote:.

The rest, if I remember correctly, were in your words "run off", a correct translation of which would be, "could not compete in the arena of ideas, got a bad case of butthurt, and took their ball and went home".[/font]

Too funny, BoF "ran himself off" after an extreme case of butthurt and as BoF's simpering toady so did you. But since both of you are childish to the point of being mere infants in a world of adults, poof you are back! With caveats!!!

Imagine that! Geez I've not laughed this much in years reading these pitiful little posts.

You and Flippy "ran off" as well.  Isn't that right, Hambone?

Salinsky wrote:

Telstar wrote:On the other hand is Markle's transgressions so awful that he deserves to be the first member banned permanently?

I guess that's for Boards to decide.

Apparently, Markle has been given multiple warnings to change his tactics.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:Wow...you really are filled with hate...over...nothing.

Notice how there is no refutation of anything I have said.  Notice how - as Sal has already pointed out - no one is coming to the defense of anything that you have said - and, oddly enough, that even includes yourself.  You're not even coming to your own defense.

The writing is on the wall.  You can say that I'm hate filled all you like.  I think you need to look in the mirror.

No one wants to confront you.  They're afraid they'll become the next target of your hate and all you've produced nothing I've posted which can be legitimally refuted, except for one thread where you really went off the rails.

A month's long hate and grudge of JOBS?

Show some people you're grown up.