PDA

View Full Version : Obama-The first sitting president to visit a daytime talkshow



venom
07-29-2010, 06:14 PM
Good for him . I guess all the golf courses in the NY area were being used .

The Patriot
07-30-2010, 05:13 PM
And Bush was the first president to go to a boy scouts meeting.

ricardisimo
07-30-2010, 05:34 PM
This is the shit that drives me up a wall. We have a war criminal (not to mention a class criminal) in the White House, and this is what people complain about? We deserve everything we get, clearly.

NJarhead
07-30-2010, 05:35 PM
And Bush was the first president to go to a boy scouts meeting.

And there's a problem with that?

I can assure you of one thing, Obama will NOT be the first President to put himself in danger to surprise the troops in the war zone for Thanksgiving. GWB did that too.

NJarhead
07-30-2010, 05:36 PM
This is the shit that drives me up a wall. We have a war criminal (not to mention a class criminal) in the White House, and this is what people complain about? We deserve everything we get, clearly.

What's the definition of "war criminal" know-it-all?

Seriously, just move to a country that hates the U.S. You will be SOOoooooo much happier there.

stillers4me
07-30-2010, 05:41 PM
Just a friendly and pre-emptive reminder:



2. No Flaming other than in The Beat Down forum. Comments outside of said forum deemed as abusive, offensive, trolling, obnoxious or provocative will be deleted without warning and if deemed appropriate by an Admin/Mod, the offensive party could receive an infraction or be temp/perma-banned. We hope this action will not be necessary.



Carry on.........

NJarhead
07-30-2010, 05:49 PM
This is the shit that drives me up a wall. We have a war criminal (not to mention a class criminal) in the White House, and this is what people complain about? We deserve everything we get, clearly.


Just a friendly and pre-emptive reminder:




Carry on.........

Noted. I've taken steps to ensure you won't have to worry about that with this discussion. :drink:

Any chance that should a debate/argument "evolve" into an unfriendly beat-down, could it simply be moved to that forum? Just an idea I had.

tony hipchest
07-30-2010, 05:52 PM
Noted. I've taken steps to ensure you won't have to worry about that with this discussion. :drink:

Any chance that should a debate/argument "evolve" into an unfriendly beat-down, could it simply be moved to that forum? Just an idea I had.i remember when revs had that "brilliant" idea and it led to about 3 threads locked down and atleast 2 members being banned.

:noidea:

my advice is "go for it"! :heh:

stillers4me
07-30-2010, 05:54 PM
i remember when revs had that "brilliant" idea and it led to about 3 threads locked down and atleast 2 members being banned.

:noidea:

my advice is "go for it"! :heh:

:buttkick:

ricardisimo
07-30-2010, 07:40 PM
What's the definition of "war criminal" know-it-all?

Seriously, just move to a country that hates the U.S. You will be SOOoooooo much happier there.
:ban:

At some point someone will explain to me why it is that when I criticize the president, I'm expected to move to another country. When others do it, they are patriots. I'd say it seems a tad odd, but by now I'd be shocked if this stopped happening.
:banplease:

X-Terminator
07-30-2010, 07:43 PM
Noted. I've taken steps to ensure you won't have to worry about that with this discussion. :drink:

Any chance that should a debate/argument "evolve" into an unfriendly beat-down, could it simply be moved to that forum? Just an idea I had.

The answer is NO, and I've already locked that thread down. The Beat Down forum was NOT created for personal attacks and flame wars between members. This has already been tried before, and that thread was also locked down. My advice to you is to either tone things down or we'll be forced to take further action.

SteelCityMom
07-30-2010, 07:46 PM
I don't care...I agree with you Ric. The crap people complain about in a president (aka the "leader" of the nation) drives me nuts. OMG...the first lady didn't dress well enough...OMG the dog looks skinny...OMG the pres went golfing while a third world nation was in civil war. Seriously...who really believes that the pres of the US is supposed to be an upstanding job and not just a title to placate the masses? Ridunckulous I tells ya.

venom
07-30-2010, 09:39 PM
http://obamalies.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/obama_supporters.jpg

Drink up !

tony hipchest
07-30-2010, 10:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3Iq3XQkAw

venom
07-30-2010, 10:23 PM
http://rlv.zcache.com/hope_flush_hope_toilet_sticker-p217707724680390698qjcl_400.jpg

venom
07-30-2010, 10:25 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama_toilet_seat.jpg

Mach1
07-30-2010, 11:26 PM
I'm glad to see my tax dollars hard at work to provide security, transportation for the Messiah to appear on a dumb ass daytime talk show.

Shea
07-30-2010, 11:40 PM
I'm glad to see my tax dollars hard at work to provide security, transportation for the Messiah to appear on a dumb ass daytime talk show.

Just curious but did you watch it?

I did, and I get how frustrated people are with his policies, but I didn't think it was a bad idea for him to appear in a medium where he could reach millions of people watching and convey and communicate with America with what he has to say.

Hate what's happening, but this was an example, after watching him, that he really does care and wants to do what's best for our country.

Messiah, he is not.

He's just a man doing what he thinks will help us all, and from viewing how gray he's getting, it's not something he is taking lightly.

Mach1
07-31-2010, 01:58 AM
No, I work during the day.

And no he doesn't want to "help" the average American. I guess he could reach the millions of people that are out of work and convince them he's doing his all. Whats best for the country is not attacking small business, which is exactly what he is doing.

NJarhead
07-31-2010, 06:59 AM
:ban:

At some point someone will explain to me why it is that when I criticize the president, I'm expected to move to another country. When others do it, they are patriots. I'd say it seems a tad odd, but by now I'd be shocked if this stopped happening.
:banplease:

Sooooo, you're just not going to answer the question, are you.?.? No surprise there. Just being different again? Outlandish statement of the day?

NJarhead
07-31-2010, 07:16 AM
I don't care...I agree with you Ric. The crap people complain about in a president (aka the "leader" of the nation) drives me nuts. OMG...the first lady didn't dress well enough...OMG the dog looks skinny...OMG the pres went golfing while a third world nation was in civil war. Seriously...who really believes that the pres of the US is supposed to be an upstanding job and not just a title to placate the masses? Ridunckulous I tells ya.

Right, but calling the President a "War Criminal???" Gimme a break. That's ridiculous, and I don't even like Obama.

ricardisimo
07-31-2010, 02:35 PM
Right, but calling the President a "War Criminal???" Gimme a break. That's ridiculous, and I don't even like Obama.

Continuing an illegal war is no less a crime than starting it. If that's not bad enough for you, then there's also what Michael Steele fairly accurately called his "taking ownership" of the war in Afghanistan (with all of the unpleasantness and illegalities outlined in the recent leaks) and expanding it into Pakistan, bombing civilians there with unmanned drones... All of which satisfies the use of the term "war criminal". The continued use of illegal white phosphorous bombs (which even our most hawkish puppet, Israel, has finally formally declared illegal) just adds to the list, which I'm sure could go on and on.

ricardisimo
08-01-2010, 02:32 AM
I don't care...I agree with you Ric. The crap people complain about in a president (aka the "leader" of the nation) drives me nuts. OMG...the first lady didn't dress well enough...OMG the dog looks skinny...OMG the pres went golfing while a third world nation was in civil war. Seriously...who really believes that the pres of the US is supposed to be an upstanding job and not just a title to placate the masses? Ridunckulous I tells ya.

Anything to avoid honest debate on serious topics. If we did that, we might like it, and then our representatives in government might be held to higher standards... No, we can't have that. Michelle needs a new wardrobe instead.

NJarhead
08-01-2010, 07:24 AM
Continuing an illegal war is no less a crime than starting it. If that's not bad enough for you, then there's also what Michael Steele fairly accurately called his "taking ownership" of the war in Afghanistan (with all of the unpleasantness and illegalities outlined in the recent leaks) and expanding it into Pakistan, bombing civilians there with unmanned drones... All of which satisfies the use of the term "war criminal". The continued use of illegal white phosphorous bombs (which even our most hawkish puppet, Israel, has finally formally declared illegal) just adds to the list, which I'm sure could go on and on.

Incredible. Since when is white phosphorus illegal? What "illegalities" exactly were outlined in these leaks?
This war is not illegal. Obama "taking ownership" is debatable, but he does seem to be giving what is being asked for by the commanders. Neither the Pakistani Gov't or the Afghani tribes (largly) do not seem to think it "illegal." Not to mention the other nations involved as allies.

I'd also like to point out that we do not target civilians. EVER. There will ALWAYS be civilian casualties in a war. I guess there will always be folks too who will complain no matter how things unfold. :rolleyes:

SteelCityMom
08-01-2010, 10:44 AM
Incredible. Since when is white phosphorus illegal? What "illegalities" exactly were outlined in these leaks?
This war is not illegal. Obama "taking ownership" is debatable, but he does seem to be giving what is being asked for by the commanders. Neither the Pakistani Gov't or the Afghani tribes (largly) do not seem to think it "illegal." Not to mention the other nations involved as allies.

I'd also like to point out that we do not target civilians. EVER. There will ALWAYS be civilian casualties in a war. I guess there will always be folks too who will complain no matter how things unfold. :rolleyes:

I'm not clear on when WP being used against personnel (civilian or otherwise) was banned by the IHL (International Humanitarian Law), but it is. It's ok to use it against material targets, but not human targets.


(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm


uly 2009

Recently the U.S. accused the Taliban of using white phosphorus (WP) in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in civilian areas in Afghanistan, as well as in mortar and rocket attacks against U.S. forces. The Taliban denied using or possessing WP munitions. For its part, the U.S. stated that both it and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force do not use WP munitions as an anti-personnel weapon in Afghanistan, and confirmed, in accordance with its earlier position, that it employs WP munitions only for purposes such as marking targets or igniting enemy ammunition. In 2005, however, the U.S. admitted, after first denying, that it used WP munitions against insurgents in “shake and bake” operations in Iraq in 2004. During such operations, WP munitions were used to flush out insurgents from spider holes at which point they were exposed to high-explosive ordinance.

Other recent conflicts in which the use of WP munitions has been documented or alleged include Somalia, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and Gaza.

WP munitions may be advantageous in a military context due to the dense smoke produced when WP comes into contact with oxygen, as well as to the incendiary capacity of WP. During armed conflicts, the smoke produced by WP munitions has been used to mark targets, to screen troop positions, and to illuminate darkened areas. WP munitions have also been used in armed conflicts to destroy unoccupied bunkers and to ignite enemy ammunition. However, when ignited WP munitions come into contact with human flesh, they may burn through skin causing tremendous pain and tissue damage.

The alleged use of WP munitions, by both states and non-state actors such as the Taliban, is regulated in part by international humanitarian law (IHL). To determine whether a certain use of WP munitions in armed conflict is in conformity with IHL, it is necessary to assess pertinent treaties and customary law.

more...
http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2105

NJarhead
08-01-2010, 12:09 PM
I'm not clear on when WP being used against personnel (civilian or otherwise) was banned by the IHL (International Humanitarian Law), but it is. It's ok to use it against material targets, but not human targets.
That sounds about right. However, it is ALSO against NATO rules to shoot a human combatant with a .50 cal. But I was trained that if I'm in danger and all I have is a .5o and bayonet while the other guy has an AK, then I'm okay to use the .50.

I'm not aware of any intentional targeting of personnel by the U.S. using WP weapons.

This discussion is comical really since the people we are after are more known for targeting innocent civilians than anyone else. Is "someone" here (not you) pushing for an inquiry of our troops tactics again, thus tying their hands even more, while also complaining about how long this war is taking and the lives/$$ it's costing? Gotta love the "Jane Fonda Coalition."

Godfather
08-01-2010, 12:12 PM
That sounds about right. However, it is ALSO against NATO rules to shoot a human combatant with a .50 cal.

Geesh, who comes up with rules like that??! It's OK to kill someone with a slightly smaller bullet but a .50 is over the line?

SteelersinCA
08-01-2010, 12:23 PM
This discussion is comical really since the people we are after are more known for targeting innocent civilians than anyone else.

I don't really care much about WP but you can't really being saying because they do it it is somehow justified? Isn't that what makes us better as Americans? Well, that's what I thought.

tony hipchest
08-01-2010, 09:43 PM
I'm not aware of any intentional targeting of personnel by the U.S. using WP weapons.

"you obviously didnt read the 91,000+ leaked documents. lift up the rug they are swept under and check it out.

BPS3akaWirels3
08-01-2010, 09:51 PM
:ban:

At some point someone will explain to me why it is that when I criticize the president, I'm expected to move to another country. When others do it, they are patriots. I'd say it seems a tad odd, but by now I'd be shocked if this stopped happening.
:banplease:

You can come live in my country where there is Nobama my friend..

Devilsdancefloor
08-01-2010, 10:13 PM
The rules of engagement are so clouded by BS rules it isnt funny, but i know if any of you had the option of using .50 cal, Willy P, a freaking pocket knife to kill the bastard trying to kill you. You would use whatever you had. This is the Number 1 reason why this shit has dragged on so long. It seems everday so dumbass who is over educated comes up with a new rule to tie the hands of those trying their hardest to end this damn war. The ironic thing of this BS is that all the "bad" guys know that a goo Percentage of american people will grow tired of the war and will push to end it or just leave. They know we are fat and lazy and very impatient.

Mattsme
08-01-2010, 11:09 PM
This thread has gotten off topic, and my post continues that. However, I just feel like saying this.

I'm not taking sides, but there seems to be a lot of nitpicking going on here, and one fact getting lost in all of this. Terrorists murdered American civilians, on
American soil. They murdered human beings. Liberal and conservative blood alike spilled that day.

Now we can debate the legality, morality, and justification of the Afghan war until Tom Brady comes out of the closet or the bengals win a ring, and most likely no ones' mind will be changed. But the reality is we are there. We are fighting. And there are still the same terrorists in that country that attacked us almost nine years ago. And they have every intent to do so again if given the chance. I'm pretty sure those are things most sane people agree on.

Now imagine this for a moment, whichever side of the fence you're on, and even if you're sitting on a post:

Let's pretend there was a group of terrorists here in this country who murdered thousands of innocent people somewhere else. And that place decided to invade us, because we couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it. Would you join the fight against our domestic terrorists if it meant possibly preventing your family from being another civilian casualty? Would you at least condemn them whenever possible and do whatever you could to assist the other country in getting rid of them, even if it meant the risk of punishment from your fellow countrymen?

Really. Stop. Imagine that scenario. Imagine the roles were reversed. Amuse me. Do it for a fellow Steelers fan.

Anyone saying no?

Well until every Afghan civilian does just that, FUCK THEM. Political correctness be damned.

War is a terrible thing. Maybe someday we can all live in peace and harmony, and the patriots* can receive the first 53 picks of every draft. But until that day comes, we're going to have war. People are going to get burned. They are going to get shot with the wrong bullet. Children are going to die. It's horrible, it really is. Words honestly cannot describe it.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
(Let the inevitable attacks for that last line without thinking about what I'm really saying begin.)


brett favre

Mattsme
08-01-2010, 11:24 PM
That poster directly above this is a whack job, huh? :chuckle:

Back on topic.

Obama was on The View. Big whoop.

It was a PR move, no more no less. And given our pop culture obsessed society, it will probably be effective. A Republican would have done the same thing.

ricardisimo
08-01-2010, 11:36 PM
Matt, you can repeat that over and over again, but it doesn't make it true. Afghanis had less than nothing to do with 9/11... unless, like some on these boards, your reasoning goes like this: Afghanis are Muslims, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and therefore Afghanis attacked us on 9/11. I believe that Vincent more or less subscribes to that theory, and he can elaborate on it somewhat.

Now, if you are saying that bin Laden murdered Americans on 9/11, and bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and we will occupy them until we find them... well, there are problems with that theory as well. Running geological surveys of lithium deposits and natural gas reserves in Afghanistan has nothing to do with finding bin Laden (unless he's hiding in a lithium deposit) and less to do with the Pentagon's mission there. But that's just what the Army just did, and it confirms what Afghanis (and Iraqis) take for granted: that we're there to take control of their resources.

Speaking more directly to your broader point, I don't think letting your basest emotions from your lowest moments guide foreign and domestic policy is ever a good idea. So forming a decade's worth of foreign policy three days after 9/11, and automatically rejecting anything that may have originated in a cooler head is not what is in America's best interests, and it's not what makes this country great.

tony hipchest
08-01-2010, 11:41 PM
This thread has gotten off topic, and my post continues that. However, I just feel like saying this.

...




brett favre

i agree.

brett favre.

NJarhead
08-01-2010, 11:55 PM
This part I agree whole-heartedly with.



This thread has gotten off topic, and my post continues that. However, I just feel like saying this.

I'm not taking sides, but there seems to be a lot of nitpicking going on here, and one fact getting lost in all of this. Terrorists murdered American civilians, on
American soil. They murdered human beings. Liberal and conservative blood alike spilled that day.

Now we can debate the legality, morality, and justification of the Afghan war until Tom Brady comes out of the closet or the bengals win a ring, and most likely no ones' mind will be changed. But the reality is we are there. We are fighting. And there are still the same terrorists in that country that attacked us almost nine years ago. And they have every intent to do so again if given the chance. I'm pretty sure those are things most sane people agree on.

This part I strongly disagree with. I'm not sure why, but what seems to be getting lost is that the majority, yes MAJORITY, of Afghans want the Taliban gone. Many tribal leaders have risked everything to meet with our troops, get medical attention and join the fight. As I said in an earlier post, there are ever rival tribes fighting side-by-side in the Afghan National Army along with our guys. Unfortunately, I guess one has to go and look for this information because no papers or news organizations seem to want to report it.


Now imagine this for a moment, whichever side of the fence you're on, and even if you're sitting on a post:

Let's pretend there was a group of terrorists here in this country who murdered thousands of innocent people somewhere else. And that place decided to invade us, because we couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it. Would you join the fight against our domestic terrorists if it meant possibly preventing your family from being another civilian casualty? Would you at least condemn them whenever possible and do whatever you could to assist the other country in getting rid of them, even if it meant the risk of punishment from your fellow countrymen?

Really. Stop. Imagine that scenario. Imagine the roles were reversed. Amuse me. Do it for a fellow Steelers fan.

Anyone saying no?

Well until every Afghan civilian does just that, FUCK THEM. Political correctness be damned.

Mattsme
08-02-2010, 12:15 AM
Matt, you can repeat that over and over again, but it doesn't make it true.

Doesn't make what true? Really, I want to know. Did I say anything false? Feel free to check again. Maybe I missed something. I mean I mentioned something about the bengals winning a ring, but I assumed everyone would know I don't honestly believe that could happen.


Afghanis had less than nothing to do with 9/11... unless, like some on these boards, your reasoning goes like this: Afghanis are Muslims, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and therefore Afghanis attacked us on 9/11.

Less than nothing? I think that's a bit of a stretch. But I don't blame the average Afghani for any act of terrorism, nor the average muslim. As a matter of fact I don't recall ever even implying that. Please don't infer things that aren't there. If I mean something, I'll say it.


Now, if you are saying that bin Laden murdered Americans on 9/11, and bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and we will occupy them until we find them... well, there are problems with that theory as well.

Didn't say that, nor do I think it. I don't know where bin Laden is. Wish I did. I'd tell Geraldo. Would make for amusing TV, no matter what your politics are.
:sarcasm:
Actually, I think we will occupy them for quite a while after we find him, if we ever do. And I have mixed feelings on that. But I didn't mention any of this in my previous post.


But that's just what the Army just did, and it confirms what Afghanis (and Iraqis) take for granted: that we're there to take control of their resources.

I don't care if the army from the lost tribes of the amazon were in my backyard and I KNEW they were here to take control of our sliced bread and breast implant technology, if even a group of radical STEELER fans had previously slaughtered thousands of their civilians, and they were throwing spears back and forth and one came close to my family, I would be the first one out the door with a map to where my terrible towel waving terrorists were hiding. Sorry I didn't make my point more clear.


Speaking more directly to your broader point, I don't think letting your basest emotions from your lowest moments guide foreign and domestic policy is ever a good idea.

Honestly, my "basest emotions" have much more to do with p*ssy than they do with patriotism, and 9/11 was far from my lowest moment. Actually it wasn't any lower or higher than 9/10 or 9/12. Last I checked there are still no patriotic bumper stickers on my car, not that there's anything wrong with that. Perhaps I should have refrained from using the word "fuck" in my previous post, as it really does imply emotion. It was more for emphasis. My bad.



Matt, you can repeat that over and over again, but it doesn't make it true.

Repeating for emphasis. Doesn't make what true?

Mattsme
08-02-2010, 12:18 AM
This part I strongly disagree with. I'm not sure why, but what seems to be getting lost is that the majority, yes MAJORITY, of Afghans want the Taliban gone.

I do realize that, and looking back I should have rephrased that part of my post to direct it at the ones that don't. Or do, but don't say or do anything about it. Or don't care one way or the other.

ricardisimo
08-02-2010, 12:24 AM
Repeating for emphasis. Doesn't make what true?

It doesn't make what you said true, which is, once again, one of two things: either that Afghani terrorists murdered American civilians on 9/11 and intend to do it again, therefore justifying our presence there; or that we are occupying Afghanistan in an earnest attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. I don't see many other ways to interpret paragraphs two and three of your first post here. Both of these are lies that are repeated ad nauseum in the American press, in an obvious attempt to make them true by such repetition. I'm asking you not to be complicit in this attempt.

Mattsme
08-02-2010, 12:41 AM
It doesn't make what you said true, which is, once again, one of two things: either that Afghani terrorists murdered American civilians on 9/11 and intend to do it again, therefore justifying our presence there; or that we are occupying Afghanistan in an earnest attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. I don't see many other ways to interpret paragraphs two and three of your first post here. Both of these are lies that are repeated ad nauseum in the American press, in an obvious attempt to make them true by such repetition. I'm asking you not to be complicit in this attempt.

Never said we were justified in being there. Never said we were there to capture anyone. I didn't say "one of two things." Nothing I said should need to be "interpreted."

I said four things.

We are there. We are fighting. There are terrorists in Afghanistan. Those terrorists would like to kill Americans.


Now we can debate the legality, morality, and justification of the Afghan war until Tom Brady comes out of the closet or the bengals win a ring, and most likely no ones' mind will be changed. But the reality is we are there. We are fighting. And there are still the same terrorists in that country that attacked us almost nine years ago. And they have every intent to do so again if given the chance. I'm pretty sure those are things most sane people agree on

I went back and read the last line of my paragraph above. Now you make sense.

I'm kidding of course, I think you're perfectly sane. And I get what you're doing in this thread and all the other other ones in the soapbox. I really do. It was amusing for a while. Now it's just tired, whichever side you read it from.

Mattsme
08-02-2010, 12:55 AM
Now, before this thread gets locked down.

I've never actually seen The View. Any men want to admit that they have?

ricardisimo
08-02-2010, 02:16 AM
Now, before this thread gets locked down.

I've never actually seen The View. Any men want to admit that they have?

For reason which have never been explained to my satisfaction, there are only three things which they show on the TV in the coffee shop next to my work:

Police helicopter chase scenes news footage;
Mexican League soccer;
"The View".

The crew there are overwhelmingly Mexican immigrants, so at least one of these items makes sense, but the other two...?

Mattsme
08-02-2010, 02:34 AM
For reason which have never been explained to my satisfaction, there are only three things which they show on the TV in the coffee shop next to my work:

Police helicopter chase scenes news footage;
Mexican League soccer;
"The View".

The crew there are overwhelmingly Mexican immigrants, so at least one of these items makes sense, but the other two...?

Racist. :lol:

There must be some connection though. Conspiracy?

BnG_Hevn
08-02-2010, 11:12 AM
What constitutes an "illegal" war? I hate Obama and his policies as much as the next man, but to call ANY US president a war criminal is ludicrous.

If you are the people/country getting attacked, ANY war would be "illegal". Wars are not "illegal", you can argue that they are not necessary or immoral, but legality has nothing to do with it.

venom
08-02-2010, 01:26 PM
Im sure there still some nuts out there that want Bush locked up for war crimes , lol .

ricardisimo
08-02-2010, 01:43 PM
Im sure there still some nuts out there that want Bush locked up for war crimes , lol .

Like me, for example.

ricardisimo
08-02-2010, 01:48 PM
What constitutes an "illegal" war? I hate Obama and his policies as much as the next man, but to call ANY US president a war criminal is ludicrous.

If you are the people/country getting attacked, ANY war would be "illegal". Wars are not "illegal", you can argue that they are not necessary or immoral, but legality has nothing to do with it.

Wars are indeed either "legal" or "illegal", and since we are signatories to all of the major treaties governing these issues, we are bound by these laws... or at least we would be were we not a rogue state governed by violent psychopaths.

Why do you think it is ludicrous for there to be laws which govern the actions of states just as there are laws which govern the actions of people? Or, are you simply an American Exceptionalist? Do you believe that international laws apply to other countries and their leaders, but not to the US and its presidents?

NJarhead
08-02-2010, 03:58 PM
Wars are indeed either "legal" or "illegal", and since we are signatories to all of the major treaties governing these issues, we are bound by these laws... or at least we would be were we not a rogue state governed by violent psychopaths.

Why do you think it is ludicrous for there to be laws which govern the actions of states just as there are laws which govern the actions of people? Or, are you simply an American Exceptionalist? Do you believe that international laws apply to other countries and their leaders, but not to the US and its presidents?

:rolleyes: Better let all these other countries on our side know they're fighting an "illegal" war:

Country Troops
Albania 22
Australia 550
Austria 4
Azerbaijan 22
Belgium 300
Bulgaria 200
Croatia 216
Czech Republic 89
Denmark 389
Estonia 130
Finland 100
France 1,900
Macedonia 130
Germany 3,000
Greece 171
Hungary 159
Iceland 20
Ireland 7
Italy 1,950
Latvia 40
Lithuania 115
Luxembourg 10
Netherlands 1,700
New Zealand 130
Norway 580
Poland 1,200
Portugal 150
Romania 900
Slovakia 57
Slovenia 51
Spain 800
Sweden 330
Switzerland 4
Turkey 1,200
United Kingdom 7,700
United States 12,000

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html

:coffee:

ricardisimo
08-02-2010, 04:20 PM
These countries know on which side their bread is buttered. I'm not sure what your point is, though. Is a crime not a crime if you have enough co-conspirators? It's all moot, anyhow, since the end is nigh (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100801/wl_asia_afp/afghanistannetherlandsunrestnato). Those other countries are reading the writing on the wall, seeing that the war is lost, and are packing their bags.

NJarhead
08-02-2010, 04:24 PM
These countries know on which side their bread is buttered. I'm not sure what your point is, though. Is a crime not a crime if you have enough co-conspirators? It's all moot, anyhow, since the end is nigh (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100801/wl_asia_afp/afghanistannetherlandsunrestnato). Those other countries are reading the writing on the wall, seeing that the war is lost, and are packing their bags.

It's not a crime. It's not an illegal war. I was mocking you for being dead wrong. Guess I should have been more clear about it, sorry.

ricardisimo
08-02-2010, 05:42 PM
Of course it's illegal. It's a war of aggression, which is flatly illegal as per the UN Charter (to which we are signatories, making it the law of the land).

A war of aggression is a non-defensive war which is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Neither Afghanistan - nor individual Afghanis - ever invaded us or threatened to do so, and it is highly unlikely that they will do so at any point in the foreseeable future. That is to say that we cannot credibly claim that this war was defensive, either preemptively or otherwise.

Furthermore, the invasion was never sanctioned by the UN. In the aftermath of the invasion, the ISAF was formed to stabilize the areas around Kabul (as well as to legitimize US policy on some level). But this is different from sanctioning the invasion, as contrasted with the first Gulf War, for example.

It's illegal, it's immoral, and we're losing to boot. It's the perfect trifecta of an empire in decay.

NJarhead
08-02-2010, 05:46 PM
Of course it's illegal. It's a war of aggression, which is flatly illegal as per the UN Charter (to which we are signatories, making it the law of the land).

A war of aggression is a non-defensive war which is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Neither Afghanistan - nor individual Afghanis - ever invaded us or threatened to do so, and it is highly unlikely that they will do so at any point in the foreseeable future. That is to say that we cannot credibly claim that this war was defensive, either preemptively or otherwise.

Furthermore, the invasion was never sanctioned by the UN. In the aftermath of the invasion, the ISAF was formed to stabilize the areas around Kabul (as well as to legitimize US policy on some level). But this is different from sanctioning the invasion, as contrasted with the first Gulf War, for example.

It's illegal, it's immoral, and we're losing to boot. It's the perfect trifecta of an empire in decay.

:rolleyes: This war is not illegal. You are grasping at straws. And just to humor myself, what nation are we at war with?

SteelersinCA
08-02-2010, 06:06 PM
:rolleyes: Better let all these other countries on our side know they're fighting an "illegal" war:

Country Troops

Switzerland 4
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html

:coffee:

So much for neutrality, I'm never buying a swiss army knife again....

ricardisimo
08-03-2010, 02:39 AM
:rolleyes: This war is not illegal. You are grasping at straws. And just to humor myself, what nation are we at war with?

I thought you said you could read. Wars of aggression are illegal as per our own laws - namely the international treaties to which we are signatories. Wars of aggression are non-defensive wars (like both of our current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq) which are not sanctioned by the UN via the Security Council (like both of our current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq). Therefore both of our current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal wars of aggression. Did you want it in some graphical format, like a flow chart or something?

Presidents proclaiming these wars legal doesn't make them so. Wishing these wars were legal doesn't make them so. Really, really fervently wishing they were legal also doesn't make them legal. And obviously "mocking" people (although I missed the mocking part... your humor is just too subtle for me) that state the obvious about these wars likewise does not make them legal.

LLT
08-03-2010, 05:01 AM
I thought you said you could read. ..... Did you want it in some graphical format, like a flow chart or something?



Notice to everyone!!!!

This is the personal stufff that isnt going to be allowed. Ric, and anyone else, who wants to attack the poster instead of the post is going to get a small vacation.

Texasteel
08-03-2010, 05:31 AM
To get back to the tread. I thought he would end up on Jeopardy, or The Price is Right.

stillers4me
08-03-2010, 05:39 AM
To get back to the tread. I thought he would end up on Jeopardy, or The Price is Right.

I was thinking more along the lines of that show Donald Trump has.

HometownGal
08-03-2010, 05:47 AM
To get back to the tread. I thought he would end up on Jeopardy, or The Price is Right.

I think he belongs on "Wipeout". :heh:

venom
08-03-2010, 05:48 AM
I heard he is going to host The Price is Right right before the Nov. midterm elections

SteelerSal
08-03-2010, 06:39 AM
I think he belongs on "Wipeout". :heh:


I love that show. LOL

Wallace108
08-03-2010, 09:48 AM
I think he belongs on "Wipeout". :heh:

I was thinking "Jackass" :noidea:

SteelersinCA
08-03-2010, 09:49 AM
Notice to everyone!!!!

This is the personal stufff that isnt going to be allowed. Ric, and anyone else, who wants to attack the poster instead of the post is going to get a small vacation.

So creating a thread about Ric calling him fucking asshole and then theWarden's little diatribe in the Afghanistan now Obamas war thread doesn't warrant a little vacation but saying I thought you could read does? Umm........OK.

Look I certainly appreciate the job you are all doing and I have attempted to refrain from making your job's any more difficult on this board that you worked so tirelessly to create, but this is stretch and I'm just gonna call it how I see it. While I don't often agree with Ric at all politically this seems like a very suspicious banning. He has never resorted to the behavior of calling someone a fucking asshole or creating a thread designed to flame a member, which incidentally had a title insulting said member. You can't tell me they didn't get the message when the threads Revs created were locked down previously, it's not like everyone didn't know about it.

This is a curious case of the rules seemingly not being applied evenhandedly with which I disagree FWIW.

tony hipchest
08-03-2010, 10:00 AM
What's the definition of "war criminal" know-it-all?

.


:ban:

At some point someone will explain to me why it is that when I criticize the president, I'm expected to move to another country. When others do it, they are patriots. I'd say it seems a tad odd, but by now I'd be shocked if this stopped happening.
:banplease:thats a legitimate question. it appears you have an opinion that this war is illegal, and have supported that stance and debated w/o flaming, baiting, or openly mocking people.

it was contended that white phosphorus was legal to use. it was shown to be used illegaly. it was contended that there is no such thing as an "illegal war". that too, was debunked.

it appears you are a victim of not going with the flow.

so if i am to understand correctly saying someone is "grasping at straws" is now a bannable offense?

X-Terminator
08-03-2010, 10:23 AM
So creating a thread about Ric calling him fucking asshole and then theWarden's little diatribe in the Afghanistan now Obamas war thread doesn't warrant a little vacation but saying I thought you could read does? Umm........OK.

Look I certainly appreciate the job you are all doing and I have attempted to refrain from making your job's any more difficult on this board that you worked so tirelessly to create, but this is stretch and I'm just gonna call it how I see it. While I don't often agree with Ric at all politically this seems like a very suspicious banning. He has never resorted to the behavior of calling someone a fucking asshole or creating a thread designed to flame a member, which incidentally had a title insulting said member. You can't tell me they didn't get the message when the threads Revs created were locked down previously, it's not like everyone didn't know about it.

This is a curious case of the rules seemingly not being applied evenhandedly with which I disagree FWIW.

TheWarDen was asked to tone things down after those incidents, which he has done. And as a result, the thread continued along without any further incidents...until now. That is all we have ever asked members to do, and also to use discretion and attack the post rather than the poster.

I support LLT's decision.

SteelCityMom
08-03-2010, 10:37 AM
TheWarDen was asked to tone things down after those incidents, which he has done. And as a result, the thread continued along without any further incidents...until now. That is all we have ever asked members to do, and also to use discretion and attack the post rather than the poster.

I support LLT's decision.

Seriously? I gotta ask...have you read the whole thread? I like both Ric and Warden, I don't always agree with them both, but the actual debates are interesting. I'm with SICA on this one though. This was kind of a BS banning. Ric is rarely ever outright demeaning to another poster (IMO) and yet was banned the first instance of slipping up in this thread. Warden, who has made VERY nasty remarks towards and about Ric, was even blatantly warned about personal attacks on the first page and then made some more later on in the thread and gets nothing? Just doesn't seem right to me. Again, I like them both...just trying to see it from a neutral aspect. I'd rather see neither of them banned because Warden certainly has toned it down...but if underhanded snide remarks are bannable now, then Warden is certainly not innocent of that in this thread.

X-Terminator
08-03-2010, 10:43 AM
Seriously? I gotta ask...have you read the whole thread? I like both Ric and Warden, I don't always agree with them both, but the actual debates are interesting. I'm with SICA on this one though. This was kind of a BS banning. Ric is rarely ever outright demeaning to another poster (IMO) and yet was banned the first instance of slipping up in this thread. Warden, who has made VERY nasty remarks towards and about Ric, was even blatantly warned about personal attacks on the first page and then made some more later on in the thread and gets nothing? Just doesn't seem right to me. Again, I like them both...just trying to see it from a neutral aspect. I'd rather see neither of them banned because Warden certainly has toned it down...but if underhanded snide remarks are bannable now, then Warden is certainly not innocent of that in this thread.

Yes, I have read the entire thread. I had to have read the entire thread considering that I was the one who asked WarDen to tone things down. I'm also not going to argue with members over this decision. I gave my reasoning for supporting it, and that's that.

SteelCityMom
08-03-2010, 10:48 AM
Yes, I have read the entire thread. I had to have read the entire thread considering that I was the one who asked WarDen to tone things down. I'm also not going to argue with members over this decision, either. I gave my reasoning for supporting it, and that's that.

Ok...point taken. I'm just really blown away by it is all.

NJarhead
08-03-2010, 02:07 PM
I thought you said you could read. Wars of aggression are illegal as per our own laws - namely the international treaties to which we are signatories. Wars of aggression are non-defensive wars (like both of our current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq) which are not sanctioned by the UN via the Security Council (like both of our current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq). Therefore both of our current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal wars of aggression. Did you want it in some graphical format, like a flow chart or something?

Presidents proclaiming these wars legal doesn't make them so. Wishing these wars were legal doesn't make them so. Really, really fervently wishing they were legal also doesn't make them legal. And obviously "mocking" people (although I missed the mocking part... your humor is just too subtle for me) that state the obvious about these wars likewise does not make them legal.

Well, I wanted to ask: "War of aggression against which nation?" Looks like I'll have to wait.
I read fine by-the-way. In fact, I did read the UN Charter and yes they consider aggression against the charter. However, they also deploy troops to "enforce peace." We were attacked, not by a nation but by a rogue group who we are now truing to eliminate (again, a group, not a nation). We are working WITH the citizens of the nation in which we are fighting.

We have SEVERAL allies along with us and I've not heard a single charge by the UN.

So, since you are the accuser then you should be able to produce facts that support your claim:

1). the nation we are aggressively acting against.
2). The UN's legal response (surely if what we're doing is illegal then there must be charges, meetings, ultimatums/warnings, etc).

Please, when you get back see if you can't produce the above.

Shea
08-03-2010, 02:47 PM
Please, when you get back see if you can't produce the above.

So the ban is temporary?

And I hope he does come back. Although people might not allows agree with what he has to say, he always made the threads more interesting, and I don't ever recall him being nasty, unlike others.

Unfortunately, you lose members though when things like this happen because they often feel like it isn't worth it anymore.

Wallace108
08-03-2010, 04:34 PM
Well, I wanted to ask: "War of aggression against which nation?" Looks like I'll have to wait.
I read fine by-the-way. In fact, I did read the UN Charter and yes they consider aggression against the charter. However, they also deploy troops to "enforce peace." We were attacked, not by a nation but by a rogue group who we are now truing to eliminate (again, a group, not a nation). We are working WITH the citizens of the nation in which we are fighting.

We have SEVERAL allies along with us and I've not heard a single charge by the UN.

So, since you are the accuser then you should be able to produce facts that support your claim:

1). the nation we are aggressively acting against.
2). The UN's legal response (surely if what we're doing is illegal then there must be charges, meetings, ultimatums/warnings, etc).

Please, when you get back see if you can't produce the above.

WarDen, I agree with you politically, but is it necessary to continue this debate when Ric isn't even here to defend his views? :noidea:
It seems like kicking someone when they're down ...

NJarhead
08-03-2010, 05:38 PM
WarDen, I agree with you politically, but is it necessary to continue this debate when Ric isn't even here to defend his views? :noidea:
It seems like kicking someone when they're down ...

Not kicking him. I'm responding to something he wrote and it will be there when he gets back.

tony hipchest
08-03-2010, 05:56 PM
Not kicking him. I'm responding to something he wrote and it will be there when he gets back.

aha... kinda like setting a trap with bait. :wink02:

HometownGal
08-03-2010, 07:01 PM
Unfortunately, you lose members though when things like this happen because they often feel like it isn't worth it anymore.

Unfortunately, we also run the risk of losing good, solid members and potential good members because of juvenile name-calling and personal attacks that are verbotten around these parts.

I think everyone needs to take a gander at the board COC. This isn't SF where our hands are tied - this is SU and the COC wasn't put up as window dressing and will be enforced.

Wallace - I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with Patrick's post. There is no name calling and everyone can plainly see that Ric was given a vacation (7 days for the record) by a Mod for behavior that several of us asked both of them to knock off more than once. One adhered to our request - the other didn't. End of story.

SteelersinCA - might I suggest you review the COC as well? Specifically:


13. Please do not take on the role of an Admin/Mod unless you have been appointed as such. If you have an issue with a member or an Admin or a Mod in general, please address it with them privately via the PM feature instead of taking them to task on the open board. We would appreciate your cooperation in this regard!



http://www.steeluniverse.net/forums/showthread.php?3-SU-Do-s-and-Dont-s

And here's a real no-brainer. All of you are very much appreciated around here and as much as it pains me to say it - if you don't like the way this board is run, you are free to go back to SF or find another board. The entire staff is sick to death of all of the B & M'ing, name-calling and unjustified accusations against us. When Gary, Eric and I decided fast and in a hurry to get this board up and running and did so in a very short period of time so that we could all stay together, we shared numerous emails and phone calls with each other to get our ducks in a row so to speak. We agreed on everything, but most definitely on how we wanted to run this board. Our rules here are very lenient compared to other boards and it seems as though we've given an inch or two and a couple of people feel the need to take a yard. Aint gonna happen. Follow the rules or take a hike. It's as simple as that.

Mach1
08-03-2010, 07:21 PM
aha... kinda like setting a trap with bait. :wink02:

http://espn.go.com/i/editorial/2006/0518/photo/ben_roethlisberger_cheese2_275.jpg

:chuckle:

tony hipchest
08-03-2010, 07:22 PM
Wallace - I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with Patrick's post. There is no name calling and everyone can plainly see that Ric was given a vacation (7 days for the record) by a Mod for behavior that several of us asked both of them to knock off more than once. One adhered to our request - the other didn't. End of story.

actually warden openly said he was mocking ric and personally attacked him for grasping at straws. is this any different that ric saying "i thought you said you could read"?

i dont see the difference. :noidea: i know you said its the end of the story, but either both adhered to your request or both didnt.

i understand you guys putting the foot down but it really seems as if its the left foot instead of the right in this instance.


http://espn.go.com/i/editorial/2006/0518/photo/ben_roethlisberger_cheese2_275.jpg

:chuckle:

lol :sofunny:

Devilsdancefloor
08-03-2010, 08:54 PM
actually warden openly said he was mocking ric and personally attacked him for grasping at straws. is this any different that ric saying "i thought you said you could read"?

i dont see the difference. :noidea: i know you said its the end of the story, but either both adhered to your request or both didnt.

i understand you guys putting the foot down but it really seems as if its the left foot instead of the right in this instance.



lol :sofunny:


Honestly i could care less what side of the aisle you are from. If the admin/mods keep telling you to knock it the fuck off and you test to see if they where bullshitting or not, then you pay with a vacation. NO ONE on the admin/mod side want to ban regulars here, but the line is CLEARLY drawn and yet some keep seeing if that line will move.

X-Terminator
08-03-2010, 09:03 PM
And here's a real no-brainer. All of you are very much appreciated around here and as much as it pains me to say it - if you don't like the way this board is run, you are free to go back to SF or find another board. The entire staff is sick to death of all of the B & M'ing, name-calling and unjustified accusations against us. When Gary, Eric and I decided fast and in a hurry to get this board up and running and did so in a very short period of time so that we could all stay together, we shared numerous emails and phone calls with each other to get our ducks in a row so to speak. We agreed on everything, but most definitely on how we wanted to run this board. Our rules here are very lenient compared to other boards and it seems as though we've given an inch or two and a couple of people feel the need to take a yard. Aint gonna happen. Follow the rules or take a hike. It's as simple as that.

Amen.

You know, I tried to be diplomatic earlier about this, but right now, screw that. I am seriously fed up of every time we do something on this board, here come the same people to whine and bitch about it. I agree - if you all hate this board SOOOOO much and think it's SOOOOO "right wing", you may feel free to go to one of the myriad of other boards on the internet - I don't care anymore. We will move on and thrive with or without you. We've put too much time and MONEY into this board to give you a place to go after the shit Matty Boy and Mike the Charlatan pulled on us, and THIS is how we're thanked. You say that you're thankful for this board, that we like it here, that we appreciate it, and blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but you aren't doing a very good job of showing it. Not with the way we are constantly criticized every damn time we have to put the hammer down. Well, I've had enough, and I am not taking it anymore. We WILL NOT allow a select few people to bring this board down.

fansince'76
08-03-2010, 09:05 PM
i understand you guys putting the foot down but it really seems as if its the left foot instead of the right in this instance.

Please. We have let PLENTY go from the left side of the aisle here.

HometownGal
08-03-2010, 09:07 PM
and I'm just gonna call it how I see it.

And I called it as I see it. This incessant whining by a couple of you is getting very old. The lot of you is worse than a daycare of screaming toddlers. We are here to run a Steelers/sports BB as best we can while trying to create an amicable atmosphere to attract new members, as well as for the enjoyment of those who are here to interact in civil discussion with other members. We are NOT here to babysit and supply pacifiers.

I respect the hell out of you, SteelersinCA, but I've really had enough of the bullshit and I know I can speak for the other staff members too.

We have worked too damned hard on this endeavor which was to benefit YOU and the others first and foremost to allow anyone - and I mean ANYONE - to destory it with unjustified accusations and shit-stirring. As I said in my prior post - you and anyone else who can't adhere to the very simple rules we have put in place for the benefit of ALL OF OUR MEMBERS - is free to leave. Very simple concept, really.

NJarhead
08-03-2010, 10:27 PM
aha... kinda like setting a trap with bait. :wink02:

C'Mon now tone. I can't stand him; I think that's known. However, I respect and will even defend his right to speak his opinion. I'm just disturbed by what his opinions are. And yes, he angers me.

NJarhead
08-03-2010, 10:29 PM
actually warden openly said he was mocking ric and personally attacked him for grasping at straws. is this any different that ric saying "i thought you said you could read"?

i dont see the difference. :noidea: i know you said its the end of the story, but either both adhered to your request or both didnt.

i understand you guys putting the foot down but it really seems as if its the left foot instead of the right in this instance.



lol :sofunny:

I was told in no uncertain terms to tone it down. I heeded the warning. Again, I have no issues with being called names. I like to dish it out too, but I can take it as well. But, that shit doesn't fly in here I guess. Just the way it is.

In my own defense, I've not made a living creating hate and discontent in these forums either. "Others" seem to do just that.

X-Terminator
08-03-2010, 10:31 PM
C'Mon now tone. I can't stand him; I think that's known. However, I respect and will even defend his right to speak his opinion. I'm just disturbed by what his opinions are. And yes, he angers me.

Yes, but that anger and dislike cannot spill over into your posts. Period. There has been FAR too much of that around here for me to stand. You can still respectfully disagree with someone even if you don't like the person.

NJarhead
08-03-2010, 10:38 PM
Yes, but that anger and dislike cannot spill over into your posts. Period. There has been FAR too much of that around here for me to stand. You can still respectfully disagree with someone even if you don't like the person.
Sometimes. For the sake of the forum, I'll do my best to follow the rules. If this were in person....well, it'd probably be exciting for us all.

Mattsme
08-04-2010, 12:20 AM
I love this board. And I love the people that run it. Even the dudes. In a totally non gay way, of course. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :chuckle:

And Marianne is hot.

So, um...our President was on a daytime talk show. Any thoughts?

I think daytime talk shows suck.

tony hipchest
08-04-2010, 12:26 AM
So, um...our President was on a daytime talk show. Any thoughts?



no.

this topic was pretty much a flaming turd of bait that was better off served up in the "official make fun of/bash obama thread" where it woulda been properly ignored with the rest of the mundane diatribe/rhetoric/propoganda/BS.

Mattsme
08-04-2010, 12:46 AM
no.

this topic was pretty much a flaming turd of bait that was better off served up in the "official make fun of/bash obama thread" where it woulda been properly ignored with the rest of the mundane diatribe/rhetoric/propoganda/BS.

Lol I agree. I was just hoping to turn it into a thread about the glory days of daytime talk, when faking a sick day at school or work meant hours in front of the tube watching Phil Donahue, Oprah, and Geraldo, before he got political.:chuckle:

SteelersinCA
08-04-2010, 01:27 AM
And I called it as I see it. This incessant whining by a couple of you is getting very old. The lot of you is worse than a daycare of screaming toddlers. We are here to run a Steelers/sports BB as best we can while trying to create an amicable atmosphere to attract new members, as well as for the enjoyment of those who are here to interact in civil discussion with other members. We are NOT here to babysit and supply pacifiers.

I respect the hell out of you, SteelersinCA, but I've really had enough of the bullshit and I know I can speak for the other staff members too.

We have worked too damned hard on this endeavor which was to benefit YOU and the others first and foremost to allow anyone - and I mean ANYONE - to destory it with unjustified accusations and shit-stirring. As I said in my prior post - you and anyone else who can't adhere to the very simple rules we have put in place for the benefit of ALL OF OUR MEMBERS - is free to leave. Very simple concept, really.

I'm incessantly whining? I made one post. I quickly reviewed my other posts (from the entirety of my time here) and I can't say any can be seen as whining, imho. I made no implication in my post about right or left, I just said I didn't see how Ric was banned and Warden was not. I wasn't trying to stir a hornet's nest or flaming or baiting or any of that. I didn't mean to come off as taking LLT to task and I really have no problem with him at all. I don't think I've ever complained about how things were run on here and every time I've been asked to follow the rules I think I've done my best to oblige. I've certainly had my share of pushing the limits at SF but I think I've been a pretty good boy over here. :sorry:

LLT
08-04-2010, 03:51 AM
For the record...I keep up on how many times I have to warn a member about baiting and name calling. Looking at my list I see that I have wayyyyyy more members on the right side of the aisle who have been warned then those on the left. Ric was banned because this was a repeated offense and he showed, through a pm in the first warning, that a warning was not enough.

I never took politics into consideration at all...and since NONE of you know who I warn, what I say in pm's, and the entirety of the situations that I deal with.....then all the "favoritism" nonsense is just "justification" and "enabling" BS.

Check my posts...then come back in here and talk about how much I bash Obama. I dont.....and this line of crap about potitical favoritism is both juvenile and desperate.

The baiting stops. Period. Disagreeing with each other is healthy and its a good intellectual exercise......but baiting another member out of the frustration of not getting your point across is what is causing the bad blood at SF and is causing a division here.

Hell Tony...you and I got into a major disagreement at SF and I still regret to this day some of the things I said. We became part of the problem and made the forum there a negative experience for others. I made a vow to myself at that time that I would give an opinion and share my experiences...but NOT bait and bash others about their political leanings. You are all correct in saying that Politics divide us...but to say that I banned Ric for any other reason than the fact that he was a multible offender is wrong and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Aussie_steeler
08-04-2010, 04:20 AM
Hey GUys and Gals.

We are two weeks into our National Federal Election. All our major political party candidates live on our morning, daytime and evening talk shows.

with compulsory voting this is the widest and cheapest form of political advertising. They are willing to jump in front of any camera, just to be seen and heard.

The funniest thing about the whole experience this time around is the quality of the EARS on the two major political party candidates.

Liberal Party Candidate - Tony Abbott
http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/abbott_presser_mp.jpg


Labour Party - Julia Gillard ( Prime Minister)

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201006/r589570_3764704.jpg


The country is totally mesmerised by the lugs on each leader.
As you could imagine - the cartoonists are having a field day. Big Volkswagon ears vs Monster earlobes.

Otherwise this is the most boring election ever. Both party's are scared of screwing up and handing the election to the other side.

We Aussie's just dont seem to have the same passion you yanks have for politics. No of us really give a crap. There are more important things to do. Like drink beer and watch football.

Bring on another Steeler season

Killer
08-04-2010, 04:22 AM
The entire staff is sick to death of all of the B & M'ing, name-calling and unjustified accusations against us.

HTG is the best mod, ever. I think she's dreamy.



Nobody ever PM's me.


I don't think any of you love me.

Shea
08-04-2010, 03:36 PM
HTG is the best mod, ever. I think she's dreamy.



Nobody ever PM's me.


I don't think any of you love me.

HTG, beware ....

He's obviously done something - don't know what yet :scratchchin: - but he's using this post to deflect.

Don't fall for it!

Shea
08-04-2010, 03:57 PM
BTW, would be ok if we could personally address certain members in our own little way.

I'll use Tony as an example, and I haven't cleared it with him yet, but can I refer to him as a MF'n asshole??
I don't think he'd have a problem with that, would you guys? :behindsofa:

(BTW, mother fuckin' asshole, you need to post quick, I noticed your post count is stuck on 666!)

Devilsdancefloor
08-04-2010, 07:28 PM
i think it would be best to not call anyone a MF asshole. you might be joking at the time, but the other person could take it wrong. name calling in general will get you in trouble...

HometownGal
08-04-2010, 07:32 PM
I think it is best for all concerned that we get back to the topic of this thread. It has been derailed enough. :coffee:

If you don't like the topic, very simply put - DON'T PARTICIPATE.

Killer
08-04-2010, 07:44 PM
HTG, beware ....

He's obviously done something - don't know what yet :scratchchin: - but he's using this post to deflect.

Don't fall for it!



snitches get stitches



I must respond to my adoring fans


I, for one, welcome any entertainment value from bannings

It's like public floggings - good for the peasants - I hope they serve cake and punch

Killer
08-04-2010, 07:48 PM
BTW, would be ok if we could personally address certain members in our own little way.

But you can sweet pea

just click on that karma thingie and tell me how wonderful I am



this thread died ages ago - nobody cares

Shea
08-04-2010, 07:49 PM
I think it is best for all concerned that we get back to the topic of this thread. It has been derailed enough. :coffee:

If you don't like the topic, very simply put - DON'T PARTICIPATE.

Jesus .....

I was trying to lighten up things a bit since things have been so tense lately.

But excuse me!

Looks like there might be some resentment, and if that's the case just go ahead and ban me. I don't care anymore.

Killer
08-04-2010, 07:53 PM
NO!

don't ban muffin!


she's about the only one left with a sense of humor and not totally liquored up when she posts


I declare this a super secret karma chat thread, so don't be deleting these golden posts

stillers4me
08-04-2010, 07:57 PM
Me thinks this particular thread had outlived it's usefullness. Thread closed.