See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Attention 4um Members
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://none
Published: May 4, 2008
Author: me
Post Date: 2008-05-04 22:40:24 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 17731
Comments: 655
I have to be honest, I'm completely distressed at what's happened to this forum. The fighting and the distrust between those for and those against Obama has gotten to the point where, in my opinion, it's destroying the forum. What's the point of having an open free speech venue when everyone is bozo'ing everyone else? When I read my mission statement and what Freedom4um was created to be, I don't even recognize the place anymore. There will be changes made in the near future as I decide what is best for the continued growth of this forum.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-250) not displayed.
.
.
.
#251. To: ... (#186)
Provocateur.
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, IMHO, the very fact that there is spirited debate indicates the forum truly IS a free speech forum. On the issue of the bozo filter, perhaps some people have had it with insults, and resort to the bozo filter rather than leaving the forum altogether. I don't see a problem. As a forum grows and attracts a wider membership, these sorts of things become common. If you restrict the topic of discussion, or censor those with viewpoint (A) over viewpoint (B), then you are following the footsteps of other forum owners, and you know where that leads...
It is not a scheme JT, it is an attempt to escape hateful, racist remarks that do not make my day better. I'm here because I enjoy being here. When I can no longer enjoy myself I'll be gone. As I said before, I never used bozo until now. It is very empowering to be able to put someone on the bozo list, like not answering the phone or the door. Sometimes I had someone on the list just for a day, because they were posting a lot of really mean-spirited posts that day. You want everyone to be forced listen to your hate and anger, well that's not my idea of freedom.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Just as an example, what has peppa or mirage said to you that is racist?
You'll notice that in my reasons for putting someone on bozo, reasons I gave yesterday, they were not always for racism. Part of the existing bozo filter is to be able to block posters without naming them. My intent is not to hurt anyone's feelings but to spare my own. That said, in partial answer to your question, I find Peppa to be a very contentious and disrupting poster, bent on small-minded meanness or just trying to destroy this forum. Last night I found it easy to agree with Pinguinite that she is a fraud. I have no intention of naming every person on my bozo list to you and why I bozoed them. Do you report to Chertoff now? However, in some cases I told them so at the time and gave the reason why.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Exactly, he's the candidate of the Trilateral Commission. Zbig and Lee Hamilton (and their minions) all endorse him. It's long past time that the American people realized that "they" are not going to allow you to have a candidate that represents you. Exactly. People keep looking for the "Great White Hope" (Ron Paul) or the "Great Black Hope" (Obummer). We can see the smear and minimalization job that was done on Ron Paul and Oh'bummer is just another shill for the Banksters. I know people who have woken up get frustrated and want it all changed NOW. While I agree with the sentiment I am enough of realist to know that ain't going to happen. At this point we have two chores: 1. Enlighten and wake up those others who can be woken up. The reality is that some are beyond our current reach and people have got to get this as well. If someone will not, or cannot, look and confront do not waste time on them. Move on to the next person. There is no point in banging your head against a brick wall and trying to wake up people who are mostly too afraid to look or too under control of the PsyOps program. The worst candidates are people who listen to Schlock Radio, and believe it, and those who watch a lot of "Tee Bee". The heavy TV watchers are the worst followed closely by the Dildoeheads. The Dildoeheads are the most annoying because they are the ones who believe in Dorothy Limbaugh and the Ruby Slippers. They are so trapped in the phoney "two party" Dog and Pony Show that they cannot see the forest for the trees. They are convinced that "they're with it" because Rush has told them what they think. The problem of course is that they don't think and react emotionally just the way that Saint "Pills" has told them that the awful "Lib'ruls" do. The sick irony would be funny if it wasn't so serious. 2. Push at the local level and begin working from the bottom up. By getting our own local areas back under our control it builds our base and our power. This is a slower route and the people looking for "Magic" overnight fixes are too impatient with it - much to the detriment of us all.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Exactly - and a wise policy. Some things I do and say in private off the net are never spoken of on the net. I always assume that there is no existing encryption system that cannot be broken, and that the NSA, the Israelis, and their ilk are capable of reading anything off of any machine that is connected to the net at any time (including dial-up). I have "noticed" anomalies from time to time that has caused me to conclude that such an assumption is correct. The net is a powerful tool for freedom but people have to also be aware that it IS being used for surveillance and for identifying those of us who are still willing to fight for liberty. I think the great numbers of such people is one of the things that worries the bad guys as I am sure that a lot of the surveillance underscores the fact that there are still a lot of people willing to fight.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Why bother with the Bozo list at all? Most of the time, if I don't like somebody's posts, I just ignore them and read on. If somebody gets really obnoxious (by spamming the site), then just ban that person and move on.
heh, someone took me off bozo, now I only have 2. I still wanna know who they are so I can make fun of them.
Tagline space for rent.
I have no intention of naming every person on my bozo list to you and why I bozoed them. Do you report to Chertoff now? Bozo me please.
#44. To: RickyJ (#41) Of the 3, I prefer Obama take it. The USA is screwed no matter which of the 3 wins. Given that, it makes sense to prefer the one that is least likely to start WWIII and otherwise end the imperialism. I know its probable that Obama won't bring all the troops home, but Cain will increase imperialism and bombing. As a country, the USA has deeply injured the world and it's a national obligation to right that wrong as much as possible. For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book. Again, since the USA is gonna die anyway no matter which of the 3 it is, the least we can do is die alone and let the rest of world be. I won't vote for Obama as it's much more beneficial such as it is to vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr, but that's my position and preference. Pinguinite posted on 2008-04-15 14:40:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book. the least we can do is die alone and let the rest of world be Go ahead, I'll preserve my right to live and live free. Sounds like you're drinking the koolaid neil. angle posted on 2008-04-15 15:04:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #56. To: angle, (#50) Go ahead, I'll preserve my right to live and live free. Sounds like you're drinking the koolaid neil. YOU are no different than the NWO elite!!! Because that's exactly what they say. So maybe you and JT can put that in your pipe and smoke it. Pinguinite posted on 2008-04-15 15:34:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply Here's the thread that changed the way I viewed Neil. It's not just one post. It was post after post when regular people who like Neil were questioning his statements. It just got bizarre.
My thoughts exactly.
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, She bozo'd me on DayOne, and before I had even posted to her...LOL!! Scaredy-cat...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, "Debate" is not necessarily the be-all end-all. What's wrong with a magazine that gives different opinions about world events? Sure the writers may not read one another's articles, but the general readership will." Sounds more like an e-zine, not a political forum. When variant viewpoints are aired and debated civilly, it makes for an energetic, interesting Forum. "Do you want to FORCE the writers to read each other's articles?" LOL...of course not. But I like to see article posters who are willing to debate/defend what they posted. "If you want all the articles to agree, maybe, but that may be because some writers walk away." Nobody's proposing that...this needs to continue to be a big-tent Forum. Regards...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, I've got you bozo'd, critter...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, Impossible.
Tagline space for rent.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Mud, why don't you call everyone who disagrees with you "Penis Breath"? Isn't that how you Limbaugh morons "civilly debate"? If not, then why do you debate that way?
.
That is not true. Jethro Tull freely admitted and has never redacted nor denied, in spite of being given numerous opportunities to do so, that in a hypothetical scenario, he would shoot an innocent girl as a means to an end of furthering 2A rights. The girl dies for the "greater good" he said. So, by his own admission, I characterize JT as willing to murder innocent people to further his own personal interests. Since it is true that he also opposes Obama, then in so far as JT is concerned the statement "accusing people who weren't supporting Obama to be akin to murderers" is certainly true, but it is certainly false to construe that as accusing *all* people who oppose Obama as being akin to murderers. That is false. Angle should know better than to make such a false insinuation. Thank you.
I'm not so sure. Suppose you have a President that is such a known loser that even honest Republicans refuse to support him. And suppose you have a candidate that vows to continue the policies of the current failed President. Next suppose that someone makes the reasonable statement that an unknown Obama is much less scary than four more years of certain Bush. What can you do to counter this reasonable statement and to boost a candidate that even you don't support? You can't rationally refute the statement and you can't say anything good about McCain without drawing hoots from world at large. Answer: You try to intimidate the person making the statement into silence. (1) You try being rude and obnoxious hoping the person will be intimidated into silence. (2) If the person bozos you for being rude and obnoxious, you whine about the bozo function and pester Christine to remove it.
.
No, not "questioning". Not at all. I was being attacked. But thanks for including my statement that I advocated voting for Ron Paul.
*Thank you* Ghost. I guess I've never really seen anyone contrast the value of a important but relatively abstract "Constitutional right" with real life killing and dying with is not abstract at all. Seems funny things happen when you do. Get accused of all kinds of stuff. I cannot fathom how any sane and moral person could possibly disagree with the a statement that basically says that it's wrong to kill innocent people to secure a 2A right, or any other comparatively abstract right. It blows my mind. (No pun intended).
In your absurd hypothetical, given an either/or (do we keep the 2nd or not) yes, I'd be forced to kill an innocent girl. The alternative, to me, would be a nation of 300 million gun less slaves.
Personal interests ? *Our* 2nd applies to our NATIONAL INTEREST. Neil, you are no longer trustworthy.
i think JT's position on that got misinterpreted like your original 2A one did. if you recall, you asked people to make a choice. most everyone said that they wouldn't or that they would change the scenario. JT was the only one who answered as if he were FORCED to choose between the life of one child and millions of other men, women, and children. that certainly doesn't mean that his decision was for his own personal interests. quite the contrary, it's unselfish and is an indication of caring for a greater number of people.
pardon the intrusion but what the hell sort of 'hypothetical scenario' would ever require such a bizzare nonsensical act? how would killing a kid ever be in any way related to defending gun rights? sounds like an invalid accusation and invalid example against tull. now if the kid or anyone had a gun pointed at you with evil intent then go for it., but even then, you'd probably react in a less lehtal way. i.e., grab their hand and take the gun. it sounds like pinguinite is alleging that all ardent gun rights supporters are somehow maniacal murderers. (??)
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." John Yoo has actually said, in response to a question at an appearance, that he would approve torturing a child in the course of the war on terror. And, of course, that has in fact been done at places like Abu Ghraib.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I think it's fine the way it is, after all, you say we have a right to non association. making changes because of discord would be counter productive. its not like the place has been overtaken by war hawks or anything. i dont think anyone with a lick of sense would ever seriously support any establishment candidate now would they? Well, even if a wll-intentioned person did, as someone said last week everyone is on a different journey. i doubt many people on such a forum would support an establishments man though.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." yeah but how does that relate to the example above where someone would have to harm an innocent to protect a right? the yoo example of torturing kids is not applicable to preserving any freedom.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." (1) You seem to be assuming that our national interest necessarily outweighs the interests of the human race. Aggressive war might be in the interest of the country that wages it, and still be very definitely wrong. But (2) I would maintain that aggressive wars like Bush's (or like the ones McCain and probably also Hillary would launch) are NOT in the U.S.'s interest, and indeed weigh more heavily in our nation's interests than does the 2nd Amendment.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I suspect Yoo -- and Bush and Cheney -- would not agree.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
#5. To: christine (#3) I am bozoed 3 times now. I have no one on bozo. I think people that use bozo filter are sissies. :) Tagline space for rent. Critter posted on 2008-05-04 22:51:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply I have effectively trial-ran your idea of banning the filter. now everyone who has bozo'd you just read what you said.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." And upon the surrender of our 2nd, in
promise of global peace, what ensures that we won't become an unarmed nation,
ruled
by war mongering thugs?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Yeah, I was just having fun.
.
I am unaware of anybody suggesting abolishing the 2nd Amendment. Obama wants to limit gun rights more than some people here would like, but he has never suggested anything like total abolition. In fact, by giving it as his constitutional view that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, he goes further in your direction than any Democratic presidential candidate within my memory, and also than Hillary today.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
since innocent people could never pose a legitimate threat to gun rights in the first place, i agree that killing innocents under the guise of 'protecting rights' is nonsense since such a scenario could not exist and is not valid. (I am not referring to a war that meets the stringent standards of the just war doctrine in which innocents are killed, that's a different topic.) Another aspect is that there's no doubt that some of these do-gooder gun grabbers are well intentioned. their conscious is clear and they believe they are doing the right thing. you want to see such an example? look at this 'health inspector bitch and how she with the pigs protection violate this guys right. they ended up seizing the guys home as a result of this violation of his rights. yet look at her, the socialist %$#@!. her conscience is 100% clear. would you say defending your land against such 'benevolent' intruders is wrong? this video is amazing.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." I bet you're one of the folks who has me bozoed, but in case you're not, if Obama suggested limiting 1st amendment rights would you still support him?
Tagline space for rent.
The Bushite Republicans have so far kept their hands off the 2nd Amendment -- because it was in their political interest to do so. However, given the cavalier treatment they have given the rest of the Bill of Rights, I see no reason to have any confidence that they will keep their hands off the 2nd Amendment forever.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Comments (292 - 655) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"He is fun to poke..."
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#252. To: christine (#0)
What's the point of having an open free speech venue when everyone is bozo'ing everyone else?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#253. To: Jethro Tull, ..., christine, Pinguinite (#223)
robin has 14? on bozo. In your scheme, her unanswered exchanges w/posters would be viewed by them as what?
#254. To: robin (#253)
It is not a scheme JT, it is an attempt to escape hateful, racist remarks that do not make my day better.
#255. To: Jethro Tull, christine, Pinquinite, ... (#254)
#256. To: ratcat (#191)
I've stayed out of the frays because it is a foregone conclusion, to me, that Obummer is just as much under control as Hitlery and McInsane.
#257. To: Ferret Mike, christine, ratcat, FOH, TwentyTwelve (#237)
(Edited)
I also would never type in some of what I have to say regarding politics in any computer that links to the net, and any box used off net never keeps it's drive in it when it is off and cold.
#258. To: christine (#0)
#259. To: christine (#234)
#260. To: robin (#255)
That said, in partial answer to your question, I find Peppa to be a very contentious and disrupting poster, bent on small-minded meanness or just trying to destroy this forum. Last night I found it easy to agree with Pinguinite that she is a fraud.
#261. To: James Deffenbach (#236)
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...8060&Disp=50&Trace=on#C44
#50. To: Pinguinite (#44)
At the expense? How do you figure?
Replies to Comment # 50.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe in your moral right to preserve your legal right to a firearm surpasses the rights of others to live, then guess what....
#262. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#258)
"Why bother with the Bozo list at all? Most of the time, if I don't like somebody's posts, I just ignore them and read on. If somebody gets really obnoxious (by spamming the site), then just ban that person and move on."
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#263. To: Jethro Tull, robin (#260)
"Bozo me please."
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#264. To: Pinguinite (#68)
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#265. To: Critter (#259)
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#266. To: Mudboy Slim (#265)
I've got you bozo'd, critter...MUD
#267. To: angle, Pinguinite (#261)
#268. To: Mudboy Slim (#264)
Sounds more like an e-zine, not a political forum. When variant viewpoints are aired and debated civilly, it makes for an energetic, interesting Forum.
#269. To: James Deffenbach, angle, Jethro Tull (#236)
Neil, this is the first I have heard of this (and of course I haven't read every thread that has been posted here). Is it true that you accused people who don't support Obama--which most certainly includes me but then I don't support ANY statist whore as anyone who knows me already knows--to be akin to murderers?
As I said in the only other post I have made to this thread I consider you a friend and that is why I find it hard to believe that you would even think such a thing, let alone post it.
#270. To: ghostdogtxn (#267)
That's what reasoned debate is supposed to be about.
#271. To: angle (#261)
It was post after post when regular people who like Neil were questioning his statements. It just got bizarre.
#272. To: ghostdogtxn (#267)
Pinguinite takes the position that if we have to give up some ground on the R2KBA issue in exchange for not dropping bombs on some other population, then that's a sacrifice he's willing to make.
#273. To: Pinguinite (#269)
Jethro Tull freely admitted and has never redacted nor denied, in spite of being given numerous opportunities to do so, that in a hypothetical scenario, he would shoot an innocent girl as a means to an end of furthering 2A rights.
#274. To: Pinguinite (#269)
So, by his own admission, I characterize JT as willing to murder innocent people to further his own personal interests.
#275. To: Pinguinite, Jethro Tull (#269)
#276. To: Jethro Tull, Pinguinite (#273)
that in a hypothetical scenario, he would shoot an innocent girl as a means to an end of furthering 2A rights.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#277. To: Artisan (#276)
pardon the intrusion but what the hell sort of 'hypothetical scenario' would ever require such a bizzare nonsensical act? how would killing a kid ever be in any way related to defending gun rights? sounds like an invalid accusation and invalid example against tull.
#278. To: christine (#0)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#279. To: aristeides (#277)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#280. To: Jethro Tull (#274)
*Our* 2nd applies to our NATIONAL INTEREST.
#281. To: Artisan (#279)
the yoo example of torturing kids is not applicable to preserving any freedom.
#282. To: Pinguinite (#272)
#283. To: Critter (#5)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#284. To: aristeides, Artisan (#280)
I would maintain that aggressive wars like Bush's (or like the
ones McCain and probably also Hillary would launch) are NOT in the U.S.'s
interest, and indeed weigh more heavily in our nation's interests than does
the 2nd Amendment.
#285. To: ... (#270)
#286. To: ghostdogtxn (#285)
#287. To: Jethro Tull (#284)
And upon the surrender of our 2nd, in promise of global peace,
what ensures that we won't become an unarmed nation, ruled by war mongering
thugs?
#288. To: Jethro Tull (#284)
And upon the surrender of our 2nd,
#289. To: Pinguinite, ghostdogtxn (#272)
(Edited)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#290. To: aristeides (#288)
#291. To: ghostdogtxn (#282)
given a choice between having a lunatic warmonger (who will staunchly defend the 2d Am. but murder a lot of foreigners for no damn reason I can think of) versus someone who won't murder the foreigners (but is 'weak' on the 2d Am),
.
.
.