Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[bambu-wisdom]

I cannot see a good reason for not putting up a fence-wall. Good for the economy and workers. Does prevent illegal migration and FDR is remembered for public building.

Exactly.

[bambu-wisdom]

Meanwhile, back in the world of men;

http://www.msn.com/en-au/entertainment/celebrity/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-wont-give-jobs-to-men-any-more-so-no-wonder-nick-robinson-lost-out-on-question-time-role/ar-BBRXyCD?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=AVRES000

“Anyone who has got a scrotum, forget it. They just aren’t giving jobs to men at the moment. There is an argument that it’s been all-men for a long time, so what’s wrong with it being all-women for some time? I get that. That’s fine.

“We just, as men, have to accept we’ve had it. Let’s just go down the bar.”

#####

Seems to be...but it's not fine.
Older guys with enough money are going to the bar, fishing etc.
Ones with not enough money are struggling...saw one picking up litter in a fast food restaurant carpark the other day, in the very hot sun.

Yes, women seem to be taking over everything these days.
'All-women' is not 'equality'...but hey, try finding any women who care.

Luckily, I'm out of the workforce now and won't be competing with women for jobs.
If I were I'd be doomed, like many men today seem to be.

All-women?....then where are young men/middle-aged men/older men going to work?

Looks like men will have to start their own secret society, hold meetings in barns at midnight, and hatch a survival plan.
Start private companies and only employ men.
"The male applicant was the best fit for our company".

[facilitatorn]

Our chief vulnerabilities are our banking system, right wing funny money influence groups like the NRA, and the Saudi bought and Russian blackmailed republican party. This is the nexus that terrorizes America to advance foreign hostile purposes.

If we want to bury these bad actors under a wall, we can find a few billion for that. We can do it in Wyoming though, where no one will give a fuck rather than spoiling our beautiful southern border.

Wall is an immorality to distract from other immortalities perpetrated by the misadministration.

[facilitatorn]

Meanwhile, back in the world of men;

Dude, change your pad.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-meat-china-putin/putin-says-russia-will-supply-soy-beans-poultry-meat-to-china-idUSKCN1NX1C4

Individual 1’s trade war with China is part of his debt fulfillment for election meddling, boosting the agricultural  sector in Putin’s failing economy. Vlad is making the most of his puppet at the expense of U.S. farmers while he still can.

[barton]

Its about the drugs as well.  And the criminal element that you would conveniently not lump in with names on terrorist lists.

The wall will not even slow down drugs.

The Dems have proposed amping up the budget for metal detectors and other tools that have been demonstrated to snag smuggled drugs.   

What is crazy is that a compromise nearly went through last year - you give us Dreamers and we give you some fence money (which you can call a wall,  if that gets you that "win" feeling you need to get hard).  So sick of this zero sum game approach.

[barton]

No, you lying P.o.S., your support continues in these fatuous posts you make.   

  -- Josh,  our moderator

Josh,  a question here:  what do you see as the basic function of a MB moderator?
 
Maybe if there's a way for you to warn people, something like  "in this post,  I am removing my moderator's hat... "

[NeedsAdjustments]

No, you lying P.o.S., your support continues in these fatuous posts you make.   

  -- Josh,  our moderator

Josh,  a question here:  what do you see as the basic function of a MB moderator?
 
Maybe if there's a way for you to warn people, something like  "in this post,  I am removing my moderator's hat... "

I'd say, my two cents, that part of the moderators job on a board is to point out what statements on which an argument is based are established fact, and what points emanated from the posterior of the poster in question.  The "P.O.S." was maybe a bit harsh (though maybe not considering kiidcarter8's support for the President's support of white supremacists) but I'd say the rest of the post you quoted is in line with that function.

Consider the context. This is a poster that wrote the following:

There is so much ISIS already residing in the US.  That number growing is not what this president is about

At this point I rolled my eyes and logged out while our moderator continued to engage, but there is so much in the above to dissect: 
A) the first sentence is said with such simultaneous confidence but imprecision (how much is "so much?") when of course there is literally no way of knowing how many "ISIS" are here in the US, if any at all. 
B) The fact that the poster would even bring this up, again, in the context of the border wall discussion despite being told repeatedly that the State Dept. own assessment is that the number of "ISIS" or otherwise coming into the country via the southern border is zero. 
C) This President isn't about growing the number of "ISIS" in the country...as opposed to other Presidents that were?  Why does the Right always do this, question the intentions and therefore legitimacy of the opposition when the disagreement is about methods?  Patriotic and and smart people can disagree about the best ways of keeping terrorists out of the country (Trump naturally excluded from this on both counts) and some smart and patriotic people here have pointed out to this poster repeatedly that closing a border that has seen zero attempts of entry with a physical barrier is self-evidently the least effective way to do this.

kiidcarter8 is just a bad poster.  He is ill-informed, he comes from a bad place (see aforementioned support of white supremacists) makes imprecise arguments so that they can't be immediately disproven,  uses imprecise language (you know "ISIS"...to a Fox viewer no more needs be said) and backs those arguments with zero facts.

I can't tell kiidcarter8 not to post here, and I imagine doing so wouldn't be part of the moderator's job.  But trying to point kiidcarter8 to a better way of posting for the good of the board?  Bless him, God's work.

[whiskeypriest]

No, you lying P.o.S., your support continues in these fatuous posts you make.   

  -- Josh,  our moderator

Josh,  a question here:  what do you see as the basic function of a MB moderator?
 
Maybe if there's a way for you to warn people, something like  "in this post,  I am removing my moderator's hat... "

Josh does not moderate discussion.  I think he cleans up the board.

[NeedsAdjustments]

One of his first acts as President, Trump signed an executive order that authorized DHS to "produce a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border."

But now...it won't release that study.  Why?  “the Intelligence Community is almost certainly not able to stand publicly behind what the White House and DHS are saying”

Some truth coming from someone who should know, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center until December 2017.  Its a good read, for the posters here interested in the facts on this issue:

https://www.justsecurity.org/62156/terrorists-southern-border-myth-reality/

[kidcarter8]

I don’t support my arguments, Needs. because I am not arguing.  Unlike some here I don’t feel the need to be agreed with or to appear smarter than someone.

[barton]

No, you lying P.o.S., your support continues in these fatuous posts you make.   

  -- Josh,  our moderator

Josh,  a question here:  what do you see as the basic function of a MB moderator?
 
Maybe if there's a way for you to warn people, something like  "in this post,  I am removing my moderator's hat... "

I'd say, my two cents, that part of the moderators job on a board is to point out what statements on which an argument is based are established fact...

Agree.  (full disc:  I'm a web admin/moderator at a much higher trafficked website)  I was more asking about the Piece of Shit epithet.  If I spoke to a member at my board that way, the owner would invite me to leave ASAP.  And my credibility there would be pretty compromised, as that board has some firm rules against flaming, insults, ad hominems, and so on.  The theory there is:  if you start singling someone out as a POS, then you are perceived as having a bias towards them, and (maybe worse) you are exempting yourself from the forum's rules of discourse.  So the rule of thumb is: attack the argument, not the person. 

Also, and this a little tangential, but if you come to a MB to be open-minded and also hope to have others open to your opinions, then you tend to slam the door shut on all when you start insulting people.  Everyone becomes entrenched, feces are flung, and there is no real meeting of minds.  (If you think someone has no mind to meet, then why are you posting to them in the first place?)

[josh]

I cannot see a good reason for not putting up a fence-wall. Good for the economy and workers. Does prevent illegal migration and FDR is remembered for public building.

Disrupting thousands of families, taking away private land, disrupting the ecology, breaking up cities.

And won't prevent border crossing or drugs.

$30-35 BILLION dollars that could be spent doing almost anything else - like infrastructure that we need.

[josh]

(a) This message board has been pretty clear that they want to be able to fling insults about. Tell me if that has changed and there is a different standard being applied. I will be happy to follow it.

(b) In rare instances, I try to control individual not-spam posters, like when they try to expose personal information about a poster.

(c) I try to eliminate spam.

(d) Until last week, I had no power to ban anybody. I now have that power and have used it several times. At least one of those efforts seems to have a significant impact on blocking new spammish members. We'll see how it goes. Another one I would like to use would block a specific set of IP addresses, but one (and only one) of our actual posters is among those whose IPs are in that range. So, they can keep coming and spamming and I will deal with them individually.

(e) I will refrain from referring to that motherfucker as a P.o.S. again, since it seems to offend some folks.

[NeedsAdjustments]

There is evidence of collusion.  It has only been that the evidence was conclusive, that the collusion hasn't been proven.

The needle on where we are on that line between unproven and proven just moved significantly.