The Duggars, Duck Dynasty, And The Irrational Tribalism Of Conservatives

  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Jun 20, 2015 1:37 AM GMT
    The Duggars, Duck Dynasty, And The Irrational Tribalism Of Conservatives


    "Look, both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of tribalism. It’s human nature to like people who talk and dress and eat like you do, or at least the way you aspire to do those things. Liberals certainly feel their hearts soar when they see someone driving a Prius or hear that their new Tinder date went to Berkeley.

    But this Duggar poll and recent events generally suggest that conservatives are going way too far with this knee-jerk tendency to believe “their” people can do no wrong and to assume “liberals” are some subversive force out to destroy everything. It’s mildly amusing when Republican voters are mindlessly preferring religious nutcases to a centrist liberal who probably gave them health care. In other cases, however, the “us good, you bad” thinking gets deeply toxic."

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/duggars-duck-dynasty-irrational-tribalism-conservatives
  • Muscles25

    Posts: 394

    Jun 20, 2015 3:56 PM GMT
    You can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2015 4:23 PM GMT
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.


    Agree 100% here. I am independent, not because I can't agree with either side, but because I see the same major faults in both sides... an US vs THEM mentality.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 20, 2015 5:54 PM GMT
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.


    Quite true.

    Decades ago, when I was poor, I shared a two bedroom apartment with a guy who had graduated Phi Beta Kappa from a small highly respected liberal arts college in the East. He was an ultra-liberal intellectual snob with no practical knowledge. If I even mentioned Nixon he would say in a belittling voice, "Trick Dicky, tricky Dicky"; not that I totally approved of Nixon either, but it wasn't even possible to discuss different viewpoints with him. He was always right and anyone who disagreed with him was assumed to be mentally incompetent. His friends were the same way.

    I've run into conservatives (perhaps reactionary would be more accurate) who were the same way. They believed that the police could so no wrong and that there was nothing wrong with beating people to get a confession.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jun 20, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    Interesting that the conservatives rushed to the defense of the Duggar child molester.
    I guess child-rape is okay if conservatives are doing it?
    Somehow it all makes sense in Red State land.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2015 7:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.




    The automated Metta8 unit just scans leftist websites for anything that makes those who aren't ultra-leftists look "bad." Note how the headline and snippet of the "article" that the automated Metta8 unit copied and pasted attempts to paint ALL Conservatives with the same, broad brush.



    Well "The result—67 percent of Romney voters like the Duggars better than they like Obama..." is pretty broad. and very telling.

    I think it's safe to say a Romney supporter would the quintessential Republican. (Feel free to disagree). The flip side is only 33%, some of which were DNK.

    it's the same as Huckabee not condemning the Duggars. They are vocal conservatives.....they can not be renounced.

    If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist. That's the difference. Republicans speak of morality, and conveniently ignore it if it is a Republican.

    It was thought JFK couldn't be elected because he was Catholic...hardly "immoral." But as for Reagan, Had it not been for Jane Wyman, the current Republican presidential lineup would be without its front-runners. There would be no Mayor Giuliani, divorced twice, married three times, currently married to a twice-divorced wife, Judith; no Fred Thompson, divorced once, married twice; and no Senator McCain, divorced once, married twice, currently married to a divorcee, Cindy. All three might raise a toast to Wyman."

    The hypocrisy of Republicans gets BIGGER and bigger with each new election.

    67% is a pretty broad brush stroke, but it isn't Metta8 doing the painting. You get that right?

  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 20, 2015 7:49 PM GMT
    The Duggar matter has resulted in many responses which do not indicate clear thinking.

    Josh was only 14 years old when he committed the offenses. Also, it should be clearly noted that he himself confessed and that if he had not confessed, no one would even have known about it. Moreover, the girls were sleeping when he touched them through their clothing and from news items (which may be of questionable accuracy) they did not even awaken.

    Suppose that the father had, as many believe he should have done, immediately taken the matter to the police. There would have been publicity which would likely have been injurious to the girls that Josh had touched. The evidence suggests that no one would have been better off if it had been reported to the police and at least several people would have been worse off.

    It is not totally clear how the father should have handled the matter. Perhaps he should have got professional counseling for Josh. However, if the law required counselors to report the matter to the police, that also could have done more harm than good. Probably he should have hired a good lawyer, preferably one with a good sense of values, to deal with the situation. In any case, the father should have taken action to be sure that the offense would never recur, at least while Josh was living at home. And the fact that Josh himself confessed without any prompting indicates that he knew what he did was wrong which was a positive sign.

    The situation was very different from that of adult priests with a history of molesting and it would have been inappropriate to treat it in the same manner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2015 8:14 PM GMT
    The Duggars waited till the statute of limitations ran out. That is telling.

    I doubt anything the family says, there is a huge conflict of interest ($$$$). I think the girls message has been edited to sound less nefarious.

    It's a total manipulation to fund that freaky family.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2015 8:37 PM GMT
    woodfordr said
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.


    Agree 100% here. I am independent, not because I can't agree with either side, but because I see the same major faults in both sides... an US vs THEM mentality.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2015 8:55 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.




    The automated Metta8 unit just scans leftist websites for anything that makes those who aren't ultra-leftists look "bad." Note how the headline and snippet of the "article" that the automated Metta8 unit copied and pasted attempts to paint ALL Conservatives with the same, broad brush.



    Well "The result—67 percent of Romney voters like the Duggars better than they like Obama..." is pretty broad. and very telling.

    I think it's safe to say a Romney supporter would the quintessential Republican. (Feel free to disagree). The flip side is only 33%, some of which were DNK.

    it's the same as Huckabee not condemning the Duggars. They are vocal conservatives.....they can not be renounced.

    If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist. That's the difference. Republicans speak of morality, and conveniently ignore it if it is a Republican.

    It was thought JFK couldn't be elected because he was Catholic...hardly "immoral." But as for Reagan, Had it not been for Jane Wyman, the current Republican presidential lineup would be without its front-runners. There would be no Mayor Giuliani, divorced twice, married three times, currently married to a twice-divorced wife, Judith; no Fred Thompson, divorced once, married twice; and no Senator McCain, divorced once, married twice, currently married to a divorcee, Cindy. All three might raise a toast to Wyman."

    The hypocrisy of Republicans gets BIGGER and bigger with each new election.

    67% is a pretty broad brush stroke, but it isn't Metta8 doing the painting. You get that right?



    "If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist. That's the difference. Republicans speak of morality, and conveniently ignore it if it is a Republican."

    You're not talking about Bill Clinton, are you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2015 10:00 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    timmm55 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.




    The automated Metta8 unit just scans leftist websites for anything that makes those who aren't ultra-leftists look "bad." Note how the headline and snippet of the "article" that the automated Metta8 unit copied and pasted attempts to paint ALL Conservatives with the same, broad brush.



    Well "The result—67 percent of Romney voters like the Duggars better than they like Obama..." is pretty broad. and very telling.

    I think it's safe to say a Romney supporter would the quintessential Republican. (Feel free to disagree). The flip side is only 33%, some of which were DNK.

    it's the same as Huckabee not condemning the Duggars. They are vocal conservatives.....they can not be renounced.

    If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist. That's the difference. Republicans speak of morality, and conveniently ignore it if it is a Republican.

    It was thought JFK couldn't be elected because he was Catholic...hardly "immoral." But as for Reagan, Had it not been for Jane Wyman, the current Republican presidential lineup would be without its front-runners. There would be no Mayor Giuliani, divorced twice, married three times, currently married to a twice-divorced wife, Judith; no Fred Thompson, divorced once, married twice; and no Senator McCain, divorced once, married twice, currently married to a divorcee, Cindy. All three might raise a toast to Wyman."

    The hypocrisy of Republicans gets BIGGER and bigger with each new election.

    67% is a pretty broad brush stroke, but it isn't Metta8 doing the painting. You get that right?



    "If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist. That's the difference. Republicans speak of morality, and conveniently ignore it if it is a Republican."

    You're not talking about Bill Clinton, are you?


    Do you really want to bring up how many illicit sexual affairs Republicans have had, straight and down-low gay?

    " What is it with Republicans lately? Is there something about being a leader of the family-values party that makes you want to go out and commit adultery?

    They certainly don’t have a lock on the infidelity market, and heaven knows we all remember John Edwards. But, lately, the G.O.P. has shown a genius for putting a peculiar, newsworthy spin on illicit sex. A married congressman hunting for babes is bad. A married congressman hunting for babes by posting a half-naked photo of himself on the Internet is Republican.

    A married governor who fathers an illegitimate child is awful. A married governor who fathers an illegitimate child by a staff member of the family home and then fails to mention it to his wife for more than 10 years is Republican.

    A married senator who has an affair with an employee is a jerk. A married senator who has an affair with an employee who is the wife of his chief of staff, and whose adultery is the subject of ongoing discussion at his Congressional prayer group, is Republican.

    We haven’t even gotten to Newt Gingrich yet!


    One can make a very compelling case that politicians’ private lives should be off-limits altogether, and officials’ personal/family problems are their business, not ours. But if a party goes out of its way to hold itself out as the arbiters of virtue, it should expect a more intense pushback when it’s caught falling short."

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/pondering_republicans_double_s029682.php

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14380

    Jun 20, 2015 11:21 PM GMT
    woodfordr said
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.


    Agree 100% here. I am independent, not because I can't agree with either side, but because I see the same major faults in both sides... an US vs THEM mentality.
    Exactly, that is why I am a centrist as well as an independent. Extremism on both sides is bad for our great country.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 20, 2015 11:30 PM GMT
    timmm55 saidThe Duggars waited till the statute of limitations ran out. That is telling.

    I doubt anything the family says, there is a huge conflict of interest ($$$$). I think the girls message has been edited to sound less nefarious.

    It's a total manipulation to fund that freaky family.


    I agree that it's a total manipulation to fund that family. They are not self-supporting. They did not build that gigantic house with their own funds. I do not see the parents as responsible people. It looks as though their maximum possible reproduction is used to produce income. However, that does not mean that everything they have done is wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice per day.

    Of course they waited until the statute of limitations ran out. Had they not done so, the lives of the innocent girls could have been ruined. And of course the behavior of Josh was unacceptable, but assuming that he has never repeated that behavior, what would have been gained by getting the police involved? Exactly what would you have done under the same circumstances?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2015 11:30 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    freedomisntfree said
    timmm55 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.




    The automated Metta8 unit just scans leftist websites for anything that makes those who aren't ultra-leftists look "bad." Note how the headline and snippet of the "article" that the automated Metta8 unit copied and pasted attempts to paint ALL Conservatives with the same, broad brush.



    Well "The result—67 percent of Romney voters like the Duggars better than they like Obama..." is pretty broad. and very telling.

    I think it's safe to say a Romney supporter would the quintessential Republican. (Feel free to disagree). The flip side is only 33%, some of which were DNK.

    it's the same as Huckabee not condemning the Duggars. They are vocal conservatives.....they can not be renounced.

    If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist. That's the difference. Republicans speak of morality, and conveniently ignore it if it is a Republican.

    It was thought JFK couldn't be elected because he was Catholic...hardly "immoral." But as for Reagan, Had it not been for Jane Wyman, the current Republican presidential lineup would be without its front-runners. There would be no Mayor Giuliani, divorced twice, married three times, currently married to a twice-divorced wife, Judith; no Fred Thompson, divorced once, married twice; and no Senator McCain, divorced once, married twice, currently married to a divorcee, Cindy. All three might raise a toast to Wyman."

    The hypocrisy of Republicans gets BIGGER and bigger with each new election.

    67% is a pretty broad brush stroke, but it isn't Metta8 doing the painting. You get that right?



    "If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist. That's the difference. Republicans speak of morality, and conveniently ignore it if it is a Republican."

    You're not talking about Bill Clinton, are you?


    Do you really want to bring up how many illicit sexual affairs Republicans have had, straight and down-low gay?

    " What is it with Republicans lately? Is there something about being a leader of the family-values party that makes you want to go out and commit adultery?

    They certainly don’t have a lock on the infidelity market, and heaven knows we all remember John Edwards. But, lately, the G.O.P. has shown a genius for putting a peculiar, newsworthy spin on illicit sex. A married congressman hunting for babes is bad. A married congressman hunting for babes by posting a half-naked photo of himself on the Internet is Republican.

    A married governor who fathers an illegitimate child is awful. A married governor who fathers an illegitimate child by a staff member of the family home and then fails to mention it to his wife for more than 10 years is Republican.

    A married senator who has an affair with an employee is a jerk. A married senator who has an affair with an employee who is the wife of his chief of staff, and whose adultery is the subject of ongoing discussion at his Congressional prayer group, is Republican.

    We haven’t even gotten to Newt Gingrich yet!


    One can make a very compelling case that politicians’ private lives should be off-limits altogether, and officials’ personal/family problems are their business, not ours. But if a party goes out of its way to hold itself out as the arbiters of virtue, it should expect a more intense pushback when it’s caught falling short."

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/pondering_republicans_double_s029682.php



    TL DR

    But I take it that you'd rather not discuss Bill Clinton?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2015 12:32 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Muscles25 said

    You don't expect the automated Metta8 unit to respond to your inquiry, do you? Just look at the thousands of topics it has created here - and you'll see that it simply tosses a stink bomb and then watches the ensuing reaction without engaging with anyone posting in its topics.


    Hadn't thought about it but you're right - metta8 must be a troll bot. I thought that would be a banned activity.

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 21, 2015 5:19 AM GMT
    I love how EVERY conservative poster in here committed a FALSE EQUIVALENCY (e.g., employed a "they're all bad" rationalization).

    (1). Republicans explicitly intend to pass moral judgment--anointing some as the chosen and others are falling short. There is no hypocrisy in Democrat (e.g., Clinton) sexual liasons or moral "failures" because the Democrats NEVER claimed nor intimated they were the rules of the "moral majority" ticket.

    (2). Democrats supporting Bill Clinton after the witch hunt that--drum roll please--revealed a blowjob and a lie (i.e., oral sex is not sex according to Bill) is NOT equivalent to the CONSERVATIVE's knee-jerk reaction to support the rapist and rapist protecting Duggard family. That's a sick and twisted equivalency.

    Bye Felicia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2015 9:15 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    desertmuscl said
    southbeach1500 said
    Muscles25 said

    You don't expect the automated Metta8 unit to respond to your inquiry, do you? Just look at the thousands of topics it has created here - and you'll see that it simply tosses a stink bomb and then watches the ensuing reaction without engaging with anyone posting in its topics.


    Hadn't thought about it but you're right - metta8 must be a troll bot. I thought that would be a banned activity.


    You would think.

    It's extremely anti-social behavior and downright rude when others address the automated Metta8 unit with a comment / question on a topic it has created and the automated Metta8 unit doesn't bother replying.

    If you're gonna create a topic, at least have the decency to engage with the others who comment on your topic. It's not that hard to do!


    You don't discuss. You just bitch about Democrats.

    Why rehash everything that's been said about Bill and Monica. It's been covered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 1:38 PM GMT
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.


    I tend to agree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 6:43 PM GMT
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.



    So you're saying go to a place where people are highly educated and you'll find liberal principles?

    Got it!

    Fundamentalist Conservative ideology is dying with the current elderly generation. There will never again be a president that shares the mind-set of a fundamentalist conservative. Education and intellect will always win - and as education becomes accessible to everyone through the internet, architect ideologies die. The younger generations done share the same racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist ideas that the conservative party LEADERS embody. Its the same reason religion is decreasing all over the world - its impossible to believe in Adam and Eve, or that being gay is a choice, when you have a phone that can tell you the genetics doesnt make sense haha

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 6:50 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    timmm55 said
    If it were a Democrat, few if any Democrats would support a rapist.

    They all still love Bill Clinton.

    Generalization, from the perpetual critic of gays and gay supporters who is always quick to criticize generalizations by others. Hypocrite much?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 8:00 PM GMT
    coloradojock16 said
    Muscles25 saidYou can't be serious, right? Go to any college campus and you'll see liberal "tribalism" in full extremis: belief that they are superior and that their opinions are not only the only valid ones but that anyone who doesn't hold them are evil and the enemy.

    I don't see much difference between the extremes on EITHER SIDE.



    So you're saying go to a place where people are highly educated and you'll find liberal principles?

    Got it!

    Fundamentalist Conservative ideology is dying with the current elderly generation. There will never again be a president that shares the mind-set of a fundamentalist conservative. Education and intellect will always win - and as education becomes accessible to everyone through the internet, architect ideologies die. The younger generations done share the same racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist ideas that the conservative party LEADERS embody. Its the same reason religion is decreasing all over the world - its impossible to believe in Adam and Eve, or that being gay is a choice, when you have a phone that can tell you the genetics doesnt make sense haha



    Excellent!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 8:06 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    desertmuscl said
    southbeach1500 said
    Muscles25 said

    You don't expect the automated Metta8 unit to respond to your inquiry, do you? Just look at the thousands of topics it has created here - and you'll see that it simply tosses a stink bomb and then watches the ensuing reaction without engaging with anyone posting in its topics.


    Hadn't thought about it but you're right - metta8 must be a troll bot. I thought that would be a banned activity.


    You would think.

    It's extremely anti-social behavior and downright rude when others address the automated Metta8 unit with a comment / question on a topic it has created and the automated Metta8 unit doesn't bother replying.

    If you're gonna create a topic, at least have the decency to engage with the others who comment on your topic. It's not that hard to do!



    Are you implying Metta8 should be banned, because in your opinion, he is a "troll bot"? Why not an outright witch?

    Silly nickle-a-posters!

    You just disagree with a liberal. He posts things for us to consider. He doesn't have post anything, or after, or answer anything especially from you fools.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 1:07 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    timmm55 said

    Are you implying Metta8 should be banned, because in your opinion, he is a "troll bot"? Why not an outright witch?

    Silly nickle-a-posters!

    You just disagree with a liberal. He posts things for us to consider. He doesn't have post anything, or after, or answer anything especially from you fools.


    I disagree with 90% the members of this site and haven't called for banning anyone.

    I'm not implying anything. I'm flat out stating that Metta8 and the "Woodsmen" (a.k.a the salesman for The New York Times) and everyone else should not be allowed to stay here if all they are going to do in a discussion forum is copy and paste headlines and links.

    But... I don't run the place, so I can only state my opinion.



    Your are right, you don't run the place. But you are attempting to and nobody likes your attempts. FO

    (corrected for typos....sorry was in a hurry!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 8:45 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    timmm55 said
    southbeach1500 said
    timmm55 said

    Are you implying Metta8 should be banned, because in your opinion, he is a "troll bot"? Why not an outright witch?

    Silly nickle-a-posters!

    You just disagree with a liberal. He posts things for us to consider. He doesn't have post anything, or after, or answer anything especially from you fools.


    I disagree with 90% the members of this site and haven't called for banning anyone.

    I'm not implying anything. I'm flat out stating that Metta8 and the "Woodsmen" (a.k.a the salesman for The New York Times) and everyone else should not be allowed to stay here if all they are going to do in a discussion forum is copy and paste headlines and links.

    But... I don't run the place, so I can only state my opinion.



    Your are tight, you don't run the place. But you are attempting too and nobody likes your attempts. FO


    FO?

    And I'm not attempting "too" run the place, smarty. Have I advocated for YOUR banning? If I did run the place, you'd have just gotten the ax for your "FO" comment.



    Says you: " Hadn't thought about it but you're right - metta8 must be a troll bot. I thought that would be a banned activity.



    You would think.
    " So you think he should be banned, and I, but not you?

    New title: Republicans on RJ take over! I'd say the same thing to any fascist, FUCK OFF!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 9:09 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    southbeach1500 said
    timmm55 said
    southbeach1500 said
    timmm55 said

    Are you implying Metta8 should be banned, because in your opinion, he is a "troll bot"? Why not an outright witch?

    Silly nickle-a-posters!

    You just disagree with a liberal. He posts things for us to consider. He doesn't have post anything, or after, or answer anything especially from you fools.


    I disagree with 90% the members of this site and haven't called for banning anyone.

    I'm not implying anything. I'm flat out stating that Metta8 and the "Woodsmen" (a.k.a the salesman for The New York Times) and everyone else should not be allowed to stay here if all they are going to do in a discussion forum is copy and paste headlines and links.

    But... I don't run the place, so I can only state my opinion.



    Your are tight, you don't run the place. But you are attempting too and nobody likes your attempts. FO


    FO?

    And I'm not attempting "too" run the place, smarty. Have I advocated for YOUR banning? If I did run the place, you'd have just gotten the ax for your "FO" comment.



    Says you: " Hadn't thought about it but you're right - metta8 must be a troll bot. I thought that would be a banned activity.



    You would think.
    " So you think he should be banned, and I, but not you?

    New title: Republicans on RJ take over! I'd say the same thing to any fascist, FUCK OFF!



    We all should be banned. It'd be like giving us all an extra couple of hours per day.