MMMMMM Advocates Violence Against Americans

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Bob Dylan


[/ QUOTE ]

So people say anything, so long as they don't disagree with US foreign policy? Seems like the solution could be worse than the problem. The preaching of the Muslim is more powerful and passionate than we are used to, is it possible that he preaches to convey his rage at injustice, rather than to suggest an action?

Mack

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Deportation is CERTAINLY not violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it, then? How much force is required to reach "violence"?

Violence is an act of aggression. What is non-aggressive about deportation? Legality is not the issue. Legal or justified violence is still violence.

[slamdunkpro]

Let me get this straight….

1. JW did something that is against the rules we all agreed to but most likely didn’t read
2. He was warned not to do it again by the designated authority
3. He did it again
4. He was warned not to do it again or be banned by the designated authority
5. He did it again
6. He was banned by the designated authority

And everyone’s problem is…..?

Yes everyone has the right of Free Speech, but if I have rules against profanity in my house and you know it and curse anyway I’m going to ask you (possibly assist you) to leave. Just like a casino….we can refuse or terminate service to anyone for any reason

Again and everyone’s problem is…..?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes everyone has the right of Free Speech

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea how irritating it is to me and others to hear you talk about a so called right to free speech on someone's private forum. This is why I have proposed that government be a required course in high schools. The first amendment applies to public places only, and 2+2 is privately owned. You can be banned from here at any time for any reason. You have no right to free speech.

[slamdunkpro]

Did you read the entire post or just focus on the little bit you quoted out of context?

This little gem was in there as well.

….we can refuse or terminate service to anyone for any reason

[Edge34]

Scoot's favorite thing to do is take a subject you talk about, and then thoroughly misrepresent what you actually said.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deportation is CERTAINLY not violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it, then? How much force is required to reach "violence"?

Violence is an act of aggression. What is non-aggressive about deportation? Legality is not the issue. Legal or justified violence is still violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not agression, its a RESPONSE. Can you not see that? There is NOTHING violent about a deportation. Do you KNOW the meaning of the word?

deportation-the removal from a country of an alien whose presence is illegal or detrimental to the public welfare

Not murder. Not torture. Not rape. Simply removing someone from a country because they are no longer wanted in.

People don't get deported for no reason (most of the time I would hope). If they did, then MAYBE I could see a way to call deportation violent, but ONLY in EXTREMELY rare cases.

You are so off on this its not even fun for me anymore.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not let the fact that he directed the remarks at me influence my decision in the slightest. I can honestly say that my decision would have been the same had he directed the remarks at any other poster. So, why should I have recused myself, except to unduly worry about shallow impressions? The posters who have been here for years pretty much know what is going on.


[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much believe that you have made a good effort to ensure that this is true.


However...

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the views of those who frequently name-call and engage in other childish and destructive behaviors on the forum should even count towards a vote on such a banning.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past some may opine that you have been fairly liberal in the use of name calling against posters you disagree with, no doubt when your hackles were up and in the heat of battle. In the present system, it turns out that the vote against JW was of exactly one person, who has been allegedly guilty (albeit, perhaps, not as much as others) of the behaviour that you think should disqualify a person from voting.

Do you see the problem yet?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the views of those who frequently name-call and engage in other childish and destructive behaviors on the forum should even count towards a vote on such a banning.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past some may opine that you have been fairly liberal in the use of name calling against posters you disagree with, no doubt when your hackles were up and in the heat of battle. In the present system, it turns out that the vote against JW was of exactly one person, who has been allegedly guilty (albeit, perhaps, not as much as others) of the behaviour that you think should disqualify a person from voting.

Do you see the problem yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past I admit to having at times referred to Cyrus as a chucklehead or you as a nitwit--and/or suggested as much. However I have not done this frequently considering the total number of exchanges we have had. My criteria for disqualification on the vote referred to are that someone has name-called frequently and engaged in other childish and destructive behaviors on the forum--which I haven't. Moreover I think it is only Cyrus and you that I saw fit to grace in such a manner and it was often partially in jest. One may certainly hold nitwitted views without being a certified nitwit. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Heck I've been known to do that on occasion too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I don't think that should disqualify me from having had the "moral authority" to have banned jokerswild for much more severe and frequent offenses. As I've often posted, often everything hinges on degree--as it does in this case.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the views of those who frequently name-call and engage in other childish and destructive behaviors on the forum should even count towards a vote on such a banning.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past some may opine that you have been fairly liberal in the use of name calling against posters you disagree with, no doubt when your hackles were up and in the heat of battle. In the present system, it turns out that the vote against JW was of exactly one person, who has been allegedly guilty (albeit, perhaps, not as much as others) of the behaviour that you think should disqualify a person from voting.

Do you see the problem yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past I admit to having at times referred to Cyrus as a chucklehead or you as a nitwit--and/or suggested as much. However I have not done this frequently considering the total number of exchanges we have had. My criteria for disqualification on the vote referred to are that someone has name-called frequently and engaged in other childish and destructive behaviors on the forum--which I haven't. Moreover I think it is only Cyrus and you that I saw fit to grace in such a manner and it was often partially in jest. One may certainly hold nitwitted views without being a certified nitwit. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Heck I've been known to do that on occasion too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I don't think that should disqualify me from having had the "moral authority" to have banned jokerswild for much more severe and frequent offenses. As I've often posted, often everything hinges on degree--as it does in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]


M, we love ya, but don't you think your rationale here is a bit thin?

It appears that you're saying that it's ok to do it, as long as it's infrequently?

How many examples must one give of a hypocritical nature before one can be adjudged hypocritical?

....hmmmmm.....how many dots can we fit on the head of a pin??