# Possible Pipe bomb explosion/attack in NYC



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 11, 2017)

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...urce=dvf&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook
NYPD says the only person injured was the suspect and that he sustained non-life threatening wounds.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Dec 11, 2017)

this has not been a good winter for my investment real estate. 

hope everyone is ok. Just glad i'm not there right now. Used to take the bus back up to providence and back every weekend.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 11, 2017)

"The suspect, Akayed Ullah, had burns and wounds to his body when the NYPD responded around 7:20 a.m. EST. Ullah is currently alive and in custody and was taken to Bellevue Hospital, where he is being treated.

When asked if the suspect mentioned ISIS, NYPD Police Commissioner William Bratton said the suspect “did make statements, but we’re not gonna talk about that right now.”

It was reported that the male suspect is originally from Bangladesh, lives in Brooklyn and has been in the U.S. for seven years.

The Port Authority Bus Terminal has since been re-opened. And, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is now investigating the explosion."

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...urce=dvf&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook
FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is currently helping investigate.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 11, 2017)

FFS!

I'm so glad no one was seriously hurt.


----------



## Randy (Dec 11, 2017)

Not that looking in the mirror does you any good and I was no Hillary Clinton fan, but she had tackling online recruitment for ISIS near the top of her anti-terrorism priorities and I haven't seen any indication of DJT taking that threat as seriously.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Dec 11, 2017)

some scary shit. that's two attacks very close to each other.
the last one with the truck drive happened right down my street.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 11, 2017)

footage of the detonation


----------



## Drew (Dec 11, 2017)

Last I heard injury count was up to 4, but the death count was, mercifully, at zero.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Dec 11, 2017)

Drew said:


> Last I heard injury count was up to 4, but the death count was, mercifully, at zero.



it was reported that the bomb detonated early. if it had actually gone off in the middle of the crowd at rush hour....


----------



## Drew (Dec 11, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> it was reported that the bomb detonated early. if it had actually gone off in the middle of the crowd at rush hour....


Agreed - though, downtown Manhattan even at 7-7:30 or whenever it went off is pretty busy. I suspect not only did it detonate early, it failed to fully detonate or detonate in the manner it was supposed to.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 11, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> footage of the detonation



Looks like that could have been very bad. I guess it's lucky in some way, in the grand scheme of things.

What goes through these people's minds?! I simply do not understand the idea of being so pissed off at the world or whatever to blow yourself up with a bomb and make tons of other people miserable along the way.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Dec 11, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Looks like that could have been very bad. I guess it's lucky in some way, in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> What goes through these people's minds?! I simply do not understand the idea of being so pissed off at the world or whatever to blow yourself up with a bomb and make tons of other people miserable along the way.



It's like that guy that was driving the truck down the sidewalk. I walked that crosswalk every day. an hour later and it would have been much worse.


----------



## Drew (Dec 11, 2017)

Not a ton more is out, but the attacker was from Bangledesh, entered the country on a chain visa in 2011, and it seems he was inspired by the Islamic State's call to commit terrorist attacks in the US, though based on the timeline it seems far more likely that he was radicalized here, rather than came here to attack. IS-linked groups are claiming this was in retribution for Trump formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 

Still, we don't have much to go on, publicly, yet.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 11, 2017)

Why do these groups even bother to claim responsibility for attacks gone so "wrong?"


----------



## Drew (Dec 11, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Why do these groups even bother to claim responsibility for attacks gone so "wrong?"


I'm not sure, from their standpoint, they HAVE gone wrong. The primary purpose of terrorism isn't to kill; the primary purposes of terrorism are to spread fear, to incite anti-Islamic sentiment in the west and fan the flames of a religious war, and to prompt western governments to become more repressive and curtail civil liberties. A "botched" attack does just as good at that as one with a higher body count.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 11, 2017)

It sounds like he blew his _parts_ off.


----------



## marcwormjim (Dec 12, 2017)

So...If he martyred his penis with a bomb, are the 72 virgins using it right now, or will it just be waiting in heaven with velcro when he gets there?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

Randy said:


> Not that looking in the mirror does you any good and I was no Hillary Clinton fan, but she had tackling online recruitment for ISIS near the top of her anti-terrorism priorities and I haven't seen any indication of DJT taking that threat as seriously.


Yeah, keeping them out of the US to begin with wouldn't have thwarted stuff like this.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

Drew said:


> Last I heard injury count was up to 4, but the death count was, mercifully, at zero.


I wish the injury/death count was one: The asshole trying to pull this garbage. 

NOTE: Anyone that wants to shame me for some reason over this guy trying to kill people and me wishing he was the sole injury and death can save it.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

Drew said:


> Not a ton more is out, but the attacker was from Bangledesh, entered the country on a chain visa in 2011, and it seems he was inspired by the Islamic State's call to commit terrorist attacks in the US, though based on the timeline it seems far more likely that he was radicalized here, rather than came here to attack. IS-linked groups are claiming this was in retribution for Trump formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
> 
> Still, we don't have much to go on, publicly, yet.


I believe Tawhidi warned about "hot radical spots" in NY, and apparently no one listened/gave a shit.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Dec 12, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I wish the injury/death count was one: The asshole trying to pull this garbage.
> 
> NOTE: Anyone that wants to shame me for some reason over this guy trying to kill people and me wishing he was the sole injury and death can save it.



unfortunately or fortunately...his bomb didn't really work. If it had worked well enough to actually kill him, it would have been pretty bad.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, keeping them out of the US to begin with wouldn't have thwarted stuff like this.



Define "them" and which immigration policy Trump's advocated for that would've prevented this. 

My point wasn't even controversial. He's president, he and his Congress have the ability to make policy and whether they're trying to do anything about it or not, these things continue to happen and ISIS continues to recruit in this country. But hey keep making excuses.


----------



## MFB (Dec 12, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, keeping them out of the US to begin with wouldn't have thwarted stuff like this.



Did you miss the part where he came here in 2011, as in, 6 years before DJT tried to instigate a travel ban from certain countries? Or the part where he was from Bangladesh, AKA also not part of the ban? Had no criminal record over there?

It's almost like this could have happened ...while he was living here?!


----------



## bostjan (Dec 12, 2017)

Syria, Libya, Bangladesh, all countries Trump can't find on a map, therefore, same thing.


----------



## Drew (Dec 12, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I wish the injury/death count was one: The asshole trying to pull this garbage.
> 
> NOTE: Anyone that wants to shame me for some reason over this guy trying to kill people and me wishing he was the sole injury and death can save it.


Nah - if he's going to try a suicide attack, I have no problems with him hurting himself in the process. The ONLY point where I'd begin to disagree with you, is I'm glad he's alive and able to be questioned by law enforcement. Information is worth more than any terrorist's life. 

Re: radicalization, I'm not sure if you'll agree with me or not given our past conversations, but it DOES kind of call into question Trump's "immigration ban/heavy restriction" approach to anti-terrorism. IS seems to have shifted tactics from sending suicide bombers here to trying to radicalize and inspire people already living lawfully in this country to carry out attacks. That tells me two things - one, that "enhanced screening processes" or whatever Trump calls it, miss the point and are focused on the wrong threat, and two, that IS's shift in strategy itself likely demonstrates that our Bush- and Obama-era border control policies were likely already highly effective, or they'd continue to fly in terrorists to commit attacks.


----------



## Drew (Dec 12, 2017)

MFB said:


> Did you miss the part where he came here in 2011, as in, 6 years before DJT tried to instigate a travel ban from certain countries? Or the part where he was from Bangladesh, AKA also not part of the ban? Had no criminal record over there?
> 
> It's almost like this could have happened ...while he was living here?!


Isn't that what he said, though? Keeping him out WOULDN'T have thwarted stuff like this?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

Drew said:


> Nah - if he's going to try a suicide attack, I have no problems with him hurting himself in the process. The ONLY point where I'd begin to disagree with you, is I'm glad he's alive and able to be questioned by law enforcement. Information is worth more than any terrorist's life.
> 
> Re: radicalization, I'm not sure if you'll agree with me or not given our past conversations, but it DOES kind of call into question Trump's "immigration ban/heavy restriction" approach to anti-terrorism. IS seems to have shifted tactics from sending suicide bombers here to trying to radicalize and inspire people already living lawfully in this country to carry out attacks. That tells me two things - one, that "enhanced screening processes" or whatever Trump calls it, miss the point and are focused on the wrong threat, and two, that IS's shift in strategy itself likely demonstrates that our Bush- and Obama-era border control policies were likely already highly effective, or they'd continue to fly in terrorists to commit attacks.


"The ONLY point where I'd begin to disagree with you, is I'm glad he's alive and able to be questioned by law enforcement. Information is worth more than any terrorist's life." If his information is actually credible, then fair enough point. I'd actually agree with you.

I agree with your second point, however, the only options are: Just flat out ban Muslims, OR go after "radical hot centres" as Tawhidi put it. I'm sure that some would have a problem with either option though, mainly because they have an issue with anything and everything.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

MFB said:


> Did you miss the part where he came here in 2011, as in, 6 years before DJT tried to instigate a travel ban from certain countries? Or the part where he was from Bangladesh, AKA also not part of the ban? Had no criminal record over there?
> 
> It's almost like this could have happened ...while he was living here?!


Italian Spiderman... lovely. Also, if you read my third comment, and added it to my first, you'd realize that going after "radical hot centres" would've stopped someone from being radicalized while they are here.


----------



## Drew (Dec 12, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "The ONLY point where I'd begin to disagree with you, is I'm glad he's alive and able to be questioned by law enforcement. Information is worth more than any terrorist's life." If his information is actually credible, then fair enough point. I'd actually agree with you.
> 
> I agree with your second point, however, the only options are: Just flat out ban Muslims, OR go after "radical hot centres" as Tawhidi put it. I'm sure that some would have a problem with either option though, mainly because they have an issue with anything and everything.


Shocker!  Well, all information from a dead man is worthless; only one way to find out. 10 times out of 10 I'll choose the option where we may get some answers.

"Just flat-out ban Muslims" isn't an option, considering the vast majority of Muslims in this country are either American citizens or valid green card holders. We can't "ban" them without due process, without violating their constitutional rights, and we can't arbitrarily decide to violate the constitutional rights of a religious or ethnic group under the US Constitution. One of the things that separates us from groups like IS is we have rules, and they don't.

"Going after 'radical hot centers'," while I'm not exactly sure what that means, is probably closer to the better point of action - find out where and how people are getting radicalized, and work on interrupting those points. To do that, we need better information about where the radicalization is occurring... which is why it's important that we brought this guy in alive.

I think we could all take a page from New York, however, much as it pains me as a Bostonian to admit that - their collective reaction is "eh, dude tried to blow himself up, and all he accomplished was made my train a half hour late. Whatever."


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

Drew said:


> Shocker!  Well, all information from a dead man is worthless; only one way to find out. 10 times out of 10 I'll choose the option where we may get some answers.
> 
> "Just flat-out ban Muslims" isn't an option, considering the vast majority of Muslims in this country are either American citizens or valid green card holders. We can't "ban" them without due process, without violating their constitutional rights, and we can't arbitrarily decide to violate the constitutional rights of a religious or ethnic group under the US Constitution. One of the things that separates us from groups like IS is we have rules, and they don't.
> 
> ...


Apparently Imam Tawhidi told De Dumbass-io about said "radical hot centers," which I assume are areas of suspicious activities that could be radicalizing Muslims, and De Dumbass-io ignored it.


----------



## Drew (Dec 12, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Apparently Imam Tawhidi told De Dumbass-io about said "radical hot centers," which I assume are areas of suspicious activities that could be radicalizing Muslims, and De Dumbass-io ignored it.


Though are you sure this guy was associated with any of them? Sounds like his mosque and community was just as surprised by this as we are, and he claims he was radicalized online, rather that in some physical location in NYC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

EDIT - major assumption being the bomber is not lying, which is something the investigation will have to determine over coming weeks.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 12, 2017)

Drew said:


> he claims he was radicalized online, rather that in some physical location in NYC.



Great. Trump is gonna ban the Internet now. It was nice knowing you guys.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> It was nice knowing you guys.



I wish I could say the same!


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 12, 2017)

Randy said:


> I wish I could say the same!


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Apparently Imam Tawhidi told De Dumbass-io about said "radical hot centers," which I assume are areas of suspicious activities that could be radicalizing Muslims, and De Dumbass-io ignored it.



Hey man, we're all on the same side of this thing. Just because we're from different political hemispheres doesn't mean one side wants to see an end to terrorism and the other doesn't; there's just a difference of opinion on how you do it.

My problem is that "radical hot centers" is a rigid term for a fluid issue. If you WERE able to lock the borders and kick out every Muslim person or person originating from countries with Muslims in them, I still think you'd have the capacity for "radical Islamic terrorism" via radicalization and training online. That was my point, I haven't seen the strategy yet to confront that.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

Drew said:


> Though are you sure this guy was associated with any of them? Sounds like his mosque and community was just as surprised by this as we are, and he claims he was radicalized online, rather that in some physical location in NYC.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
> 
> EDIT - major assumption being the bomber is not lying, which is something the investigation will have to determine over coming weeks.


I'm not sure that he was tied/associated with the ones that Tawhidi had warned De Dumbass-io about, but it leads me to believe that they are ignoring concerns, and as a result, not investigating possible centers for radicalization in America. To me, that is quite worrisome. 

As for being radicalized online, that is quite possible. However, a lot of people think we should close these places where they are going to be radicalized online, namely open forums. I HIGHLY disagree, and here's why. If you close down forums, a lot of which in general are open without even opening an account, you will have to going from relatively out in the open venues to spread this kind of rhetoric to more secure means. These being ones that are encrypted and thus harder to crack. Even if local, state and federal authorities get better at cracking this stuff and intercepting it, say plans like, "Hey, next week, we're going to ________ the corner of ______ & ______," or something like that, they will then go, "Alright, let's not plan things a week in advance; let's do things spur of the moment." This is why I think it's a terrible thing to close these places down. Leave them open, watch them closely, and the more suspicious ones should be tracked and surveyed. Either they might be planning to do something, or people they are "mentoring" might be, but regardless, it should be looked into.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 12, 2017)

Randy said:


> Hey man, we're all on the same side of this thing. Just because we're from different political hemispheres doesn't mean one side wants to see an end to terrorism and the other doesn't; there's just a difference of opinion on how you do it.
> 
> My problem is that "radical hot centers" is a rigid term for a fluid issue. If you WERE able to lock the borders and kick out every Muslim person or person originating from countries with Muslims in them, I still think you'd have the capacity for "radical Islamic terrorism" via radicalization and training online. That was my point, I haven't seen the strategy yet to confront that.


Surveillance. We're already fucked thanks to "The Patriot Act," -retches like a cat- so might as well use it on suspicious people rather than gathering a shit ton of data from everyone and having zero ability to really use much of it.

As for "radical hot centers," I think looking into the places and the folks that go to them would lead you to their internet connections as well. I don't mean internet connections as in ISPs, but rather their connections to radical Jihadis in the middle east and elsewhere. I do agree though that if the investigation started and stopped with, for instance, a particular mosque, and didn't look into anything outside of that, then it's pretty useless and a was of time.



Randy said:


> Define "them" and which immigration policy Trump's advocated for that would've prevented this.
> 
> My point wasn't even controversial. He's president, he and his Congress have the ability to make policy and whether they're trying to do anything about it or not, these things continue to happen and ISIS continues to recruit in this country. But hey keep making excuses.


I think you misread my comment. Drew already made it a little clearer to you earlier, and I had missed your comment, but yikes. I'm curious what you thought I meant when I said, "Yeah, keeping them out of the US to begin with wouldn't have thwarted stuff like this." In fact, looking back at your comment that I replied to when I said that, I thought I agreed with you in a roundabout way? I'm a supporter of Trump in quite a few ways, and agreed with you, yet you still took my comment as meaning something totally different.

I agree that Trump needs to do something, but what can be done that won't trample all over everyone else's rights on the internet? 

As for Congress/Senate, there are a lot of resistors on both sides whom, at least on the Republican side, are being exposed for the spineless, hypocritical piles of shit that modern Republicans have always suspected them of being*. People like John McCain, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and other lily livered, gutless RINO turds, for instance. I try to stay somewhat centrist with a right lean, but I disagree with both sides about things -- quite a few things, in fact -- and I can't stand these old, dusty mummified corpses like Conyers, Pelosi, McCain, McConnell, etc. whom have far outstayed their welcome because they are totally useless at this point. I am not the type that thinks anyone over 50 shouldn't be allowed in the senate or congress, but I think that there should be a better representation for various ages from 30 [or whenever you can run for office] on up. Right now, if you looked at a meeting for either, you'd think the average age was 74.

*My idea of modern Republicans are those that are more open to gays, and don't say stupid shit like, "That queer Obama prawly let that linebacker wife Mike-ul top him!" in a hillbilly accent so thick, you hear it while you read the comment. (NOTE: Regarding the word I just used, I've read worse online, and it was in quotes for a reason; because I was playing devil's advocate and saying something in a way that would be more representative of some sectors of the USA.) They also aren't so gungho about war -- though they do support it when it serves a purpose -- and don't like the dusty mummies I have highlighted in this post.


----------



## vilk (Dec 13, 2017)

_>Republicans I like are real republicans
>Republicans I don't like are RINO
>I in-and-of-myself define Republicanism_


----------



## bostjan (Dec 13, 2017)

I mean, we all have individualized sets of values, but we also share values with groups. I would hope that people living in the USA would share at least most of their values with the values of the USA as a nation, but I fear that's getting less and less defined.

It's perfectly okay for someone to say that they identify more with one group than another, and also have some disagreements with that group's philosophy, but what I hear more and more is the line of thinking @Spaced Out Ace is sharing, that he identifies more with one group than another, mainly out of disgust with the group's rival group, rather than out of appreciation of the group's mission. It's a vicious cycle, though. Americans are internally identifying "the establishment" and assuming that they must choose one of two establishment options in elections. But why? The last major election saw two presidential candidates that both looked terrible to most Americans. How the fuck does that happen and why should we accept it?! It happened because one group, the GOP, was marginalized. Those who were most vocal chose the candidate they thought would be best and the party actually shrugged and followed their own rules. The other group, the DNC, had corrupt people chose the candidate who they thought was more mainstream with both groups, but made a baseless prediction in that, and failed, so we ended up with a president who was hand picked by the most vocal subgroup of a group who was mostly bored and felt marginalized as an ignored minority, such that the group who chose him was in the minority within a group which is a minority. Interesting, but also spooky how that works.

Islam parallels that in so many ways. First off, it is the #2 religion in the world, by popularity, just like how the GOP is the second most popular political party in the USA. Islam has a large minority of violent extremists, who are extremely vocal and are driving public opinion about Islam, not to mention shaping Islamic policies internally. It's easy for an outsider to say Islam is bad, but it doesn't work like that. Yeah, these violent folks are bad, and yes they do what they do in the name of Islam, and yes Islam itself has mechanations to support them in place, but the majority of Muslims are not like these people.

The world right now is steeping in fear. Fear of North Korea and nuclear weapons, fear of Islamic terrorists and biological weapons, fear of climate change and natural disaster, fear that our jobs will go away, fear that our kids won't have a world to play in anymore, fear of being too afraid to do anything positive. Trump is a symptom of that fear. Not that he embodies fear, but he rose up to become PotUS by pandering to people's fears. When we are afraid, we aren't our most rational.

The extremists are grasping at people's fear themselves, it's why they use "terrorism" - a political tactic of instilling fear to precipitate policy changes.


----------



## Drew (Dec 13, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm not sure that he was tied/associated with the ones that Tawhidi had warned De Dumbass-io about, but it leads me to believe that they are ignoring concerns, and as a result, not investigating possible centers for radicalization in America. To me, that is quite worrisome.
> 
> As for being radicalized online, that is quite possible. However, a lot of people think we should close these places where they are going to be radicalized online, namely open forums. I HIGHLY disagree, and here's why. If you close down forums, a lot of which in general are open without even opening an account, you will have to going from relatively out in the open venues to spread this kind of rhetoric to more secure means. These being ones that are encrypted and thus harder to crack. Even if local, state and federal authorities get better at cracking this stuff and intercepting it, say plans like, "Hey, next week, we're going to ________ the corner of ______ & ______," or something like that, they will then go, "Alright, let's not plan things a week in advance; let's do things spur of the moment." This is why I think it's a terrible thing to close these places down. Leave them open, watch them closely, and the more suspicious ones should be tracked and surveyed. Either they might be planning to do something, or people they are "mentoring" might be, but regardless, it should be looked into.


...but that's kind of a catch-22, isn't it?

Deblasio needs to be more aggressive investigating centers of radicalization in America, and it's worrisome that he's ignoring concerns... ...unless of course it's the internet, in which case we should absolutely NOT close these places down?

Keep in mind your concerns are based on the assumption that it _wasn't _actually the internet where he was radicalized, but yet some alleged place in New York where we have no evidence it exists as a source of radicalization aside from claims by this Tawhidi guy.


----------



## Randy (Dec 13, 2017)

Drew said:


> Keep in mind your concerns are based on the assumption that it _wasn't _actually the internet where he was radicalized, but yet some alleged place in New York where we have no evidence it exists as a source of radicalization aside from claims by this Tawhidi guy.



I'm envisioning the Foot Clan's layer from the '90 TMNT movie


----------



## Drew (Dec 13, 2017)

I like it.


----------



## MFB (Dec 13, 2017)

Randy said:


> I'm envisioning the Foot Clan's layer from the '90 TMNT movie



Who knew joining ISIS would also get me in the same room as Sam Rockwell, that wasn't listed in the benefits brochure!


----------



## Drew (Dec 13, 2017)

MFB said:


> Who knew joining ISIS would also get me in the same room as Sam Rockwell, that wasn't listed in the benefits brochure!


Hell of a metal band, too. They kicked ass when I saw them open for Tool.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 13, 2017)

Drew said:


> ...but that's kind of a catch-22, isn't it?
> 
> Deblasio needs to be more aggressive investigating centers of radicalization in America, and it's worrisome that he's ignoring concerns... ...unless of course it's the internet, in which case we should absolutely NOT close these places down?
> 
> Keep in mind your concerns are based on the assumption that it _wasn't _actually the internet where he was radicalized, but yet some alleged place in New York where we have no evidence it exists as a source of radicalization aside from claims by this Tawhidi guy.


You leave open easier to monitor venues such as forums so you can monitor the people who pose threats easier, whereas encrypted methods of communication are harder to crack, and thus monitor what a possible terrorist is saying and doing.

Keep in mind that I covered both bases, and you couldn't even follow the one where I discussed radicalization and means of exchanging ideas online and why closing open forums of discussion, resulting in them most likely utilizing encrypted methods instead, is a bad idea.

I thought I had made both points quite clear.


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You leave open easier to monitor venues such as forums so you can monitor the people who pose threats easier, whereas encrypted methods of communication are harder to crack, and thus monitor what a possible terrorist is saying and doing.
> 
> Keep in mind that I covered both bases, and you couldn't even follow the one where I discussed radicalization and means of exchanging ideas online and why closing open forums of discussion, resulting in them most likely utilizing encrypted methods instead, is a bad idea.
> 
> I thought I had made both points quite clear.


And are you proposing doing the same in these alleged "radical hot centers" - which, again, may or may not exist, and may or may not have anything to do with this attacker - that we leave them open and monitor them? I totally get the argument you're making, it's just that unless you mean "monitor" when you say "go after," it looks like you're applying very different standards here.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

So is this madman going to be tried as a criminal or a "war" criminal? I sure hope he doesnt have his "rights" read to him!


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> So is this madman going to be tried as a criminal or a "war" criminal? I sure hope he doesnt have his "rights" read to him!


Considering he's a lawful permanent US resident, then yeah, he'll be tried exactly as any other lawful US resident. To riff off the Big Lebowski, this is America, not 'Nam. We have rules.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

Drew said:


> And are you proposing doing the same in these alleged "radical hot centers" - which, again, may or may not exist, and may or may not have anything to do with this attacker - that we leave them open and monitor them? I totally get the argument you're making, it's just that unless you mean "monitor" when you say "go after," it looks like you're applying very different standards here.


Okay, close them down. Great job. Now they'll go use more secure means of discussion, and oh look, we can't monitor it and stop the people that pose a threat as easily.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

Drew said:


> Considering he's a lawful permanent US resident, then yeah, he'll be tried exactly as any other lawful US resident. To riff off the Big Lebowski, this is America, not 'Nam. We have rules.



Does one actually need to be a non U.S citizen to be tried as a war criminal?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Does one actually need to be a non U.S citizen to be tried as a war criminal?


Doesn't matter where you're from if they're trying you in international court like they did at Nuremberg. No idea about trying people in the US as war criminals.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

Randy said:


> I'm envisioning the Foot Clan's layer from the '90 TMNT movie


*lair. Its ok, Your welcome.


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Does one actually need to be a non U.S citizen to be tried as a war criminal?


In an international court or tribunal, anyone regardless of nationality can be tried as a war criminal. In practice Americans aren't, since we don't recognize the sovereignty of international courts. Over and above that, if he's being tried in the US courts, he's tried with the full rights of a US citizen. I'll take it a step further and say that even if he WASN'T a legal and lawful resident, I believe he'd _still_ be given constitutional protections in the US court system. 

One of the consequences of being a - in the traditional sense and not left vs right sense - liberal democracy is we stick to the rules we've set in all circumstances, whether we want to or not.


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Okay, close them down. Great job. Now they'll go use more secure means of discussion, and oh look, we can't monitor it and stop the people that pose a threat as easily.


You didn't answer my question.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 14, 2017)

Drew said:


> You didn't answer my question.


Monitoring them and doing absolutely nothing as DeBlasio did are two different things.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 14, 2017)

Drew said:


> In an international court or tribunal, anyone regardless of nationality can be tried as a war criminal. In practice Americans aren't, since we don't recognize the sovereignty of international courts. Over and above that, if he's being tried in the US courts, he's tried with the full rights of a US citizen. I'll take it a step further and say that even if he WASN'T a legal and lawful resident, I believe he'd _still_ be given constitutional protections in the US court system.
> 
> One of the consequences of being a - in the traditional sense and not left vs right sense - liberal democracy is we stick to the rules we've set in all circumstances, whether we want to or not.


This is something recent though correct? Ithought before Obama that anyone could be tried as a war criminal even in the US?


----------



## thraxil (Dec 14, 2017)

Drew said:


> Deblasio needs to be more aggressive investigating centers of radicalization in America, and it's worrisome that he's ignoring concerns...



Wouldn't investigating possible terrorism be the responsibility and jurisdiction of the FBI/DHS though, not a city mayor?


----------



## Drew (Dec 19, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> This is something recent though correct? Ithought before Obama that anyone could be tried as a war criminal even in the US?


No, we've never respected the authority of international courts. We just get away with it because we're the last remaining superpower, which is something that isolationists should think long and hard about before continuing to cede ground to China. 



thraxil said:


> Wouldn't investigating possible terrorism be the responsibility and jurisdiction of the FBI/DHS though, not a city mayor?


I mean, it would be the job of FBI/DHS as well as the local police, who like DeBlaisio about as much as @Spaced Out Ace does, which makes his stance all the more confusing.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 19, 2017)

Drew said:


> No, we've never respected the authority of international courts. We just get away with it because we're the last remaining superpower, which is something that isolationists should think long and hard about before continuing to cede ground to China.
> 
> 
> I mean, it would be the job of FBI/DHS as well as the local police, who like DeBlaisio about as much as @Spaced Out Ace does, which makes his stance all the more confusing.


Isolationists as opposed to..............chronic interventionists? Im not sure what you mean by that or who your directing that comment towards as i dont see anyone here claiming to support isolationism.....? Forgive me if im misinterpreting your comment


----------



## Drew (Dec 19, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Isolationists as opposed to..............chronic interventionists? Im not sure what you mean by that or who your directing that comment towards as i dont see anyone here claiming to support isolationism.....? Forgive me if im misinterpreting your comment


Oh, it was a tangential aside, not really related to the conversation at hand, so much as a general theme in board discussions in the past year or two. There's been a populist surge on both the Democratic (Sanders) and Republican (Trump) sides of the aisle, and while they differ in a number of critical ways, one area of common agreement is they often question whether America SHOULD be investing time, money, and manpower overseas, rather than instead focusing on domestic issues and letting China take our place as the global superpower. There's a couple reasons why I think this is a bad idea, and I usually point to our soft power that comes from moral and military superiority, and the economic benefits we accrue in terms of price stability and low interest rates with the dollar as the global trade currency and the Treasury bill as the global safety asset, but one that hadn't occurred to me until I was writing that is it also means that, as the most powerful nation in the world, between our economic, military, and soft might, we CAN opt out of things like international criminal tribunals and get away with it, because no one's going to dare call us out on it (and, just as importantly, because we do have a history of respect for rule of law). 

So, that was an observation that I think is important, but wasn't directed at you in particular.


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2017)

Drew said:


> and I usually point to our soft power that comes from moral and military superiority,



Yeaaa, try polling the rest of the world on what they think about American moral superiority...


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Dec 20, 2017)

narad said:


> Yeaaa, try polling the rest of the world on what they think about American moral superiority...



The future is what's at stake here, and it will only take 50-100 years for everyone to forget Iraq.


----------



## Drew (Dec 20, 2017)

narad said:


> Yeaaa, try polling the rest of the world on what they think about American moral superiority...


Well, to quote the eminently-quotable Winston Churchill, "America will always do the right thing... after it has tried everything else." 

Generally, we've been seen as a force of good in the world, despite recent missteps, and when we advocate for something, other nations tend to listen. If you disagree, though, well, if anything that makes my argument stronger, that our role as the one remaining military and economic superpower is incredibly valuable for things like getting away with not agknowleding international courts.


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2017)

Drew said:


> Well, to quote the eminently-quotable Winston Churchill, "America will always do the right thing... after it has tried everything else."
> 
> Generally, we've been seen as a force of good in the world, despite recent missteps, and when we advocate for something, other nations tend to listen. If you disagree, though, well, if anything that makes my argument stronger, that our role as the one remaining military and economic superpower is incredibly valuable for things like getting away with not agknowleding international courts.



I agree with that, but I think the huge loss of international respect (due to the Trump administration) and then steady course away from being the only economic and military super power isn't go to end well 10-20 years down the road when it is neither.


----------



## Drew (Dec 20, 2017)

narad said:


> I agree with that, but I think the huge loss of international respect (due to the Trump administration) and then steady course away from being the only economic and military super power isn't go to end well 10-20 years down the road when it is neither.


Well, that's kind of what I was getting at.  Both on the left in the Sanders camp and on the right from Trump, there's a growing anti-internationalism and desire to turn our back on the rest of the world. There are prices that come from doing that, and this is just one more of them.


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2017)

But I think we split there - I feel the world would welcome a us that was a bit more isolationist, especially with respect to military engagements. I think there's little belief that any American engagement in the outside world is ever anything but self serving.


----------



## Dcm81 (Dec 20, 2017)

narad said:


> But I think we split there - I feel the world would welcome a us that was a bit more isolationist, especially with respect to military engagements. I think there's little belief that any American engagement in the outside world is ever anything but self serving.



Well put! I usually don't get involved in these political discussions but this constant arrogant, holier-than-thou mindset that the majority of Americans seem to have just fuckin triggers me! Since the end of WWII it's been ever clearer by the decade that the US care only about their own interests while trying to convince everyone that they are simply the "world police".....FUölsadhgölsdhldjfCK


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 20, 2017)

Its such a paradox that we can be an economic superpower while having the most un-sound money i can think of


----------



## Drew (Dec 21, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Its such a paradox that we can be an economic superpower while having the most un-sound money i can think of


Most unsound money?  The dollar is one of, if not THE, most stable currencies in the world. It's the international reserve currency and the currency of international trade for that reason.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 21, 2017)

Drew said:


> Most unsound money?  The dollar is one of, if not THE, most stable currencies in the world. It's the international reserve currency and the currency of international trade for that reason.


Its fiat money

The long answer:


The short answer: the fiat dollar is artifcially being propped up by hyper-artificial inflation making the money bubble ever-growing. (And it will burst eventually)


----------



## marcwormjim (Dec 22, 2017)

Bless your heart for attempting to give fat young men who blow thousands on signature gear each year a lesson in economics.


----------



## narad (Dec 22, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Bless your heart for attempting to give fat young men who blow thousands on signature gear each year a lesson in economics.



That's microeconomics. We're talking about macroeconomics, i.e., fat old men who blow trillions on defense contracts and corporate tax breaks each year.


----------



## marcwormjim (Dec 22, 2017)

Well in that case.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 22, 2017)

So what is an arm chair quarterback to do then?


----------



## Drew (Dec 22, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Its fiat money
> 
> The long answer:
> 
> ...



Oh please. All currency is fiat - even under the gold standard the currency was backed by the willingness of the government to actually honor that backing, which as it happens they eventually decided _not_ to. Given that it's the strength of that commitment that matters more than what the underlying commodity is, you may as well do away with price risk in the underlying commodity (because it's not like gold is exactly a stable store of value, either) and just value a currency based on the strength of the government's commitment to stand behind it.

And then there's this innate fear of inflation. There's nothing wrong with inflation provided it's stable and predictable - in fact, I'd argue that stable low inflation is probably a _good_ thing, as it strongly incentivizes investment. It's only when inflation gets volatile and unpredictable that the inflation assumptions already baked into prevailing interest rates become problematic.

The irony that we're having this conversation on the day bitcoin, the current darling of you "ZOMG fiat currency is bad!" guys, had trading halted after collapsing nearly 40% is almost too much - the sheer volatility of a currency with a fixed supply should give you some inclination that just maybe that isn't automatically a desirable quality in a currency.

I mean, you realize I do this stuff for a living, right?


----------



## narad (Dec 22, 2017)

Drew said:


> The irony that we're having this conversation on the day bitcoin, the current darling of you "ZOMG fiat currency is bad!" guys, had trading halted after collapsing nearly 40% is almost too much - the sheer volatility of a currency with a fixed supply should give you some inclination that just maybe that isn't automatically a desirable quality in a currency.



When my Uber driver is talking all about cryptocurrencies and the owner of Caparison is suddenly open to bitcoin payment on his clearance stock, you know it's a speculative bubble. 

But volatility in the early days of a currency with concentrated ownership is hardly some counterpoint to decentralization, as much as the virtually unlimited examples of hyperinflation in times/places of political turmoil would be are an argument for decentralization.


----------



## Gravy Train (Dec 22, 2017)

Man, I'm going to New York for the first time in January and reading how these horrible things happen in big cities like this scares the shit out of me...

Going to be vigilant and try not to let it ruin my trip!


----------



## Drew (Dec 22, 2017)

narad said:


> But volatility in the early days of a currency with concentrated ownership is hardly some counterpoint to decentralization, as much as the virtually unlimited examples of hyperinflation in times/places of political turmoil would be are an argument for decentralization.


I'm not convinced the culprit here is concentrated ownership, nor am I convinced it would necessarily be easy to prove that ownership WAS concentrated, given the anonymity that the blockchain affords. From what we can see on the exchanges, the current price action seems to be driven by lots of (comparatively) small players buying and selling, which is another way of saying that despite the fixed supply, bitcoin's "value" is still being set by supply and demand, like any other currency. Too little supply and too much demand while everyone tries to buy on the way up, too much supply for too little demand on the way down while everyone tries to sell.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 22, 2017)

Drew said:


> I mean, you realize I do this stuff for a living, right?



Im not sure what you do im assuming it involves finances?

But by your logic, Trump certainly knows what hes talking about because hes the President, right?


----------



## Drew (Dec 22, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Im not sure what you do im assuming it involves finances?
> 
> But by your logic, Trump certainly knows what hes talking about because hes the President, right?



I didn't get my job based on popular vote. Trump didn't get his based on his qualifications. Nice try though.


----------



## narad (Dec 22, 2017)

Drew said:


> I'm not convinced the culprit here is concentrated ownership, nor am I convinced it would necessarily be easy to prove that ownership WAS concentrated, given the anonymity that the blockchain affords. From what we can see on the exchanges, the current price action seems to be driven by lots of (comparatively) small players buying and selling, which is another way of saying that despite the fixed supply, bitcoin's "value" is still being set by supply and demand, like any other currency. Too little supply and too much demand while everyone tries to buy on the way up, too much supply for too little demand on the way down while everyone tries to sell.



I mean, you're also saying fixed supply here, which is weird.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 22, 2017)

Drew said:


> I didn't get my job based on popular vote. Trump didn't get his based on his qualifications. Nice try though.


You do realize Trump didnt actually win the popular vote? Again, i dont see what point your making here


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

narad said:


> I mean, you're also saying fixed supply here, which is weird.


So, cryptocurrencies are not my specialty, but I thought one of the main reasons libertarians had such a hard-on for bitcoin was that it hhad a finite supply, based on the length of the chain? It's still being mined, but there will come a point where the entire chain has been determined and new bitcoins will not be able to be created? There's the anonymnity too, of course, but before the bitcoin mania really blew up and became a mass speculative event, I remember mostly hearing people point to the fixed supply as a reason it was the wave of the future. (AFTER it became a mass speculative event, I remember mostly hearing get-rich-quick talk).



Unleash The Fury said:


> You do realize Trump didnt actually win the popular vote? Again, i dont see what point your making here


I'm a liberal. I'm WELL aware Trump lost the popular vote by about 2 million votes, though you'll never hear him admit it. The point I'm making, is, unlike our President, this is actually an area of expertise for me, and I'm not finding a couple crackpot youtube videos or some straight-up falsehoods about the 16th Amendment and the history of central banking all that compelling.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> So, cryptocurrencies are not my specialty, but I thought one of the main reasons libertarians had such a hard-on for bitcoin was that it hhad a finite supply, based on the length of the chain? It's still being mined, but there will come a point where the entire chain has been determined and new bitcoins will not be able to be created? There's the anonymnity too, of course, but before the bitcoin mania really blew up and became a mass speculative event, I remember mostly hearing people point to the fixed supply as a reason it was the wave of the future. (AFTER it became a mass speculative event, I remember mostly hearing get-rich-quick talk).
> 
> 
> I'm a liberal. I'm WELL aware Trump lost the popular vote by about 2 million votes, though you'll never hear him admit it. The point I'm making, is, unlike our President, this is actually an area of expertise for me, and I'm not finding a couple crackpot youtube videos or some straight-up falsehoods about the 16th Amendment and the history of central banking all that compelling.


Indocrination. It means you jumped through all the hoops that your masters put in front of you to get to where you are, wherever that may be. It means you have thoroughly learned the ins and outs of the Rockafellar/Rothschild fully funded biased and probably misinforming text books that youve paid for...........that costed quite alot i imagine. 

Ive read and own many books on this subject and subjects alike, so I dont get my info from just some "crackpot videos". Just because i dont have a college degree in the same field your in, doesnt make the books i read any less valid or less factual/truthful than the ones youve read.

Back in 2006 80% of all colleges taught on a liberal bias, according to Gregg Jacksons book "conservative comebacks to liberal lies". I wonder what that number was before and since that time.

Youve championed and graduated from the school of conventional wisdom.


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Indocrination. It means you jumped through all the hoops that your masters put in front of you to get to where you are, wherever that may be. It means you have thoroughly learned the ins and outs of the Rockafellar/Rothschild fully funded biased and probably misinforming text books that youve paid for...........that costed quite alot i imagine.
> 
> Ive read and own many books on this subject and subjects alike, so I dont get my info from just some "crackpot videos". Just because i dont have a college degree in the same field your in, doesnt make the books i read any less valid or less factual/truthful than the ones youve read.
> 
> ...


Actually, a CFA charter is surprisingly affordable, assuming you can pass the exams, which are fucking brutal. You'd be surprised.  My degree was actually in American literature. 

Not that you'd care of course, since you're so invested in believing you're right and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

Also, here's the thing I don't understand:



Unleash The Fury said:


> Indocrination. It means you jumped through all the hoops that your masters put in front of you to get to where you are, wherever that may be. It means you have thoroughly learned the ins and outs of the Rockafellar/Rothschild fully funded biased and probably misinforming text books that youve paid for...........that costed quite alot i imagine.



You think the world is controlled by some Rothchild/Rockafeller secret cartel, probably involving the Illuminati, most likely the Jews as well. Whatever, fine. That's cool. What I don't get is, how is this all contingent on the 16th Amendment being fraudulent, that it was never actually ratified and therefore unconstitutional, and somehow the text of Article 8 is ALSO fake so the government has no authority to tax at all?

Like, if the Rothschilds were really running the world and calling all the shots, wouldn't they just legitimately give the government the power to tax, and when the consitutionally of an income tax not being perfectly proportional was called into question, wouldn't they just legitimately pass the 16th Amendment to ensure that they DID have the constitutional basis to tax, and then legitimately pass the Federal Reserve Act to give the government the Constitutional authority to set up a central bank?

You're hell-bend on proving the Federal Reserve has no legal basis and the 16th Amendment shouldn't actually be considered law, so there's no legal basis for the Federal Reserve or income tax. And, that's because of some shadow banking cartel running the world. If there really was a shadowy cartel running the world, why wouldn't they just pull whatever strings they needed to in order to make sure the laws they wanted were passed with perfect, undeniable, totally transparent legal basis?

Or, put another way, if we pretend for a moment you're right, that there's no constitutional basis for the Fed and the 16th Amendment was never ratified, how does that actually HELP this shadowy globe-dominating cartel? It literally makes no sense.


----------



## narad (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Back in 2006 80% of all colleges taught on a liberal bias, according to Gregg Jacksons book "conservative comebacks to liberal lies". I wonder what that number was before and since that time.



Yea, a calculus curriculum changes a lot if your professor voted for Obama.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> Actually, a CFA charter is surprisingly affordable, assuming you can pass the exams, which are fucking brutal. You'd be surprised.  My degree was actually in American literature.
> 
> Not that you'd care of course, since you're so invested in believing you're right and everyone else is wrong.


No i do care. I didnt know what a CFA charter was until i googled it a minute ago. See Im not so stubborn that i wont learn something new. Im not so stubborn that when im confronted with something new that i refuse to try to understand it. I will admit when im wrong when im wrong. I just havent been wrong yet. Although you would say i havent been right either. Which is why i said that at the end of the day it boils down to what you believe and what you know to be truth. 

Just like Bill Maher says (god i hate that guy), i cant prove it for a fact, i just know its the truth.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> Also, here's the thing I don't understand:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You dont understand it then. I give you credit for even trying to understand it. If you cant make sense of it, thats on you.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

narad said:


> Yea, a calculus curriculum changes a lot if your professor voted for Obama.


But what does that have to do with the price of eggs?


----------



## narad (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> But what does that have to do with the price of eggs?



I don't know what you're talking about, but if you're trying to spin college as some brainwashing institution, a.) go to college first, or b.) realize people don't take Indoctrination 101 -- there's not room in many courses for liberal bias. Where is there bias? Oh, I don't know, probably in the book "conservative comebacks to liberal lies" where you sourced this information.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

narad said:


> I don't know what you're talking about, but if you're trying to spin college as some brainwashing institution, a.) go to college first, or b.) realize people don't take Indoctrination 101 -- there's not room in many courses for liberal bias. Where is there bias? Oh, I don't know, probably in the book "conservative comebacks to liberal lies" where you sourced this information.


My smart-assery went way over your head, i apologize. What you said made no sense so i responded accordingly


----------



## narad (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> My smart-assery went way over your head, i apologize. What you said made no sense so i responded accordingly



I think you're giving yourself too much credit. My calculus comment is in response to your implication that colleges teach bias.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> You dont understand it then. I give you credit for even trying to understand it. If you cant make sense of it, thats on you.


 And another thing. Was that the one thing you took away from these pages of conversation? I damn near typed out a whole essay, and the one thing you took away from it was the comment on amendment 16?


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> You dont understand it then. I give you credit for even trying to understand it. If you cant make sense of it, thats on you.


It's not a matter of understanding, though, is the thing, for you. It's a matter of faith. You've chosen to believe that the world is controlled by some sort of Rothschild/Rockafeller/Illuminata/whoever banking control, pulling strings from the shadows of history, and you're jusifying that belief by ever-more-convoluted conspiracy theories. Your belief the 16th Amendment is one of those. Not only does it not really make sense as a theory, but it also doesn't have a point - any cartel that could control the world economy and elect and control world leaders at whim could also just as easily pass laws. 

It's not a matter of understanding, since for any of these "everything you know is a lie" conspiracy theories, step one is tossing out mountains of evidence and, well, literally starting from the question, "what if all of the facts about this I know are false?" That's a massive leap of faith, and pretty much definitionally (this IS a conspiracy theory, after all) involves doing away with logical thought and deciding, arbitrarily, that the prevailing understanding, based on that aforementioned evidence, is all wrong, even though it's the easiest, cleanest, neatest explanation for what we know. 

Myself, I like Occam's Razor. There is no shadow cartel manipulating the world, the Constitution does grant the federal government the power to tax and to engage in monetary policy, Article 16 was ratified legally, the Federal Reserve Act was voted on and passed into law by Congress, and the Fed is busy pursuing it's dual mandate of promoting full employment and preserving price stability, and frankly hasn't done a half bad job of it of late.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> It's not a matter of understanding, though, is the thing, for you. It's a matter of faith. You've chosen to believe that the world is controlled by some sort of Rothschild/Rockafeller/Illuminata/whoever banking control, pulling strings from the shadows of history, and you're jusifying that belief by ever-more-convoluted conspiracy theories. Your belief the 16th Amendment is one of those. Not only does it not really make sense as a theory, but it also doesn't have a point - any cartel that could control the world economy and elect and control world leaders at whim could also just as easily pass laws.
> 
> It's not a matter of understanding, since for any of these "everything you know is a lie" conspiracy theories, step one is tossing out mountains of evidence and, well, literally starting from the question, "what if all of the facts about this I know are false?" That's a massive leap of faith, and pretty much definitionally (this IS a conspiracy theory, after all) involves doing away with logical thought and deciding, arbitrarily, that the prevailing understanding, based on that aforementioned evidence, is all wrong, even though it's the easiest, cleanest, neatest explanation for what we know.
> 
> Myself, I like Occam's Razor. There is no shadow cartel manipulating the world, the Constitution does grant the federal government the power to tax and to engage in monetary policy, Article 16 was ratified legally, the Federal Reserve Act was voted on and passed into law by Congress, and the Fed is busy pursuing it's dual mandate of promoting full employment and preserving price stability, and frankly hasn't done a half bad job of it of late.


I never said the world was controlled by some rockafellar rothschilds illuminati whoever banking control


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> My degree was actually in American literature.


That explains your grammar-nazism in previous posts


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

And quite frankly, your belief that the Feds fractional banking reserve system hasnt done a half bad job, makes me cringe. Sure, circumstancially, theyre "keeping things afloat and in line", but beneath the surface, certainly you know that printing fiat money out of thin air is artificial, and inevitably unsustainable. I mean we can agree on that right?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 26, 2017)

I tend to agree with UTF, at least in concept, but what the fuck is up with all of the off-topic posting?


----------



## narad (Dec 26, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I tend to agree with UTF, at least in concept, but what the fuck is up with all of the off-topic posting?



Barring UtF getting his own thread, it's hard to unify the illuminati, pirates, the 16th amendment, liberal bias in education, and government assassination plots. It's really more "Things in UtF's Head" leaking out into the whole of the off-topic subforum than it is a coherent derailment of any thread(s).


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 26, 2017)

narad said:


> Barring UtF getting his own thread, it's hard to unify the illuminati, pirates, the 16th amendment, liberal bias in education, and government assassination plots. It's really more "Things in UtF's Head" leaking out into the whole of the off-topic subforum than it is a coherent derailment of any thread(s).


I don't really have much of an issue with much of that, but it's seriously odd that he seems to be off topic in threads more often than he is on topic. At least from what I've noticed.


----------



## Randy (Dec 26, 2017)

FWIW, I'm not sure if it's been published anywhere on this forum already but when Alex made the transition to Xenforo, he fucked up the moderator tools so that it's hard for us to ban anybody (besides spam), so we have to formally submit all bans to him, but he doesn't log in all the time or bother reading the threads in question, so you have a lot of policing that's done 1.) at too slow a pace 2.) significantly less heavy handed as is needed to keep posters respectful of the format on here.

As such, for the last 8 or so years I've been modding here, I'd typically have just threatened UtF to keep on topic but considering it took several days before the ban that was submitted to Alex went through and it wasn't permanent like suggested, it's very hard to regulate decorum in here. If anybody's ever wondered why overly controversial subjects on here that go too far off top get get deleted lately, that's why.


----------



## narad (Dec 26, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I don't really have much of an issue with much of that, but it's seriously odd that he seems to be off topic in threads more often than he is on topic. At least from what I've noticed.



Well I don't have a problem with it per se, but if you're basically working under different base assumptions on a topic, then you can't come in and try to push that on to people, because that wasn't the topic. i.e., in a thread about oil pipelines, don't take it as an opportunity to talk about how the earth is 5000 years old and God gave us the oil, and climate change isn't real. In a thread about education reform, don't take this as the moment to push how all public education is part of a large scale brainwashing experiment to enslave the masses, and so forth. 

And so in threads about government policy, we shouldn't repeatedly have to listen to how the government is not really the government we all know, how it's a conspiracy which goes back 500 years, involving secret lodges and what have you. Because we can't have a discourse about the topic when arguing about the merit of the conspiracy (which can sometimes be fun). Like @Unleash The Fury -- just start your own thread for espousing your minority beliefs.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Randy said:


> FWIW, I'm not sure if it's been published anywhere on this forum already but when Alex made the transition to Xenforo, he fucked up the moderator tools so that it's hard for us to ban anybody (besides spam), so we have to formally submit all bans to him, but he doesn't log in all the time or bother reading the threads in question, so you have a lot of policing that's done 1.) at too slow a pace 2.) significantly less heavy handed as is needed to keep posters respectful of the format on here.
> 
> As such, for the last 8 or so years I've been modding here, I'd typically have just threatened UtF to keep on topic but considering it took several days before the ban that was submitted to Alex went through and it wasn't permanent like suggested, it's very hard to regulate decorum in here. If anybody's ever wondered why overly controversial subjects on here that go too far off top get get deleted lately, that's why.


Its only me, right? No one else is guilty just me.....roll eyes. Actually please show me the last time someone talked about this attack in nyc in this thread. I just make certain observations, people dont like them so they argue with me about them; subsequentley i respond to them


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 26, 2017)

narad said:


> Well I don't have a problem with it per se, but if you're basically working under different base assumptions on a topic, then you can't come in and try to push that on to people, because that wasn't the topic. i.e., in a thread about oil pipelines, don't take it as an opportunity to talk about how the earth is 5000 years old and God gave us the oil, and climate change isn't real. In a thread about education reform, don't take this as the moment to push how all public education is part of a large scale brainwashing experiment to enslave the masses, and so forth.
> 
> And so in threads about government policy, we shouldn't repeatedly have to listen to how the government is not really the government we all know, how it's a conspiracy which goes back 500 years, involving secret lodges and what have you. Because we can't have a discourse about the topic when arguing about the merit of the conspiracy (which can sometimes be fun). Like @Unleash The Fury -- just start your own thread for espousing your minority beliefs.


ie, "Don't spoil my thread with your different viewpoints.  "


----------



## narad (Dec 26, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> ie, "Don't spoil my thread with your different viewpoints.  "



That's completely the wrong way to interpret it. Different viewpoints should be relevant to the topic to be posted in that topic. i.e., if we're arguing about what the best pizza topping is, we can have different opinions _on the topic_, but don't start a 3 page derailment on how pizza isn't real that undermines that discussion.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 26, 2017)

narad said:


> That's completely the wrong way to interpret it. Different viewpoints should be relevant to the topic to be posted in that topic. i.e., if we're arguing about what the best pizza topping is, we can have different opinions _on the topic_, but don't start a 3 page derailment on how pizza isn't real that undermines that discussion.


Talking about public schools in an education reform thread is, uh... on topic. You are also neglecting this great comment, which you ended your post with.



narad said:


> Like @Unleash The Fury -- just start your own thread for espousing your minority beliefs.


Hence my interpretation of your comment. It's not "completely the wrong way to interpret it;" it's entirely as you meant your comment.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Yes this thread got off topic, but your part of the problem (if it is a problem at all). For example if i post 20 times in this thread, and you respond to each post (however off topic it may be), then you are just as guilty. You cant jump in on post 21 and say, get your own thread after you just contributed.

So how about that pipe bomb explosion......


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Yes this thread got off topic, but your part of the problem (if it is a problem at all). For example if i post 20 times in this thread, and you respond to each post (however off topic it may be), then you are just as guilty. You cant jump in on post 21 and say, get your own thread after you just contributed.
> 
> So how about that pipe bomb explosion......


Fucking hell.



Randy said:


> As such, for the last 8 or so years I've been modding here, I'd typically have just threatened UtF to keep on topic but considering it took several days before the ban that was submitted to Alex went through and it wasn't permanent like suggested, it's very hard to regulate decorum in here. If anybody's ever wondered why overly controversial subjects on here that go too far off top get get deleted lately, that's why.


No offense to you or the other mods intended, and I tend to like the new forums, but he basically made you guys glorified hall monitors. That really sucks.


----------



## narad (Dec 26, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Talking about public schools in an education reform thread is, uh... on topic. You are also neglecting this great comment, which you ended your post with.



Yea, too bad we're not doing that. At all. We're unfortunately talking about the fed's true intentions and whether they operate as the result of a long-standing government conspiracy in a thread about a thwarted terrorist attack. 

But yea, I do contribute to it sprawling out into more pages than it otherwise might. I still think the blame falls on the people who put forth the off-topic conspiracy BS in threads which are meant to discuss a very particular event or policy. I'm not a mod -- I would rather try and argue against the conspiracy with the hope that logic would defeat it and get the topic back on track. It's not really my place to say, there's already a conspiracy thread -- keep your conspiracy discussions in it. That said, the forums would benefit a lot if you/UtF did. It's all the same posts anyway, they'd just be in an appropriate place.


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> And quite frankly, your belief that the Feds fractional banking reserve system hasnt done a half bad job, makes me cringe. Sure, circumstancially, theyre "keeping things afloat and in line", but beneath the surface, certainly you know that printing fiat money out of thin air is artificial, and inevitably unsustainable. I mean we can agree on that right?


No. I think backing a currency with the strength of a country's commitment to honor and defend its currency is perfectly reasonable, that the true value of a currency is how readily and efficiently it can be used as a means of exchange and the dollar scores extremely highly by that metric, and considering the US Dollar is the de facto reserve currency of the world, then it seems that billions of other people agree with me. 

And with that, I'll honor Randy's polite hint that maybe we should try to stay on topic.


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> No offense to you or the other mods intended, and I tend to like the new forums, but he basically made you guys glorified hall monitors. That really sucks.


A rare point where you and I agree.  Randy's a saint for putting up with this job. Back when I modded here we were unabashed all-powerful forum nazis, and it certainly made it a lot easier to keep things in line.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> No. I think backing a currency with the strength of a country's commitment to honor and defend its currency is perfectly reasonable, that the true value of a currency is how readily and efficiently it can be used as a means of exchange and the dollar scores extremely highly by that metric, and considering the US Dollar is the de facto reserve currency of the world, then it seems that billions of other people agree with me.
> 
> And with that, I'll honor Randy's polite hint that maybe we should try to stay on topic.


One last thing that needs to be mentioned, which ive already mentioned in another thread ( not because i want to turn every thread into a conspiracy thread like narad said), but the reason why the dollar is the world reserve currency, is by force! Not because every leader of every country came together and said, "hey you know this american dollar that is backed only by debt? We should make this the reserve currency because its the greatest!!".

Well, no. Nobody has ever said that.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> A rare point where you and I agree.  Randy's a saint for putting up with this job. Back when I modded here we were unabashed all-powerful forum nazis, and it certainly made it a lot easier to keep things in line.


Drew, you were a tyrant! Still are...

No, no... I'm just messing with you.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Randy said:


> FWIW, I'm not sure if it's been published anywhere on this forum already but when Alex made the transition to Xenforo, he fucked up the moderator tools so that it's hard for us to ban anybody (besides spam), so we have to formally submit all bans to him, but he doesn't log in all the time or bother reading the threads in question, so you have a lot of policing that's done 1.) at too slow a pace 2.) significantly less heavy handed as is needed to keep posters respectful of the format on here.
> 
> As such, for the last 8 or so years I've been modding here, I'd typically have just threatened UtF to keep on topic but considering it took several days before the ban that was submitted to Alex went through and it wasn't permanent like suggested, it's very hard to regulate decorum in here. If anybody's ever wondered why overly controversial subjects on here that go too far off top get get deleted lately, that's why.


A permanent ban for what exactly? And without a warning at that? Sheeesh thats a little unnecessary


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> One last thing that needs to be mentioned, which ive already mentioned in another thread ( not because i want to turn every thread into a conspiracy thread like narad said), but the reason why the dollar is the world reserve currency, is by force! Not because every leader of every country came together and said, "hey you know this american dollar that is backed only by debt? We should make this the reserve currency because its the greatest!!".
> 
> Well, no. Nobody has ever said that.




https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-reserve-currency-1978926

vs


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 26, 2017)

There's an old fossil who needs to kick the bucket. I hope he does soon enough.


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Drew, you were a tyrant! Still are...
> 
> No, no... I'm just messing with you.


Careful, I could probably still get someone to ban you as a favor.  

@USMarine75 - I mean, while the article you post is compelling, thoughtful, detailed, and thorough, it has the major downside of not being a meme. #fakenews. 

(We'll also note that a quick google search pegs global GDP at around $80 trillion dollars, making a $500 trillion dollar family net worth ludicrous, unless the Rothschilds are holding out on alien conquest)


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 26, 2017)

Drew said:


> Careful, I could probably still get someone to ban you as a favor.
> 
> @USMarine75 - I mean, while the article you post is compelling, thoughtful, detailed, and thorough, it has the major downside of not being a meme. #fakenews.
> 
> (We'll also note that a quick google search pegs global GDP at around $80 trillion dollars, making a $500 trillion dollar family net worth ludicrous, unless the Rothschilds are holding out on alien conquest)



I should have been more clear my post was meant to be ludacrous internet meme vs factual lol.


----------



## Randy (Dec 26, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> No offense to you or the other mods intended, and I tend to like the new forums, but he basically made you guys glorified hall monitors. That really sucks.





Drew said:


> A rare point where you and I agree.  Randy's a saint for putting up with this job. Back when I modded here we were unabashed all-powerful forum nazis, and it certainly made it a lot easier to keep things in line.



Even when I had unchecked mod powers, I seldom banned anybody and only permanent in extreme cases. If you use a "community policing" approach, most of the members behavior and learn to get along out of respect for each other, for the replace and yeah, out of respect for not making the mods job too difficult. We're all here with the interest of making this place a decent place to hang out, regardless of if we disagree from time to time.

Banning only comes in when you have regulars that push the boundary too much and typically rule abiding members follow suit to chase them down ("Fuck you" "No, fuck you!"), when you need to knock everybody's heads together to get everyone remembering why we're here and how we're supposed to talk to each other to maintain some decorum.

Or in other cases, when you get new guys who don't get the dynamic here and don't care to stick around long enough to learn it. It learned a lot about talking to people the way you'd talk to them in person when I went to an event and a couple people I was combative with on this forum were there in person. If you're not willing to talk to a person a certain way in person, don't talk to them that way on here. Some people don't get that.

Notice that correlation between inability to ban (well, we still can but it's 10x as much work) and the P&CE descending into chaos. Yes UtF is the chronic OT cause right now but there's been others. I've been on this forum for over 10 years and this subforum has only gone off the rails the last several months; not a coincidence.


----------



## Randy (Dec 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> A permanent ban for what exactly? And without a warning at that? Sheeesh thats a little unnecessary



I forget the context now but you had it coming at the time. I already tried a couple times telling people "watch it or you're getting banned" slap on the wrist threat and when they call your bluff, they notice they can still log in and talk shit for three or four days before the ban comes down. That threat loses its sting that way, so I don't bother.

If I tell you something, apolitically, about being respectful of others on here or making some effort in being more clear and less inflammatory on here, that's a polite way of saying chill because a ban is coming down or you're going to ruin this for everybody by getting this thread deleted.

Fwiw, Alex wanted this subforum gone and wanted most of the OT gone entirely before the last change came down. I think we can get back in line enough to keep this subforum an intelligent exchange of ideas but if this is going to stay a chronic issue, I'll absolutely get this subforum closed and I already know Alex and enough of the other mods are on board with that concept.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Randy said:


> I forget the context now but you had it coming at the time. I already tried a couple times telling people "watch it or you're getting banned" slap on the wrist threat and when they call your bluff, they notice they can still log in and talk shit for three or four days before the ban comes down. That threat loses its sting that way, so I don't bother.
> 
> If I tell you something, apolitically, about being respectful of others on here or making some effort in being more clear and less inflammatory on here, that's a polite way of saying chill because a ban is coming down or you're going to ruin this for everybody by getting this thread deleted.
> 
> Fwiw, Alex wanted this subforum gone and wanted most of the OT gone entirely before the last change came down. I think we can get back in line enough to keep this subforum an intelligent exchange of ideas but if this is going to stay a chronic issue, I'll absolutely get this subforum closed and I already know Alex and enough of the other mods are on board with that concept.


Well i was banned for excessive trolling. And i was not trolling. Trolling is when someone has the primary intention of coming in stirring shit up for laughs and getting off on it. What i was doing, was practically defending myself from about 10 or so members. And its very taxing to do that, especially all from my smart phone. I remember some members were asking me to cite sources and while i did post my sources up to a certain point, i told them to, (as people love to say around here........actually anywhere on the net), "do a quick google search", because i was literally exhausted from trying to do everything on my phone, not to mention i was at work.

Yes i know i couldve waited until later, or just stopped responding to the thread altogether; but whatever. Shoulda coulda woulda. Fwiw i dont remember seeing any slap on the wrist type warnings i can recall. (Not that i was doing anything different from the rest of the members involved).

But that is hardly considered trolling


----------



## Randy (Dec 26, 2017)

Well I'll offer this as advice to you, as someone who's befriended a lot of conservative members on this forum before (and who's worked in campaigning for people in both parties and no parties).

I'm glad you weren't permanent banned and while I don't think your contributions to this specific subforum have been of great value, i appreciate different perspectives. I'd prefer to have no reasons to have to ban you again. I'll also mention that your ban came as a result of multiple reported posts by people not even engaged in debate with you.

My advice would be, if you honestly think you're fighting 10 on 1 and your only recourse is all out war, just do yourself a favor and take a break. I say this as somebody who's been on your side of an argument a time or two. 

I'm not telling you that majority rules and that you should just give up if you're outnumbered but if everyone who reads your posts starts to dislike you personally and literally nobody exhibits and receptiveness to your points... Maybe tone it down or rethink things some. 

Like I said, you don't need to change or give up but continuing fighting with 10 or more people while not changing anybody's minds or eliciting any concessions from them, then what are you doing it for? That certainly sounds kinda like "stirring shit up for laughs and getting off on it" or at least something hard to distinguish between.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 26, 2017)

Randy said:


> Well I'll offer this as advice to you, as someone who's befriended a lot of conservative members on this forum before (and who's worked in campaigning for people in both parties and no parties).
> 
> I'm glad you weren't permanent banned and while I don't think your contributions to this specific subforum have been of great value, i appreciate different perspectives. I'd prefer to have no reasons to have to ban you again. I'll also mention that your ban came as a result of multiple reported posts by people not even engaged in debate with you.
> 
> ...


Thank you sir for your polite response.........point taken.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 27, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> A permanent ban for what exactly? And without a warning at that? Sheeesh thats a little unnecessary


I know this isn't the place, and I didn't want to jump into this thread in its current state but...

To be fair, you called me a dick in one thread, insulted Drew in this one, and I think insulted narad somewhere, too.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 27, 2017)

Randy said:


> Well I'll offer this as advice to you, as someone who's befriended a lot of conservative members on this forum before (and who's worked in campaigning for people in both parties and no parties).
> 
> I'm glad you weren't permanent banned and while I don't think your contributions to this specific subforum have been of great value, i appreciate different perspectives. I'd prefer to have no reasons to have to ban you again. I'll also mention that your ban came as a result of multiple reported posts by people not even engaged in debate with you.


I agree with this -- both the point I'm going to address, and the post in general. I don't think UTF's contributions were of much worth, but I appreciate the perspectives of others, even if I don't agree. Also, just to be clear, mine also of much worth either, so don't think I'm judging someone harsher than I'd judge myself. 

Also to elaborate, my problem -- for lack of a better word -- with UTF's posts are that they are off topic, not that I think he's wrong or "I can't handle the opinion of others" or anything of that sort. 




Randy said:


> My advice would be, if you honestly think you're fighting 10 on 1 and your only recourse is all out war, just do yourself a favor and take a break. I say this as somebody who's been on your side of an argument a time or two.


When it's like this, my suggestion would be to address 2-3 people max -- the ones that would also allow you to basically address the rest in a less direct way, as it covers their posts as well -- and ignore the rest. I typically try to do this, though a few times it's resulted in people being upset or whatever because I "ignored them" or "neglected to address their point." In fact, I agreed with someone, and they took issue with me, though it got worked out and was a matter of misreading my comment. 

If memory serves, Drew actually took my side on that one. Drew and I have butted heads and frankly didn't solve fuck all at the end of it, but I respect him enough to have a discussion rather than a flippant approach that I might take with some people if I don't care enough to bother.



Randy said:


> I'm not telling you that majority rules and that you should just give up if you're outnumbered but if everyone who reads your posts starts to dislike you personally and literally nobody exhibits and receptiveness to your points... Maybe tone it down or rethink things some.
> 
> Like I said, you don't need to change or give up but continuing fighting with 10 or more people while not changing anybody's minds or eliciting any concessions from them, then what are you doing it for? That certainly sounds kinda like "stirring shit up for laughs and getting off on it" or at least something hard to distinguish between.


Good point. It might be UTF's approach that is the issue, and not his points. I technically agree with some of his stances in theory, but don't care for the fact that he is basically off topic. I probably haven't backed him up in threads if memory serves, but I am pretty sure I've liked some of his posts.

As I mentioned earlier, address 2-3 people that are making the most important points and ignore the rest.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

I can tell you now things certainly have changed in the last few months because I posted a controversial opinion, I was called an uneducated redneck and I told him that I don't know if he was weak but he probably was, I was banned, that person was not. If I choose to have a certain stance on abortion, and someone else has a different one, I wouldn't stoop to ridicule that person on a personal level just for that opinion and yet for my retaliation I was banned. So I'm sorry, but some of you mods acted like fucking liberal Nazi's before the change.

Oh right, pipe bomb explosion. Yeah, that sucks.


----------



## USMarine75 (Dec 31, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I wouldn't stoop to ridicule that person on a personal level just for that opinion





PunkBillCarson said:


> some of you mods acted like fucking liberal Nazi's.


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I can tell you now things certainly have changed in the last few months because I posted a controversial opinion, I was called an uneducated redneck



Banned for calling someone "weak" so you decided to knock it up a notch and go with "fucking liberal Nazis"? Perhaps you were being offensive in many threads simultaneously? 

Anyway, were you mad because you were erroneously called uneducated or were you mad because he nailed it?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 31, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I can tell you now things certainly have changed in the last few months because I posted a controversial opinion, I was called an uneducated redneck and I told him that I don't know if he was weak but he probably was, I was banned, that person was not. If I choose to have a certain stance on abortion, and someone else has a different one, I wouldn't stoop to ridicule that person on a personal level just for that opinion and yet for my retaliation I was banned. So I'm sorry, but some of you mods acted like fucking liberal Nazi's before the change.
> 
> Oh right, pipe bomb explosion. Yeah, that sucks.


I was just going to repost without adding anything, but figured I should so someone isn't confuzzled in the skull jello. I agree that sometimes the person that gets banned when an issue like the above arises is sometimes strange.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 31, 2017)

narad said:


> Banned for calling someone "weak" so you decided to knock it up a notch and go with "fucking liberal Nazis"? Perhaps you were being offensive in many threads simultaneously?
> 
> Anyway, were you mad because you were erroneously called uneducated or were you mad because he nailed it?



So do you agree or disagree with him being banned for calling someone weak? (Assuming thats all he did that was "wrong")


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> So do you agree or disagree with him being banned for calling someone weak? Your concerned with his choice of language and method of expressing frustration but not that fact that he was banned for such reason.....(provided thats all he did that was "wrong")



I'm saying that there are two sides to every story, and at this point, given his post history, I'm bound to believe pretty much anyone else's story. Someone who's calling the mods "liberal Nazis" isn't someone that's even remotely attempting to stay within the bounds of civil discourse, and if he wasn't banned for calling someone weak, he would have been banned for any of the other oceans of ban-worthy behavior he's spitting out constantly.

And I'd much rather see some short bans than deleted threads. Wasn't too happy to go to bed early and wake up with my thread deleted, not knowing where it derailed to while I was asleep (and after dropping some killer wordplay).


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Dec 31, 2017)

narad said:


> I'm saying that there are two sides to every story, and at this point, given his post history, I'm bound to believe pretty much anyone else's story. Someone who's calling the mods "liberal Nazis" isn't someone that's even remotely attempting to stay within the bounds of civil discourse, and if he wasn't banned for calling someone weak, he would have been banned for any of the other oceans of ban-worthy behavior he's spitting out constantly.
> 
> And I'd much rather see some short bans than deleted threads. Wasn't too happy to go to bed early and wake up with my thread deleted, not knowing where it derailed to while I was asleep (and after dropping some killer wordplay).


Oh about that, i fired back with some even more clever wordplay. It was tasty as fuck too. But dont worry, i gave you props, because I left myself wide open for that. (i just left myself wide open for some adult commentary by saying that).

This thread needs to be locked away forever now. Then throw the key in the ocean.


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Oh about that, i fired back with some even more clever wordplay. It was tasty as fuck too. But dont worry, i gave you props, because I left myself wide open for that. (i just left myself wide open for some adult commentary by saying that).



Ah sorry, afraid I didn't see it.

But yea, if all OT political threads wind up getting locked/deleted, then either the mods are going to get more power and the bans will be back, or the subforum's going to disappear. So people need to think about that when intentionally pushing buttons (like calling the mods names, wtf).


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

Remind me of other ban worthy behavior that I spew constantly besides what I just posted about someone acting like liberal nazis? What would that be, having different opinions than others like yourself? I personally do not care what you yourself believe, what happened happened. But hey, since you'd rather go on assumption and judge my words simply based on conjecture without proof of all these banworthy offenses that you have not provided, I'm sure it won't bother you for me to carry the same opinion of you that originally got me banned. Grow up kiddo. While we're on the subject though, how about your personal digs at me and UtF in the Tax Bill thread? Pot and kettle, Mr. Kitty.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

Also I never called the mods liberal fucking nazis, I said they acted like liberal fucking nazis. Get it right. Narad acts like a child with his refusal to discuss without resorting to trolling. If he wants to keep acting like a child, he will henceforth be referred to as a child.


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Remind me of other ban worthy behavior that I spew constantly besides what I just posted about someone acting like liberal nazis?



Dude, I've got better things to do on NYE than drudge through your post history, but in passing it's clear that most of your posts are needlessly aggressive. It's pretty clear that when people don't adopt your weirdo conspiracy beliefs you can't just let it go, but need to lash out and continue derailing.



PunkBillCarson said:


> I'm sure it won't bother you for me to carry the same opinion of you that originally got me banned.



Go for it. I'm objectively both educated and not a "poor white person of the Southern United States". But go for it -- I know you have the tendency to form strong beliefs in the absence of all contrary evidence.



PunkBillCarson said:


> Also I never called the mods liberal fucking nazis, I said they acted like liberal fucking nazis. Get it right.



Colloquially a nazi (as in things like "soup nazi" or here, "liberal nazi" -- i.e., things not pertaining to the actual Nazi party) is defined by _behavior_. There's no distinction.



PunkBillCarson said:


> Narad acts like a child with his refusal to discuss without resorting to trolling. If he wants to keep acting like a child, he will henceforth be referred to as a child.



Whatever dude -- it's going to be hard to refer to me as anything when you're banned.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

narad said:


> Dude, I've got better things to do on NYE than drudge through your post history, but in passing it's clear that most of your posts are needlessly aggressive. It's pretty clear that when people don't adopt your weirdo conspiracy beliefs you can't just let it go, but need to lash out and continue derailing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As if being banned bothers me? Like I've not got other places to discuss ideology and guitars? This website isn't something I depend on to live unlike you. I get banned, I go everywhere else I go and continue on my merry way. You get banned, someone's got to reassure you that you're not crazy so you don't have a heart attack. It's fine though. Once I'm gone, you'll still be as pathetic as you are now whether I'm here or not. There's something you can report me for. Have at it pretty boy.


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> As if being banned bothers me? Like I've not got other places to discuss ideology and guitars?



Well I don't, so if you've got other places, for the love of all that is holy, go there instead.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

No I'm going to stay here and milk it. It pisses you off, my presence does. My very presence trolls you and so I'm going to be here and enjoy it. What's bad, I had nothing whatsoever against you until you made it personal. A good ribbing here and there in the tax thread but all in good fun I thought. You took it up a notch in something that didn't concern you and now I'm the bad guy. You're going go far kid. May end up as a mod on this site even.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

Also good job bringing up my race and such. I did no such thing.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

Accidental double post.


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> No I'm going to stay here and milk it. It pisses you off, my presence does. My very presence trolls you and so I'm going to be here and enjoy it. What's bad, I had nothing whatsoever against you until you made it personal. A good ribbing here and there in the tax thread but all in good fun I thought. You took it up a notch in something that didn't concern you and now I'm the bad guy. You're going go far kid. May end up as a mod on this site even.



Well in that case, I'm out  There's a bit of a catch-22: I usually enjoy these non-gear threads, but it's a guilty pleasure -- I really should be learning other things, and I usually try not to spend more than 15 minutes a day seeing what's current and what everyone else is up to. Lately the threads haven't been informative (just wacko conspiracy spillover), and trying to reply takes up more time than it's worth. So stay here -- your presence is going to help me quit a (slightly) bad habit. 

It's funny, when Randy mentioned that there was already discussion of closing this subforum down, my gut response was shock/bummed. But just a few days later, I'm pretty on-board with the idea!



PunkBillCarson said:


> Also good job bringing up my race and such. I did no such thing.



I just want to be clear: that's the definition of redneck. I wasn't calling you one -- I was saying that obviously _I'm not_ "an uneducated redneck" as you were previously called when you were banned. I mean, I feel it was unclear, in your roundabout way of trying to insult without explicitly saying, whether you were insinuating that I'm an uneducated redneck or insinuating that I'm weak. I don't know, I can't be bothered -- maybe next you could say that your dad could beat up my dad? I don't know what school is like there or if you were homeschooled or something, but where I'm from we moved past these types of insults when we were in gradeschool.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Dec 31, 2017)

Yeah see I don't really care whether my father could beat up yours or not. It seems you're rather concerned with it since you brought it up.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2018)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Also I never called the mods liberal fucking nazis, I said they acted like liberal fucking nazis. Get it right. Narad acts like a child with his refusal to discuss without resorting to trolling. If he wants to keep acting like a child, he will henceforth be referred to as a child.


FYI, I've never even engaged you in a thread and I have no cares what your ideologies are but what you're describing is absolutely trolling. "I didn't say you are a Nazi, I said you act like a Nazi", cute but that's no shield.


----------

