Thread For Mattskramer, Polygamy, Warren Jeffs

[OCA]

I don't consider Jillian, Bully, 1589 etc fools. You, however.....

Oh the proof is in the pudding!!!!!!!! LMFAO!

 

[OCA]

I made your posting style an issue. Nothing more, nothing less.

Go to page 4 of this thread and review posts 50 and 60.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ok Gump so long as you understand you can question my politics anytime you like but questioning a decision I may or may not make as a mod may have consequences for you to which you are not fully aware and will wholly not like but will be utterly useless to stop.

Fair enough re your moderation. As for the consequences, I have enough faith in Jimmy's fairness that I'd be back on board in no time. This board needs us centrists as much as it needs the looney left and you right-wing nutjobs. If you start arbitarily banning people, boards die. I've seen it happen. Banning a troll is one thing, banning a person who puts thought into their posts is whole different matter.

 

[OCA]

Fair enough re your moderation. As for the consequences, I have enough faith in Jimmy's fairness that I'd be back on board in no time. This board needs us centrists as much as it needs the looney left and you right-wing nutjobs. If you start arbitarily banning people, boards die. I've seen it happen. Banning a troll is one thing, banning a person who puts thought into their posts is whole different matter.

Who said anything about banning???????????? Conscience getting the best of you?

Centrist? You're shitting me, right? Thought into their posts? Lol

 

[Dr Grump]

Because moderation is not supposed to be aired on the boards. Jim specifically allowed that one thread, which you utilized if memory serves. Don't say you are not discussing, for you are. IF you wish to make a complaint, make it with Jim, whom you purport to respect. If memory serves, you didn't want threads closed, I'm trying to prevent that and have let you post 2 since, but I will shut it down, if this persists.

As far as you and OCA go, why not just get down to the debating on any other topic of your choosing, other than 'moderators that aren't liberals', 'moderators to a higher standard'-which again, you can go to an admin with a complaint, or any discussion about moderating.

You should have noticed, being as brilliant and observant as you keep inferring, that there's been little 'moderator' influence since the thread. I tried to step in and remind all who are discussing moderation, that it will result in the thread being closed, if it continues.

I think I've been polite and answered your questions. I 'care' because Jim asked me to, if YOU don't like THAT, speak to him, you have both pm and email in which to do so.

Fair enough. (BTW, you know I ain't that brilliant and observant)

 

[Dr Grump]

Who said anything about banning???????????? Conscience getting the best of you?

A couple of things. That is the ONLY thing you could do to me. 2) Your reputation precedes you...

Centrist? You're shitting me, right? Thought into their posts? Lol

Seriously. I am. I don't think you realise how much to the right most of the conservatives on this board are. I don't consider most of the conservatives on this board teh norm....

 

[Annie]

A couple of things. That is the ONLY thing you could do to me. 2) Your reputation precedes you...



Seriously. I am. I don't think you realise how much to the right most of the conservatives on this board are. I don't consider most of the conservatives on this board teh norm....

Dr Grump, you and I have had our difference, I believe that is singular. Be that right or wrong, where do you place me on the political spectrum as a poster? Based on which topics? Lord knows I've posted enough to give you fair choices?

 

[Dr Grump]

Dr Grump, you and I have had our difference, I believe that is singular. Be that right or wrong, where do you place me on the political spectrum as a poster? Based on which topics? Lord knows I've posted enough to give you fair choices?

I see you as a moderate conservative. NOT a neocon.

 

[OCA]

Your reputation precedes you...



Lets see, out of all the mods I believe I have the least number of bannings, only thing with me is I take on the hard cases, the real jackoffs who ineveitably, as is the case with you, go one of two routes: 1. they get seriously personal as in impuning my wife or children etc. etc. or 2. they in the public forums will question my ability or the decision to make me a mod........either 1 will get you banned not only by me but by others here also.

I just have the innate ability to get past all their bullshit and get them to say what is really on their mind and then...........poof! they've blown it and they are gone. All this after telling them to take it to pm.

Now anyway its the same with you, you can continue to make this a public affair or you can complain to whomever privately, not that that will get you anywhere.

 

[Dr Grump]

Lets see, out of all the mods I believe I have the least number of bannings, only thing with me is I take on the hard cases, the real jackoffs who ineveitably, as is the case with you, go one of two routes: 1. they get seriously personal as in impuning my wife or children etc. etc. or 2. they in the public forums will question my ability or the decision to make me a mod........either 1 will get you banned not only by me but by others here also.

I just have the innate ability to get past all their bullshit and get them to say what is really on their mind and then...........poof! they've blown it and they are gone. All this after telling them to take it to pm.

Now anyway its the same with you, you can continue to make this a public affair or you can complain to whomever privately, not that that will get you anywhere.

Hey, I can't help it if people have PMed me about you. I take on board what they say and make my decisions accordingly. I have never, nor will ever, bring your family into it, nor your moderation ability (to be fair, I don't think I have seen you make a decision re moderation). As for not getting anywhere, as I said, I have a lot of faith in Jim....

 

[Gunny]

A couple of things. That is the ONLY thing you could do to me. 2) Your reputation precedes you...



Seriously. I am. I don't think you realise how much to the right most of the conservatives on this board are. I don't consider most of the conservatives on this board teh norm....

I'd say most of the conservative posters on this board probably ARE the norm, with a few exceptions.

One thing about a message board, and arguing politics, people start out trying to be moderate and get pushed into the extreme position by the opposition.

Many on the left view ALL conservatives of ANY sort right-wing extremists; yet, there are actually very few of them here.

I can also respond by saying that there are more left-wing extremists on this board than there are moderate liberals.

 

[007]

I'd say that with the latest foopas within the Republican Party, i.e., Dubai port deal, illegal aliens/not securing the borders, I'm a little bit more than just PISSED at the Republicans. I'm looking at another party right now. Bush has certainly turned out to be a disappointment to me, pushing for the port deal, and ignoring the borders and trying to push amnesty.

 

[Dr Grump]

I can also respond by saying that there are more left-wing extremists on this board than there are moderate liberals.

Really? Who would you consider extreme (psychoblues doesn't count!!)

 

[Annie]

I see you as a moderate conservative. NOT a neocon.

Funny, I see myself as more of a neocon, though I was before 1990. But as I think you meant the 'moderate' lable and 'not a neocon' that I'm not in 'lockstep' as you perceive it, I thank you for the moderate tag.

I see neocon as those that were 'liberal' before the idiots took over that lable. To my way of thinking, liberal became dirty when it meant, 'the government knows best', rather than, 'the government is best, which governs least.'

I believe in 'all people being equal' in the sense that all have worth, whether an Einstein or a foetus, a child of Darfur or a child of Bill Gates. I don't think that children born of poor parents are less than those born to rich. I do think they should be expected to earn a decent education, so that they have a chance to provide more for their own children.

I believe that as Americans we should do what we can to make our nation the best that it can be. That does not necessarily mean the government providing the path. Actually, I think the government makes a mess of most things it gets involved with, not too mention wasting too much money.

Rather like those that came before us, warts and halos, we should use our limited time and resources to make a better place for our children. Like our forefathers, we are probably blind to our own fallibilities. In spite of that, we should do what we can to make a better country.

To my way of thinking today it means that the states should reclaim their control of education, ditch the idea of NCLB on a national level, but create curriculum standards that ensure a cohesiveness of education to provide workers for their future. It also means the state governments should be actively seeking control of abortion, marriage laws, and rights of parents. They should be in control of voting requirements and other regulations that the constitution did not reserve to the feds.

It means that our national government guard our borders, with as much vigor as they do their pensions. It also means that they create reasonable numbers for legal immigrants that provide workers and skills that we need. That our government provide for those it sends to other shores, with the equipment and training that is necessary. That we provide for those who sent their loved ones, or those that were sent, but return less than whole.

That the federal government get out of the 'incentive' business, another buzzword for pork. Cut federal taxes drastically, let local governments deal with most infrastructure. If we need a bridge, let my state reps., tell me where, why, and how much. Give me an end date for referendum to fund it. Leave as little as possible, i.e., FAA, ICC, as possible.

That as a nation, we expect parents to parent, children to heed their parents, teachers, and other adults that should be serving as mentors and examples. As communities, one at a time, we reward and punish those that fail in their duties. Let the police catch criminals and the prosecutors prosecute. IF either overstep their bounds, there's always the Supreme Court. That the state expects employers to treat their employees and customers fair and penalizes those that don't.

Give the people the choice in how they wish to fund their retirement and if they wish to retire. Let them leave what they can to their children, don't penalize them for succeeding.

Again, like with my earlier response to MM, I think this is a bit all over, but I fear we are in a place that is driving all of us to extremes. In order to stop that, we need to pause and say, 'what are the responsibilities of individuals, and government. With the later, at what level?'

 

[Dr Grump]

Funny, I see myself as more of a neocon, though I was before 1990. But as I think you meant the 'moderate' lable and 'not a neocon' that I'm not in 'lockstep' as you perceive it, I thank you for the moderate tag.

I see neocon as those that were 'liberal' before the idiots took over that lable. To my way of thinking, liberal became dirty when it meant, 'the government knows best', rather than, 'the government is best, which governs least.'

I believe in 'all people being equal' in the sense that all have worth, whether an Einstein or a foetus, a child of Darfur or a child of Bill Gates. I don't think that children born of poor parents are less than those born to rich. I do think they should be expected to earn a decent education, so that they have a chance to provide more for their own children.

I believe that as Americans we should do what we can to make our nation the best that it can be. That does not necessarily mean the government providing the path. Actually, I think the government makes a mess of most things it gets involved with, not too mention wasting too much money.

Rather like those that came before us, warts and halos, we should use our limited time and resources to make a better place for our children. Like our forefathers, we are probably blind to our own fallibilities. In spite of that, we should do what we can to make a better country.

To my way of thinking today it means that the states should reclaim their control of education, ditch the idea of NCLB on a national level, but create curriculum standards that ensure a cohesiveness of education to provide workers for their future. It also means the state governments should be actively seeking control of abortion, marriage laws, and rights of parents. They should be in control of voting requirements and other regulations that the constitution did not reserve to the feds.

It means that our national government guard our borders, with as much vigor as they do their pensions. It also means that they create reasonable numbers for legal immigrants that provide workers and skills that we need. That our government provide for those it sends to other shores, with the equipment and training that is necessary. That we provide for those who sent their loved ones, or those that were sent, but return less than whole.

That the federal government get out of the 'incentive' business, another buzzword for pork. Cut federal taxes drastically, let local governments deal with most infrastructure. If we need a bridge, let my state reps., tell me where, why, and how much. Give me an end date for referendum to fund it. Leave as little as possible, i.e., FAA, ICC, as possible.

That as a nation, we expect parents to parent, children to heed their parents, teachers, and other adults that should be serving as mentors and examples. As communities, one at a time, we reward and punish those that fail in their duties. Let the police catch criminals and the prosecutors prosecute. IF either overstep their bounds, there's always the Supreme Court. That the state expects employers to treat their employees and customers fair and penalizes those that don't.

Give the people the choice in how they wish to fund their retirement and if they wish to retire. Let them leave what they can to their children, don't penalize them for succeeding.

Again, like with my earlier response to MM, I think this is a bit all over, but I fear we are in a place that is driving all of us to extremes. In order to stop that, we need to pause and say, 'what are the responsibilities of individuals, and government. With the later, at what level?'

Naw, you don't rant and insult enough to be a neocon. And you don't follow Bush hook, line and sinker.

BTW, I agree with a lot of what you say. Most people are moderate - it's just the extremists on both sides that get the most "airplay"...

 

[Annie]

Naw, you don't rant and insult enough to be a neocon. And you don't follow Bush hook, line and sinker.

BTW, I agree with a lot of what you say. Most people are moderate - it's just the extremists on both sides that get the most "airplay"...

Thanks for saying I don't rant and rave, however, I think my neocon definition actually predates Clinton, so the GW jab doesn't quite fit. I really think that taxes from the feds should be cut by like 20% and military expenditures increased by at least that amount. Which means lots of layoffs for the entrenched and more turning over to the states.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Thanks for saying I don't rant and rave, however, I think my neocon definition actually predates Clinton, so the GW jab doesn't quite fit. I really think that taxes from the feds should be cut by like 20% and military expenditures increased by at least that amount. Which means lots of layoffs for the entrenched and more turning over to the states.

You're neocon in only your own definition, certainly not the definition that has been abused for the last decade or so. In the political spectrum now, you are very moderate...

Most people on this board lean more right than left. There are extremists here as well, some bordering on total socialism, others on fascism.

 

[Annie]

You're neocon in only your own definition, certainly not the definition that has been abused for the last decade or so. In the political spectrum now, you are very moderate...

Most people on this board lean more right than left. There are extremists here as well, some bordering on total socialism, others on fascism.

You hear that Bully, I'm a moderate!!!!:teeth:

 

[mattskramer]

Matts that was the first time i'd jacked with one of your posts but seeing as how it has your panties all in a bunch i'm gonna mark my calendar and make it a weekly event.

Uh. I guess that I shouldn’t have been so surprised. I should have expected such cheap shots. It seems as though all you can do at this point is fuck with my posts. I don’t have panties. If I did, they would not be in a bind.

I mean what else can I do to you seeing as how i've demolished every sorry argument you've made for allowing everything twisted and perverse to be permissible in America.

HA ha ha. :rotflmao: In your dreams. Face reality. I post sound arguments with straight statements and questions. You weasel your way out of answering question by posting irrelevant comments, fallacious reasoning, and personal attacks but then, what else is new.

 

[Gunny]

Really? Who would you consider extreme (psychoblues doesn't count!!)

I think I'll pass on naming names at this time.