Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Augustei]

1) While you may not have a document guaranteeing you the same rights you do have common law precedent, which you've shit all over in recent years.
2) There's video evidence, see Tommy Robinson.
3) That's either the bigotry of low expectations thinking the Muslims would snap and kill members of the populace, or its the sniveling cowardice of appeasement to restrict freedom of movement and arbitrarily detain people based on concern that somebody else will break the law. But if it'll make the assimilation process more difficult? *shrug* fuck em. A nation shouldn't have to curtail the protected rights of others for them. But be that truly the reason they were detained, it sure speaks volumes of the faith and opinions the British establishment has in regards to the migrants they're bringing in.
4) That's funny, don't recall seeing his official complaint in court. So guy must be a liar.
5) Yeah stripping away your freedoms won't start riots but as soon as the come for the porn....Smh clown world.

That precedent not actually being on any books anywhere.
There is literally no freedom of speech laws in the UK. What we have a laws against certain types of speech. Any and all speech can be rescinded at any point, or made illegal at any point. Most don't because to do so would be political suicide.

Yeah that man has had many example of outright far right-wing public protests. It's hardly stalking if he does his shit in public.
Plus I can't find much after a quick wikipedia search on him that had anything to do with police stalking him other than one case that was thrown out due to it being vague. That being said I also don't have much sympathy for the guy as he's not much more than a football hooligan given voice.

Um, they already have mate. They're already attacking the populace based on racial discrimination, religious discrimination and straight up terrorism. The more people we have taking the piss out of them in this current climate the more young muslims are going to find themselves pushed towards the hands of the terrorist shits currently around.
We need to sever that connection, not drive more people into it. We need to encourage Muslims to reform just as Christianity has in the UK and USA so we can actually deal with them peacefully.
The restriction of freedom of movement doesn't actually exist for he as she's not an EU citizen. She could have had her entry refused for literally any reason, she has no freedom of movement into the UK, technically only those in the EU does legally. Plus if they're literally making the assimilation of muslims more difficult then I don't see why in our current state we'd want to allow them here as all they're doing is shit stirring in a country that isn't their own, who they have no stake in and who they don't have to deal with the ramifications of if their little jokes are taken out of turn by the very people we're trying to convince we don't want anything upon them so they don't run to the arms of the radicals that will use them to do more harm.

I think his complaint is what brought it to court in the first place, IIRC.

Because as it currently stands the "freedoms" were never in existence. We've never had a law that supports free speech. Assuming we did have free speech is not the same as actually having the laws in place. We used to assume it in the past, and we still do for the most part.
And I was alluding to the fact that under the current laws any changed to internet access would need to be made somewhat public, so if they truly wish to limit porn in the UK they'd have to limit the internet, which even the old cunts use these days. As soon as that were to happen there would definitely be more awareness as communications would be directly affected and publicly known.

Plus there is a certain level of not wanting to become too Americanized in this country. To some extent we want some similar things but we don't want to be like the USA. We don't want to be seen the same as the terrible stereotypes that very much exist due to the First and Second Amendments.
There is a lot of bad shit we don't want to adopt because the outright freedom is a BIG problem when dealing with big chunks of people having different ideas. And that's just the native brits alone! It gets so much more clouded when you get the other people groups we've assimilated over the years.
Right now it's not s simple fix and you can't just say "fuck those who would want to change it and kick 'em out" because that ruins other things we have to rely on because we're a small island nation that is used to being a little important. We can't rely on ourselves because if we do that then there are two places we can go to rely on, America (which we don't want) or Europe (which we also don't want).
UK can't do shit right now because our hands are tied having to rely on someone else if we do anything.

It's been that way since WW2 when our resources were stripped from us holding the line and we've never truly recovered.

I know its not on the books, like i said its common law which has been shat all over in recent years. Legal precedent doesn't mean shit these days

As for Tommy here's a bunch from a quick youtube search.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVOGpdAz7Lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTgSedF_O4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UAOUKLpaq4

They aren't at rallys, they're when he's out dining with his family and going about his day and random shit like that. Who gives a shit what activism he does, it shouldn't matter and like you said before the police don't have the resources for shit like this they have more serious things to attend to but UK police are a bunch of fucking clowns so this is what they do.

You aren't going to convince anybody to reform by pulling your collective pants around your ankles and telling them to go to town on your freedoms, I understand that more needs to be done to ingrain them within British culture but if you have to curb the rights of others to do it then frankly thats unacceptable in my opinion and I don't respect Britain at all for it, oh and they do have freedom of movement as outlined by the UNHR, you know that document the UK supposedly espouses?

Its not about becoming Americanized, like I said these were common law established. These were liberal principals first established IN Britain and espoused by Britain, but hey if you guys want to become more shitty and authoritarian to avoid becoming "Americanized" have at it hos, just don't expect people to not comment on how the British are shitting all over what made them great.

[Augustei]

Its funny, a lot of people here don't know it but Australia is very much a US satellite state, due to our heavy dependence on foreign trade we need the US to defend our shipping or else we'd wither and die. The price we pay for that protection of our shipping is we have to fight in all their wars, its why you see Australia fighting in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and before that with the British and the Boar war, WW1 etc before the US came to dominance. None of these conflicts posed a threat to the Australian mainland except WW2.
So yeah, US reliant. Funny thing though, I won't get arrested for making jokes, and outside Melbourne I don't have to worry about getting murdered for handing out fliers.
I mean we don't really have a choice in the matter, but all that freedom sure does sound better than.....w/e the hell Britain is doing. Tbh though if i'm being serious I don't think the UK has a future outside US or European dependency. Looking forward to their reactions when it dawns on them.

[Raga]

Another thing that I think is noteworthy is that in the US we've kind of just had to learn to tolerate speech from the beginning and would have had to even if there was no explicit civil right protecting it. Because this country is way less homogeneous than any given European country and has been a mishmash of dozens of religious denominations and sects and nationalities and ethnic groups for hundreds of years. If we didn't learn to tolerate other people saying things we find religiously insulting or racist or whatever, we would have long ago devolved into a messy series of squabbling tribes that makes Eastern Europe look like a cakewalk by comparison. We also aren't anybody's ethnic homeland or "fatherland" except American Indians and even they are rooted more in some particular locality (the Comanche in the Southern Great Plains, the Seminole in the Floridian swamps, etc) rather than the country as a whole.

The United States was *invented.* Most European nations *evolved.* This can't help but add a weight to racist speech that just isn't the case in the US because frankly it's a lot easier for racist speech to naturally devolve into Eugenics, ethnic cleansing, "Judenrein," and other nonsense like that in Europe. Concerns about ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and religious purity can't help but be a bigger deal when you are in the nation in which your group literally evolved.

(Also since we are bashing the English, I feel the need to point out that you heathens drink your tea all wrong. It's clearly supposed to be iced).

[Raga]

Its funny, a lot of people here don't know it but Australia is very much a US satellite state, due to our heavy dependence on foreign trade we need the US to defend our shipping or else we'd wither and die. The price we pay for that protection of our shipping is we have to fight in all their wars, its why you see Australia fighting in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and before that with the British and the Boar war, WW1 etc before the US came to dominance. None of these conflicts posed a threat to the Australian mainland except WW2.
So yeah, US reliant. Funny thing though, I won't get arrested for making jokes, and outside Melbourne I don't have to worry about getting murdered for handing out fliers.
I mean we don't really have a choice in the matter, but all that freedom sure does sound better than.....w/e the hell Britain is doing. Tbh though if i'm being serious I don't think the UK has a future outside US or European dependency. Looking forward to their reactions when it dawns on them.

This is an unfortunate reality that most littleish countries have to face now. The world is currently the playing field of the US, Russia, and China. Your choices are to try to be Switzerland or Finland and make yourself so entangled with all three and/or generally just not worth the bother that nobody cares to do anything with you *or* you have to explicitly pick a camp. This is one reason I tend to roll my eyes at European bellyaching about the US. The EU has the economic capacity to evolve into something that could actually challenge US policy, but to do that, Europe has to be willing to sacrifice spending on social programs to build an actually effective military *and* they have to unify way more and lose a lot of their local idiosyncrasies. They must basically become the United States of Europe, but they seem fundamentally unwilling to do this. And their only other alternative to relying on the American security umbrella is to jump ship for Russia or China. They are welcome to do that if they want to try it. I think they know it wouldn't end well for them. If they feel like puppet states now, just wait.

If I was English, I feel like I would be opting for option A) of "become Switzerland." This is a viable option because Britain's an island and defensible and ideally situated for trade. The glory days of the British Empire are done with though. The options are be Switzerland or chose a sponsor between the US, the EU, Russia, and China.

[Mazder]

I know its not on the books, like i said its common law which has been shat all over in recent years. Legal precedent doesn't mean shit these days

As for Tommy here's a bunch from a quick youtube search.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVOGpdAz7Lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTgSedF_O4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UAOUKLpaq4

They aren't at rallys, they're when he's out dining with his family and going about his day and random shit like that. Who gives a shit what activism he does, it shouldn't matter and like you said before the police don't have the resources for shit like this they have more serious things to attend to but UK police are a bunch of fucking clowns so this is what they do.

Common Law doesn't actually mean anything sadly. Never did.

Okay first link was him and 18 other fans. Forced to exit due to there being a potential scuffle as the police "believed that public disorder could occur between rival football fans and that as a result, members of the public could be put at risk" which is a very common thing in the UK.
If he feels victimized being one out of a group then that's on him, sadly it was a group and more than just him and it was fans of the opposing team of the town they were in. It's 100% fine and legal to step in before things get out of hand.

2nd link. Okay he's on the way to courthouse. Last I checked police are usually there anyway so that's hardly stalking.
Then moves on to a recording of 2 policemen in their car, I presume this was on their way to the court, but sadly I can't verify that as there is no way of knowing when this clip was recorded in conjunction with the other. They're there following up on previous behaviors as apparently the guy gets violent. If it's on the way to the courthouse I guess it's just for added security, if not maybe they're checking up on an accusation from someone else who's accused him. Next clip, mid conversation again, only thing of note here is that this cop's been ordered there by superiors on investigation of him causing violence OR violence being caused to him. If anything that cop is there to help if Tommy needed it that time.
Last clips all we see is a car. Oh no the cop parked his car there.....staaaaaalkiiiiiing.

3rd Link. Okay so an extension of the clip from the second video.
Clearly this cop is just under orders, orders he finds equally ridiculous from the smiles on his face when telling Tommy about it.
Seeing as Tommy is an activist and quite a prominent one at that I can very much understand why someone at the top might be concerned about more events concerning him taking place in other cities (also some areas of the UK have cops that cover a couple of cities/surrounding areas between cities alone).
Seeing as this guy has organized some quite big far right wing rallies and had participated in a lot of football violence in his life, or at lest several occasions of it it's 100% likely that he's got a case of just a few people can report what he's doing to the police and they'll have to investigate due to past offenses.
I mean he is a convicted criminal for drunkenly assaulting police in the past and another member of the public at one of these rallies so I honestly don't see much wrong as this seems to mostly take place over one day. It's hardly stalking to keep tabs on a guy for a day and it's hardly the cops he's filmed's idea. It's probably just someone at the top looking to impress and make a show of things.

You aren't going to convince anybody to reform by pulling your collective pants around your ankles and telling them to go to town on your freedoms, I understand that more needs to be done to ingrain them within British culture but if you have to curb the rights of others to do it then frankly thats unacceptable in my opinion and I don't respect Britain at all for it, oh and they do have freedom of movement as outlined by the UNHR, you know that document the UK supposedly espouses?

Its not about becoming Americanized, like I said these were common law established. These were liberal principals first established IN Britain and espoused by Britain, but hey if you guys want to become more shitty and authoritarian to avoid becoming "Americanized" have at it hos, just don't expect people to not comment on how the British are shitting all over what made them great.

Except these were never rights people held. Do you understand that these were never a right in the UK?
These were never a right and were always assumed. It's not like the USA, the rights never existed on paper so they were always able to be ignored legally. That's what we're working with here. A lack of a right that never did exist and the only thing done around it is limited what could not be said, rather than what is allowed or not allowed.
Common law is basically a "if there is nothing written down about it then it's up to the judge/kings court.
Plus you have to remember that a lot of the people that would be having their rights infringed in that case, like lauren, are not UK citizens. Commonwealth, maybe, but not UK direct citizens, so the laws to not disrupt the peace in the UK apply more than her "right" to enter the country.

Freedom of Movement isn't the same as Freedom of entry. I was more alluding to the schengen thing the EU has in terms of freedom of movement.

Except common law established basically doesn't mean shit over here. They were never published as a law otherwise there would be a necessity to amend a freedom of speech law, which we do not have.
It's more a case of we don't want to adopt the bad things about American Freedom of Speech laws. The arrogance, the self righteousness when talking with police, the absolutely disgusting boisterousness and behaviour of your people as a stereotype.
Some of your laws just can't be copied and pasted as it would give terrible groups over here legitimate ability to legally conduct terrible shit. And with the police already stretched thin it's not likely going to be good for anyone.
We want less violence, not more.

Its funny, a lot of people here don't know it but Australia is very much a US satellite state, due to our heavy dependence on foreign trade we need the US to defend our shipping or else we'd wither and die. The price we pay for that protection of our shipping is we have to fight in all their wars, its why you see Australia fighting in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and before that with the British and the Boar war, WW1 etc before the US came to dominance. None of these conflicts posed a threat to the Australian mainland except WW2.
So yeah, US reliant. Funny thing though, I won't get arrested for making jokes, and outside Melbourne I don't have to worry about getting murdered for handing out fliers.
I mean we don't really have a choice in the matter, but all that freedom sure does sound better than.....w/e the hell Britain is doing. Tbh though if i'm being serious I don't think the UK has a future outside US or European dependency. Looking forward to their reactions when it dawns on them.

No, we don't, which is why we want as little dependence as possible.

Plus Australia is it's own beast. I am sure if you could get away with not being reliant on the USA you'd grab the chance of it.
Plus you also don't have the giant access to Muslim populations flooding the few major population centers you have. You don't have a massive melting pot on a tiny island with not much space to fit it all into.

(Also since we are bashing the English, I feel the need to point out that you heathens drink your tea all wrong. It's clearly supposed to be iced).

Nah you're doing it wrong. If you want a cold drink have juice or a soda, leave tea to be warm as it's supposed to be. Even China says so.
Seriously thing sweet tea is just trying to make a juice out of something that shouldn't be.

This is an unfortunate reality that most littleish countries have to face now. The world is currently the playing field of the US, Russia, and China. Your choices are to try to be Switzerland or Finland and make yourself so entangled with all three and/or generally just not worth the bother that nobody cares to do anything with you *or* you have to explicitly pick a camp. This is one reason I tend to roll my eyes at European bellyaching about the US. The EU has the economic capacity to evolve into something that could actually challenge US policy, but to do that, Europe has to be willing to sacrifice spending on social programs to build an actually effective military *and* they have to unify way more and lose a lot of their local idiosyncrasies. They must basically become the United States of Europe, but they seem fundamentally unwilling to do this. And their only other alternative to relying on the American security umbrella is to jump ship for Russia or China. They are welcome to do that if they want to try it. I think they know it wouldn't end well for them. If they feel like puppet states now, just wait.

If I was English, I feel like I would be opting for option A) of "become Switzerland." This is a viable option because Britain's an island and defensible and ideally situated for trade. The glory days of the British Empire are done with though. The options are be Switzerland or chose a sponsor between the US, the EU, Russia, and China.

There is a reason why Brexit is happening and it's trying to go the way of Switzerland but with more access to shit and keeping our other relations intact as much as possible.

Europe has definitely the capacity but not the ability.
I mean as much as you guys have a few languages spoken in your country the primary one is English. A common language helps. Plus you have a common history and a common enemy.
Unless we all are threatened by an outside force Europe will never unify as we're just way too different and have way too much beef with each other.
We could not unify as a people unless we're willing to share common values which are not as strong as they are in America as we're separated. We just don't care enough about each other to make it work as at one point or another it will fall apart as we'd not only have to lose control over our own lands moreso than we currently have, but we'd also lose our national identities along with it. We don't work as "states" do. We don't think like you guys do over there. We'd not feel like we've gained control, but we'd feel like we'd lost control and were responsible for the others loss of control.

Plus it's also give the Mediterranean countries another pass at their mismanagement and bailing them out more. It's mostly the northern countries propping Europe up as it stands.

[TTTX]

This is an unfortunate reality that most littleish countries have to face now. The world is currently the playing field of the US, Russia, and China. Your choices are to try to be Switzerland or Finland and make yourself so entangled with all three and/or generally just not worth the bother that nobody cares to do anything with you *or* you have to explicitly pick a camp. This is one reason I tend to roll my eyes at European bellyaching about the US. The EU has the economic capacity to evolve into something that could actually challenge US policy, but to do that, Europe has to be willing to sacrifice spending on social programs to build an actually effective military *and* they have to unify way more and lose a lot of their local idiosyncrasies. They must basically become the United States of Europe, but they seem fundamentally unwilling to do this. And their only other alternative to relying on the American security umbrella is to jump ship for Russia or China. They are welcome to do that if they want to try it. I think they know it wouldn't end well for them. If they feel like puppet states now, just wait.

If I was English, I feel like I would be opting for option A) of "become Switzerland." This is a viable option because Britain's an island and defensible and ideally situated for trade. The glory days of the British Empire are done with though. The options are be Switzerland or chose a sponsor between the US, the EU, Russia, and China.

I can say as a guy who lives in a country with the EU as a sponsor, The EU is goddamn joke at this point, the leadership have no idea what to do, how to solve big problems they cause and they don't have the guts to make hard decision for whatever reason.

[Raga]

I assume it probably doesn't help that a lot of them are appointed instead of elected so it can really come off as random bureaucrats from other countries telling your country how to do things as well.

Say what you will about the overt circus that is DC. At least we got to pick those assholes.

[Raga]

We could not unify as a people unless we're willing to share common values which are not as strong as they are in America as we're separated. We just don't care enough about each other to make it work as at one point or another it will fall apart as we'd not only have to lose control over our own lands moreso than we currently have, but we'd also lose our national identities along with it. We don't work as "states" do. We don't think like you guys do over there. We'd not feel like we've gained control, but we'd feel like we'd lost control and were responsible for the others loss of control.

Plus it's also give the Mediterranean countries another pass at their mismanagement and bailing them out more. It's mostly the northern countries propping Europe up as it stands.

It wasn't always that way. It was the Civil War that did it more than anything. Before the Civil War the common reference was to *these* United States of America. It only became *the* United States of America after the war.

[Mobius_118]

Mobius dear when I want to talk to you I'll be sure to use small words.

That was directed towards someone else. You and your crusade aren't relevant.

I was merely referring to this tough, holier-than-thou facade you keep putting up, with your ad hominem attacks and your attempts at trying to be relevant. I'm not impressed. Under face to face circumstances, you would be just another stare at the ground, avoid eye contact, minuscule, insignificant, little beta I know you are. Here you're protected by anonymity. You'll never have the testicular fortitude to stand up to an actual situation.

Keep your simple vocabulary for when you talk to your libertarian troglodyte friends. Clearly you're all too pedestrian minded to ascertain the foolishness that is your stance on the political climate we all live in today, and need to reeducate yourselves before you are all left confounded as to why everyone treats you like the backwoods rejects you are.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

But no dear Mobius you did end up accidentally correct on one thing.

Not your bullshit advocating for the failure that is socialism. Certainly not your insane devotion to MUH RUSSIA.

See I've been thinking on my own political stance for a while now. Libertarian is fairly accurate but it doesn't cover everything. I've also got a few shades of Objectivism in me.

Now from here on out I'll be ignoring your bleating because you have quite frankly exhausted your use as a lolcow. You'll respond to this of course but I won't pay it much mind. You're a pitiable figure and ultimately beneath notice.

[Mobius_118]

Still trying to act like you're relevant. How adorable.

[Mazder]

I assume it probably doesn't help that a lot of them are appointed instead of elected so it can really come off as random bureaucrats from other countries telling your country how to do things as well.

Say what you will about the overt circus that is DC. At least we got to pick those assholes.

Yeah that's one of the main reasons the Brexit vote was so popular.

[Raga]

http://theweek.com/articles/761372/frau ... liberalism

True, but also deeply disingenuous because it conflates "classical liberalism" with "lassiez-faire capitalism" when they aren't the same thing. Its critique of laissez-faire capitalism mated with libertarianism is accurate though.

[FrozenShadow]

This is an unfortunate reality that most littleish countries have to face now. The world is currently the playing field of the US, Russia, and China. Your choices are to try to be Switzerland or Finland and make yourself so entangled with all three and/or generally just not worth the bother that nobody cares to do anything with you *or* you have to explicitly pick a camp. This is one reason I tend to roll my eyes at European bellyaching about the US. The EU has the economic capacity to evolve into something that could actually challenge US policy, but to do that, Europe has to be willing to sacrifice spending on social programs to build an actually effective military *and* they have to unify way more and lose a lot of their local idiosyncrasies. They must basically become the United States of Europe, but they seem fundamentally unwilling to do this. And their only other alternative to relying on the American security umbrella is to jump ship for Russia or China. They are welcome to do that if they want to try it. I think they know it wouldn't end well for them. If they feel like puppet states now, just wait.

If I was English, I feel like I would be opting for option A) of "become Switzerland." This is a viable option because Britain's an island and defensible and ideally situated for trade. The glory days of the British Empire are done with though. The options are be Switzerland or chose a sponsor between the US, the EU, Russia, and China.

I can say as a guy who lives in a country with the EU as a sponsor, The EU is goddamn joke at this point, the leadership have no idea what to do, how to solve big problems they cause and they don't have the guts to make hard decision for whatever reason.

I have to agree, TTTX. EU worked quite fine before 2004, when 10 Eastern European countries were accepted into EU. That's moment that the EU started it's downhill. None of those joined back then or any later joiners from other Eastern European countries just wasn't and ain't really ready to join in something like EU. This is mostly because all the years as part of USSR totally messed these countries economy and once they achieved their independence after collapse of USSR, these countries still ain't ready to really work together with others and give up some of their independence.

Of course, EU had lots of other issues too. Three of the worst are overly heavy bureaucracy, clear imbalance between members and "me, mine and my country" thinking.

Bureaucracy is obvious problem. While it's definitely needed, if it's taken too far it becomes more of burden. That's exactly what had happened with EU. Too many countries, too many legislation adjustments, overly complicated decision making and confusing system that your average citizen had very little hope to understand.

EU is practically "Strong leads, small snivel". On one hand, its understandable as these strong (like Germany and France) do have most populace and strongest economy. Yet, it also causes resentment amongst the others, especially with large and people rich countries like Poland and Romania. Another issue with this is decision making. Because large countries have more voting power, they got to basically decide everything. This used to work decently, but again, 2004 enlargement ruined the precarious balance that was there.

Lastly, EU used to work well as while member countries still thought their own benefit, everyone still shared the same idea(s)/ideal(s) and direction like with freer trade and movement of people and products, whole ECSC that benefit France and Germany especially and overall, the willingness to work together, so that another world war could be prevented followed by fear of USSR and communism as a whole. This last one was especially important as together with these two, people, countries and their politician were more agreeable to relinquish some rights, laws and individual decision making, if it could prevent another war and make countries stronger, both in overall trade and in fight against communism.

Yet, all of that is in the past now. None of the EU members and their countries, politician and even common citizens think of the collective good. Everything people care is "what's in it for me?", "how does something benefit me and mine?", "how I can get most of something within least effort on my part?", "who I can take advantage of to get what I want?", "As I have this and that and I/we are doing so well, we justified to get this and that and whatever it's must be given to me/us." Granted, this isn't just a problem with EU and all the politician/decision making within EU. This kind of over individualism and inflated self-interest, mixed with "taken too far" capitalism, is affecting everything. It's all about personal gain "just now" and with that it's forgotten that you can achieve more, if personal greed/demands are set aside or just priorities differently. This is, why EU is good example of this, both in good and bad.

[Augustei]

*Snip*

Yeah we're kind of going in circles. Common law did used to mean something there, as common law originates from the legal precedents of the British courts, Legal precedent is meant to mean something. A society without it is a chaotic mess, like the UK for example because legal precedent means nothing over there now. Thats my whole point, they ignore the precedents of the courts and that's why the UK is a hellhole today. Peoples rights were established by the legal precedents of the courts, and now they're trampled on. A right does not need to be statute for it to be a right. Thats the whole argument of court lawyers who write thousands upon thousands of dissertations arguing against the need of things like bills of rights, they do that here in Australia. Their argument can be summarized as "Legal precedent, common law. etc etc." But the recent examples of North Ko...Britain sure throw a stone through that window.


As for Tommy, it wasn't him and his fans. It was him and his family at a pub being kicked out and then followed down the street by police while his kids cried. The whole argument "Better not let him annoy the Muslims in case they fail to integrate, snap and kill someone because he said mean things. Therefore police harassment is justified" doesn't cut it. Its pure cowardice. Guy hasn't made any threats or calls to violence. just allegedly has toxic views. Apparently left that group when they radicalized but i don't follow the guy and don't know so won't comment further on that.

[Mazder]

*Snip*

Yeah we're kind of going in circles. Common law did used to mean something there, as common law originates from the legal precedents of the British courts, Legal precedent is meant to mean something. A society without it is a chaotic mess, like the UK for example because legal precedent means nothing over there now. Thats my whole point, they ignore the precedents of the courts and that's why the UK is a hellhole today. Peoples rights were established by the legal precedents of the courts, and now they're trampled on. A right does not need to be statute for it to be a right. Thats the whole argument of court lawyers who write thousands upon thousands of dissertations arguing against the need of things like bills of rights, they do that here in Australia. Their argument can be summarized as "Legal precedent, common law. etc etc." But the recent examples of North Ko...Britain sure throw a stone through that window.


As for Tommy, it wasn't him and his fans. It was him and his family at a pub being kicked out and then followed down the street by police while his kids cried. The whole argument "Better not let him annoy the Muslims in case they fail to integrate, snap and kill someone because he said mean things. Therefore police harassment is justified" doesn't cut it. Its pure cowardice. Guy hasn't made any threats or calls to violence. just allegedly has toxic views. Apparently left that group when they radicalized but i don't follow the guy and don't know so won't comment further on that.

Yeah sadly a lot of things that were just "a given" need to have actual documentary weight behind them now as given the Monarchy is all but stripped of power we need to put them into effect on the books. We desperately need to rewrite it all from the ground up to include the basic freedoms so things can not be dismissed so easily, or be put down to opinion like this judge did with Dankula.

No, but Tommy was kicked out among other Luton football fans. He has been known to participate in violent actions with other Luton football fans in the past, he has a history of being violent. The police are just as much concerned with his family's safety as they are with the other members of the public there. If a football fight breaks out, even if he wasn't participating, his family would still be hurt along with the other members of the public there. Seeing as Luton are the away team in this case their fans are asked to exit the building to stop any fights breaking out.
See if it was just Tommy there would be a point with him being stalked on the night of the football match, but it wasn't. The other night, yeah it's a little silly, but it's probably someone checking up on him because he has a known history for public violence and they got a few reports concerning him. I don't agree with the decision to follow him all that day but seeing as the dude is a pretty violent football hooligan then it seems that these are attempts at stopping others being hurt by him.

As for the "better not annoy muslims" comment....yeah, nah mate, you obviously have no experience on what it's actually like living in a country where that shit is/can be seen as a credible threat to a decent size voting populace, let alone the radical terrorists that would use it for justifications for their actions.
The more and more people like this are actively violent against all muslims it ruins the efforts made by the smaller community of Muslims in the world that try and westernize as they're now no longer welcome in the old muslim communities, and now not welcome in the western ones by appearances. I don't agree that the message of "stop being a cunt to ALL of them and target the terrorists you dickhead" should be done by the police, but seeing as he's, once again, some violent football hooligan type who only seems to understand violence, grandstanding and bravado it seems that's all he'll actually listen to.
Do I agree he should have this much time spent on him? No.
Do I agree with his behaviour? No.
Do I find him innocent of reputation? No.
Do I feel much sympathy for him? Honestly not really.
Do I feel he should have the freedom to go about his business? Sure. I don't like what he does but he's free to do it.
Do I feel a lot of his views aren't actually helping? Yep.

[Raga]

Since we are on the British free speech kick, found this today:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... h-warrior/

[Mazder]

Oh, just as a tidbit do you want to guess who's responsible for the Communications Act?
Or at least who's stint as leader of the government it was?

This guy;


That's right. Tony Blair, leader for Labour, George Bush jr's cocksleeve and downright socialist TWAT that made the British public hate their government to this very day.

Just to get some perspective as just how far back this problem in my country goes and some of the reasons why Brits are apathetic to change things.

[Augustei]

Oh, just as a tidbit do you want to guess who's responsible for the Communications Act?
Or at least who's stint as leader of the government it was?

This guy;


That's right. Tony Blair, leader for Labour, George Bush jr's cocksleeve and downright socialist TWAT that made the British public hate their government to this very day.

Just to get some perspective as just how far back this problem in my country goes and some of the reasons why Brits are apathetic to change things.

Ah yes, Labor's pushed alternative to Corbyn, the guy they want to bring back. Are they trying to be a living meme or is this some game they're playing with the Torys in who can be the most pathetic? With their pig fucker and fox hunter

Anyway looks like its out with McMaster in with that weasel Bolton. What a joke, so much for draining the swamp, in comes a major tract of it.
Looks like your chances of being deployed just went up Mobius, To either North Korea or Iran or one of the thousands of other places Bolton is eager to whisper in Trumps ear to bomb.

[FrozenShadow]

Considering this recent news of John Bolton becoming new National Security adviser, and all of the other staff changes in White House and Trump's cabinet, three things are quite clear.

1. We're at point, where we're close to reaching a level, where it doesn't matter who is named and in what position. There are high chances that this person won't be there a year later.
2. If you say anything against Trump or clearly think differently than he does, this person is out and replaced by someone that supports or truckles to all Trump do or says. And even then, none of these people might not be safe, if Trump is on fickle mood.
3. Trump is running the government like he did The Apprentice show.

[Raga]

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/23/59640198 ... nding-deal



Sometimes I think this guy just likes the feeling of shooting himself in the foot.

[Mobius_118]

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/23/596401989/trump-threatens-veto-of-spending-deal



Sometimes I think this guy just likes the feeling of shooting himself in the foot.

Now if only he'd suck-start a shotgun.

[Vol]

The spending bill is bloated shit. There's money in there for funding border security in multiple Middle East nations, but not nearly enough for our own (I'm hearing it restricts what type of wall can even be built with the billion and two-thirds Trump gets), some money for women's law enforcement programs over there too, just millions and billions for shit and shit and shit. Sanctuary cities get funding, Planned Parenthood, giveouts to countries who don't need it, etc.

And this comes after Congress passes an anti-sex trafficking bill that now makes websites liable for having certain types of content put up on them by users, such as craigslists personals. For a Republican run government, sure does seem like Democrats run the show, huh? And when Obama was in, sure seemed like Republicans ran the show, huh? Sift through the two tons of shit that run our country, might find a few ounces of gold.

Ah, here we go. Courtesy of Rand Paul:

o $12m for Scholarships for Lebanon
o $20m for Middle East Partnership Initiative Scholarship Program
o $12m in military funding for Vietnam
o $3.5m in nutrition assistance to Laos
o $15m in Developmental assistance to China
o $10m for Women LEOs in Afghanistan
o $1m for the World Meteorological Organization
o $218m for Promoting Democracy Development in Europe (yep..the birthplace of democracy needs promoting)
o $25m for International Religious Freedom
o $10m for disadvantaged Egyptian Students
o $1.371bn for Contributions to International Organizations
o $51m to promote International Family Planning and Reproductive Health
o $7m promoting International Conservation
o $10m for UN Environmental Programs
o $5m for Vietnam Education Foundation Grants
o $2.579m for Commission on Security and Co-operation in Europe
o $15m to USAID for promoting international higher education between universities
o $2.696bn for International Disaster Assistance
o $1m for the Cultural Antiquities Task Force
o $6.25m for the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation
o $20m for Countering Foreign State Propaganda
o $12m for Countering State Disinformation and Pressure

It's over two thousand pages, and those fucks who voted on it obviously didn't read it. They don't care, they're going on another recess soon. More debt, more spending, more programs for everyone. Fiat currency, it's infinite and always accepted, until it isn't! Kick that can down the road, eventually someone will pay for it, probably.

[Mobius_118]

The spending bill is bloated shit. There's money in there for funding border security in multiple Middle East nations, but not nearly enough for our own (I'm hearing it restricts what type of wall can even be built with the billion and two-thirds Trump gets), some money for women's law enforcement programs over there too, just millions and billions for shit and shit and shit. Sanctuary cities get funding, Planned Parenthood, giveouts to countries who don't need it, etc.

And this comes after Congress passes an anti-sex trafficking bill that now makes websites liable for having certain types of content put up on them by users, such as craigslists personals. For a Republican run government, sure does seem like Democrats run the show, huh? And when Obama was in, sure seemed like Republicans ran the show, huh? Sift through the two tons of shit that run our country, might find a few ounces of gold.




It's over two thousand pages, and those fucks who voted on it obviously didn't read it. They don't care, they're going on another recess soon. More debt, more spending, more programs for everyone. Fiat currency, it's infinite and always accepted, until it isn't! Kick that can down the road, eventually someone will pay for it, probably.

8 years of stability with Former President Obama does not even come fucking close to the shitshow that it is now.

[Raga]

The spending bill is bloated shit.

Yea, it is, but the reason he's protesting it is because his bloated shit of choice, the boondoggle wall, isn't in there.

And seeing as how systemic, meaningful reform that would be necessary to do something about the ballooning debt is a non-starter, it behooves the government to at least manage a baseline of status quo competency in the interim. If they insist on us riding on a balloon of credit, a baseline of services and functionality seems the least reasonable expectation to demand as the usage for said credit.

[DarkStorm]

The spending bill is bloated shit.

Yea, it is, but the reason he's protesting it is because his bloated shit of choice, the boondoggle wall, isn't in there.

And seeing as how systemic, meaningful reform that would be necessary to do something about the ballooning debt is a non-starter, it behooves the government to at least manage a baseline of status quo competency in the interim. If they insist on us riding on a balloon of credit, a baseline of services and functionality seems the least reasonable expectation to demand as the usage for said credit.

Or we just continue the cycle till it explodes.

[Raga]

Oh, it will blow up but petulantly refusing to fund anything won't make it *not* blow up. Think of it like this. You take out a monster loan to buy a house you can't afford and you can live in it for X years. If it's a foregone conclusion that nobody will do anything about this until foreclosure is imminent, what's the point precisely in refusing to pay the water bill other than just making the X years in house particularly miserable?

Refusing to fund the National Endowment for the Humanities or something won't do crap about our assbackwards government funding system which is a hardcore mix of inane tax structure and out of control entitlements.

[DarkStorm]

Oh, it will blow up but petulantly refusing to fund anything won't make it *not* blow up. Think of it like this. You take out a monster loan to buy a house you can't afford and you can live in it for X years. If it's a foregone conclusion that nobody will do anything about this until foreclosure is imminent, what's the point precisely in refusing to pay the water bill other than just making the X years in house particularly miserable?

Refusing to fund the National Endowment for the Humanities or something won't do crap about our assbackwards government funding system which is a hardcore mix of inane tax structure and out of control entitlements.

Thats why I don't like using my credit card a lot or taking loans when I can. Not that I have had to take a loan but you get my point.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf1pr36OCg

Grorious People's Democratic Republic of Scotland.

[Mobius_118]

Again, focus on our fucked up country before you cry about another, you child.

[Mazder]

Again, focus on our fucked up country before you cry about another, you child.

Hey if more Americans cared about the cultural exports America gives other countries and helps spread it's rights to those countries I am game for you having 2 problems to work on.
C'mon you're the only superpower, surely you can handle it.

[Vol]

Yea, it is, but the reason he's protesting it is because his bloated shit of choice, the boondoggle wall, isn't in there.

And seeing as how systemic, meaningful reform that would be necessary to do something about the ballooning debt is a non-starter, it behooves the government to at least manage a baseline of status quo competency in the interim. If they insist on us riding on a balloon of credit, a baseline of services and functionality seems the least reasonable expectation to demand as the usage for said credit.

Here's where that revolutionary/reformist metric comes into play. Reform of the budget system is not possible, because it has been corrupted by the people through their proxies. So who could win power to fix it without crippling themselves in the process? It's a systemic illness, no one person is responsible, so no one person can be replaced to fix it. It would require the wholesale uprising of the voters to knowingly elect people who campaign on taking away funds from whatever pork their old leaders have procured, then enacting painful, harsh reforms of entitlements and the government itself.

And what do we do with Gordian knots?

[Mobius_118]

Again, focus on our fucked up country before you cry about another, you child.

Hey if more Americans cared about the cultural exports America gives other countries and helps spread it's rights to those countries I am game for you having 2 problems to work on.
C'mon you're the only superpower, surely you can handle it.

We used to be. Trump has shot that prospect in the face.

[Mazder]

We used to be. Trump has shot that prospect in the face.

Either you were truly a superpower and you're able to withstand one bad leader or you never were and you were just pretending all the time you claimed to be.

[Mobius_118]

Pretty sure we've been slowly sabotaging ourselves for decades with trickle-down economics. This isn't just about trump, this is about every GOP leader since the FDR days trying to sabotage The New Deal.

But boy has trump been making up for lost time.

[FrozenShadow]

We used to be. Trump has shot that prospect in the face.

Either you were truly a superpower and you're able to withstand one bad leader or you never were and you were just pretending all the time you claimed to be.

Well, if we will go that route, technically you could've said the same thing about Soviet Union too. They were superpower and should've bee able to withstand one bad leader. Yet, whole system collapsed during Gorbatshov's tenure. Sure, you could say Soviets were just pretending to be capable superpower and that US got much stronger "roots" to be falling because of one storm caused by a bad leader.

But you only really need one bad leader to mess things up or very least cause some huge changes. Which is why I wouldn't be at all surprised, if Trump tenure will change the Presidents role or very least curb President's prerogatives in matters like naming and firing people, making laws and how to behave.

The very least I think Trump's presidental time will cause someone to suggest a law that prior political experiences is required for trying to become president (at least on governor of state or congress member level experience). After all, if Trump would ever have worked in politics or even would listen to those that has, he could have avoid 90% of messes he had caused so far.

[Mazder]

Well, if we will go that route, technically you could've said the same thing about Soviet Union too. They were superpower and should've bee able to withstand one bad leader. Yet, whole system collapsed during Gorbatshov's tenure. Sure, you could say Soviets were just pretending to be capable superpower and that US got much stronger "roots" to be falling because of one storm caused by a bad leader.

But you only really need one bad leader to mess things up or very least cause some huge changes. Which is why I wouldn't be at all surprised, if Trump tenure will change the Presidents role or very least curb President's prerogatives in matters like naming and firing people, making laws and how to behave.

The very least I think Trump's presidental time will cause someone to suggest a law that prior political experiences is required for trying to become president (at least on governor of state or congress member level experience). After all, if Trump would ever have worked in politics or even would listen to those that has, he could have avoid 90% of messes he had caused so far.

TBH I was more poking fun at American Bravado than anything else.

[Augustei]

Again, focus on our fucked up country before you cry about another, you child.

Hey if more Americans cared about the cultural exports America gives other countries and helps spread it's rights to those countries I am game for you having 2 problems to work on.
C'mon you're the only superpower, surely you can handle it.

We used to be. Trump has shot that prospect in the face.

Nah the US has sadly been declining as a global superpower since arguably Clinton or Bush. You could argue Trump took a left hook to America's global prestige but i'd argue illegally invading Iraq, Obama's red line, inaction after threats on Crimea and ignoring past security guarantees to Ukraine, supporting terrorists and Human Rights abusers in Yemen, Syria etc did plenty of that already. Heck you had Turkey and Russia holding Syrian peace talks back in 2016 without the US even being invited, an unprecedented slap in the face that really speaks volumes.

Still doesn't stop idiots in the state department from throwing their weight around as if America is fresh of the heels of the cold war and is capable of doing anything, stretching her even further to her limits. Trump or no Trump. Heck plenty of the idiots were democrat appointees so its not just a Republican problem, the Kagans one of the most disgusting war mongering families in Washington thought they could get one of their own as Hillary's VP pick. (I'm no fan of Hillary but even I don't think that low of her)

Well, if we will go that route, technically you could've said the same thing about Soviet Union too. They were superpower and should've bee able to withstand one bad leader. Yet, whole system collapsed during Gorbatshov's tenure. Sure, you could say Soviets were just pretending to be capable superpower and that US got much stronger "roots" to be falling because of one storm caused by a bad leader.

Nah most experts agree that the Soviet Union had been dying for decades long before Gorbachev, "decades of economic rot, corruption, and inefficiency were destroying the economic state from within. The 'containment' policy, which every president from Harry Truman onward had embraced, had [also] done its work"

America isn't in great shape, but she isn't at that point yet.

[TTTX]

Nah most experts agree that the Soviet Union had been dying for decades long before Gorbachev, "decades of economic rot, corruption, and inefficiency were destroying the economic state from within. The 'containment' policy, which every president from Harry Truman onward had embraced, had [also] done its work"

America isn't in great shape, but she isn't at that point yet.

Well the Soviet Union was doomed to fail since the day it was created, it just managed to survive longer then it should have.

[Vol]

I've noticed that when someone starts talking about fictional characters, and critiques them with the term "coded," to explain why the should actually have been gay/bi/lesbian/black/Arab/whatever, because they're "coded" to look/act like one, they've used a political framework to justify their personal tastes and headcanon. Which is clever and irritating.

Cassandra has short hair, a thick jaw, wears heavy armor, and is a tough leader, therefore she's coded as a lesbian, it is bullshit she only likes romance and the dick, in that order.

Jack rejects norms of femininity, has had a threeway with a m/f couple, and so on and so forth, therefore she's coded as bi, Miranda is coded as a classic femme and hates her dad, why can't I have a lesbian threeway with them, Bioware's writing is bad.

Cora has the sidecut and defines herself by having worked with asari commandos and being an outcast because she's different in a way only asari could know and yada yada, what the fuck, she's straight?

I think Javik had that happen to him too, and then sometime after launch they patched him into bisexuality.

It's not bigotry, as funny as that would be, because acknowledgement of physical and cultural differences is amoral. But it's dancing with it. I want this character to act the way I want because they look or act a certain way, which is fine. It's how fans got the Tali romance going, by extrapolating, inventing, looking between the gaps of the game. It's when political righteousness gets involved that it seems more petulant.

[Alienmorph]

"Coded"? These asshole do realize a person can look whatever the fuck he or she wants, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation, right? Oh wait, of course they don't. The point is always splitting people into nice and easy to understand categories, so they can immediately tell if thei're facing someone they like or not. Fucking bravo.

I would love to put a group of SJWs in front of a clipshow of anime stuff... just to see how easily they can "code" a crossdressing catboy or a genderfluid mecha pilot.

Then again... thei're the assholes who claimed Samus Aran should be a transgender (because I guess being the one of the first videogame female main characters who could kick some serious ass wasn't good enough), so maybe it's better if they only bitch about western media.

[Raga]

Jack rejects norms of femininity, has had a threeway with a m/f couple

People using this as evidence for anything always baffled the heck out of me because Jack makes it sound borderline if not actually rapey. She's clearly unhappy with it in any event.

It's how fans got the Tali romance going, by extrapolating, inventing, looking between the gaps of the game. It's when political righteousness gets involved that it seems more petulant.

I would disagree with this because asking that something happen in a future game is different from insisting that a given game did something *wrong* by not including a given romance. Like contrary to what everybody claims, Kaidan never gave an explicit answer as to what his orientation was so it's within the realm of possibility to make him bi in a later game. However, he wasn't "obviously" bi either. Or to use some other example. It's entirely possible that, say, Vivienne is actually bisexual. She gives us 0 indication otherwise. Varric, however, is explicitly straight because he tells Dorian as much. So if Vivienne is revealed to be bi in some future game, I don't see the issue.

[Vol]

@Alien: You could have said Felix and we'd all have known what you were talking about.

It's another one of those cases where you can see part of a fair point. If I created a character that is a scrawny twink who wears rainbow clothes, talks in a heavy lisp, and spends most of his time talking about sucking dick and flirting with dudes, but then say he's totally straight and happily married to Jill McWoman, either his purpose is to be intentional subversion, or, I need to put in some effort to explain _why_ a comical stereotype of a faggot isn't one. Which is entirely possible, which is where the "coded" argument fails. But if I do not explain it, and have him prancing around like that, and then one day say he's straight, I have done a poor job of writing the character, and it is fair to say I have been misleading.

But that is an extreme case, where it is blatant what is meant to be presented. Cassandra, Jack, and Cora are not that, as most of these "coded" examples I've seen are as well.

@Raga: The context was absolutely not healthy, yeah. I don't recall the specific phrasing, but I believe it was meant to convey that she was latching onto affection where she could find it, and those people were scumbags, but she went along with it because of how fucked her life was.

Hm. I had a whole reply ready to go, but you make a good point. I would say that allowing male Shepards to go gay in the third game was poor writing and one of many ridiculous changes made in ME3, and either should have been an option the entire time or not at all. Especially with someone like Kaidan who spent ME1 talking about his love for a girl he went to school with in the context of a platonic friendship with male Shepards. But I cannot rightly say that you must state an attraction from the start either, because of Tali, where it starts neutral and blooms over the trilogy.

Though I maintain that wrapping a desire in political language because a character appears to be meant to correlate to some real life group is still bad, regardless if the request is plausible within the setting.

[Alienmorph]

@Alien: You could have said Felix and we'd all have known what you were talking about.

It's another one of those cases where you can see part of a fair point. If I created a character that is a scrawny twink who wears rainbow clothes, talks in a heavy lisp, and spends most of his time talking about sucking dick and flirting with dudes, but then say he's totally straight and happily married to Jill McWoman, either his purpose is to be intentional subversion, or, I need to put in some effort to explain _why_ a comical stereotype of a faggot isn't one. Which is entirely possible, which is where the "coded" argument fails. But if I do not explain it, and have him prancing around like that, and then one day say he's straight, I have done a poor job of writing the character, and it is fair to say I have been misleading.

But that is an extreme case, where it is blatant what is meant to be presented. Cassandra, Jack, and Cora are not that, as most of these "coded" examples I've seen are as well.

I can see part of the argument, as you say. But the idea that if you can come up with a character that defies types, much like real people in real life don't follow stereotypes verbatum, is somehow unfair or even offensive because its appearance or behaviour "code" him to be this or that other type instead... is just stupid. I'm tired of stupid people wanting to label everyone in some stupid way for their stupid reasons. I just want to enjoy good characters and good storylines in my escapism, that should be what matters first and foremost. Instead literally even the most frivolous and unrealistic things must be treated as thei're a goddarn political statement... and I am sooo sick of it.

Especially since the people complaining have no creativity of their own and work with nothing but stereotypes, because they have no fucking clue how to create good characters. I could rant short of forever about this shit, buuuuut I don't think there's a point, so I won't

[Raga]

Another kind of just idle thought. I am reading "And the Band Played On" which is about the AIDs epidemic in the gay community in the 1980s. There was actually this big existential, internal debate that sprang up once the virus was discovered and some gay doctors started to advocate against general promiscuity and advocate safe sex and whatnot. This caused a huge controversy since a huge part of the "gay liberation" movement had been about being unapologetic about gay sexuality and generally not being afraid to engage and such. There was also a push-back from some who felt there was meaninglessness in general carnality put forward by books like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggots_(novel) that caused a ruckus. These people wanted to basically make gay monogamy and long term relationships the norm in the community and also to bring them out into the mainstream in a more mundane fashion.

So the idle thought: External to the gay community, looking overall at "gay rights," there was a general routing of conservatives and triumph of liberal thought. However, *within* the gay community, the conservatives totally won and made respectable things like "gay marriage" and "adoption by gay couples" point and center of the movement and the more liberal side focused in like gay bathhouses and such lost most of its legitimacy, such as it was. Even the spectacle of the gay pride parade, which was just out and out circus of licentiousness in 1980 or so has transformed into this generally staid affairs that people even bring their kids to.

[Mobius_118]

I'm not having my pay and benefits cut to pay for the fucking wall. But that's what that maggot wants. I know it won't happen, but the very fact that he wanted it as an option means he is continuously the worst president in the history of the US.

We are dying while he fights to fuck up the VA, cut our pay, and throw his fucking parade.

Supporters of trump here, you are complicit in his fucking activities. Your mothers should've swallowed.

[Mazder]

Supporters of trump here, you are complicit in his fucking activities. Your mothers should've swallowed.

Way to bring people to your side...

[TheodoricFriede]

...So at what point can someone be banned for verbal attacks?

Because, I know the purpose of this thread is to contain the horseshit, but at some point you just have to remove the horses ass.

[Mobius_118]

...So at what point can someone be banned for verbal attacks?

Because, I know the purpose of this thread is to contain the horseshit, but at some point you just have to remove the horses ass.

Don't give a fuck about you, Theo. If I wanted your shit I'd squeeze your head.

That's a legitimate concern for everyone, and supporters of the wall are certified fuckbrains.

[Mazder]

...So at what point can someone be banned for verbal attacks?

Because, I know the purpose of this thread is to contain the horseshit, but at some point you just have to remove the horses ass.

If that were the case then there would not be a need for this place, or any kinds of restrictions.

So ar the insults have been directed at groups in a venting fashion, or at individuals during an argument that got heated. There hasn't been any direct, unwarranted insults as of yet, but I am but a lowly member and it's just my 2 cents.
We're operating under 1st Amendment US rules I guess here.