The national libertarians are not Nazis but…

:smilielol5:

I would like you to explain that one.
I would not like you to explain that one.
Thanks for making me laugh what ever it meant.
I don't know why it was funny.
It was funny.

 

I see what happened!

I confused Odon and Balbus.

Sorry dude! I won't edit the post, even though i feel like it, unless you ask me to.

This thread is too much.

Rat: put Balbus on ignore.

 

I thought you may have got us confused.
Your last post clarifies what you feel so you don't have to edit your post.
I imagine only you and I care :cheers2:

 

HOLY SHIT! I'm glad that's sorted out. Mini sopa opra this is. Jup.

And hey, if a thread like this were made about me, I'd be popping in and out too. I mean shit, to a degree you want to defend yourself, then on the other hand due to all the bullshit you just say to yourself "eff it all..." and just watch it all go by. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

 

My posts (orginally #2) in this thread have mysteriously vanished.

I guess I need to repeat them.

Balbus, its very low brow of you to start a thread against a fellow member. Moderator or not.

And I'm seriously considering not renewing forum supporter status because of it. Why should I pay for you to offend people in the manner you do?

You need to be replaced as moderator.

You're driving people away from this forum because nobody wants to put up with you


x

 

Man, MJ...

For all of the times you're wrong, and confused and what-all-ever, with folks telling you that you are Chock Full of Bullspit,

well,

why not think about that a little bit? Why not think about a little attitude adjustment?

Man, i had to do it. i would imagine other folks in here have had to, also. It's too bad, but you will never forgive the person that finally makes you see yourself for what you are (or are not), what you actually stand for (or just paying lip-service to), and what you could ever actually mean in the big scheme of things, which, in ALL of our cases, probably isn't much.

In other words (and quite brutally), neither you nor any of us really matter ~ unless we can kick back, close our mouths, and listen to what folks who really ARE educated on the subject have to say. Nit-picking and throwing a cloud of confusion over every issue is the sure sign of an egotist who just really doesn't understand the concepts being discussed, and can't get beyond each and every WORD being used. (Congrats on the new word, btw!)

You know, Wacky probably knows more on these issues than you and i ever will ~ he's been keeping up, ALL ALONG, with ALL of the news. He's been trying to present a contrast of opponents, but you have forced him into taking a defensive position that he might not be comfortable with ~ making him a devil's advocate, as it were.

What if this?

What if we treated others with the respect they deserve (they HAVE spoon-fed us every source)?

What if we listen to the others who are 'in the know' ('know,' as in knowledgeable) and just ask pertinent questions, without being abusive, insulting nor condescending?

Could you do that for just one day? <sigh>

 

Why are you talking about "wacky"?
I don't even think he has posted in this thread.

 

He has posted elsewhere, and MJ does the above to most of Wacky's posts.

Oh, you know what? It was that i was reading some other posts by MJ, about ACORN, and posted in that thread. Then, i came here, to see the same thing happening, and it's getting old ~ not the topics, but the infernal nit picking and confusing the issues and the smoke screens ~ which, i might add, we don't even get to breathe deeply of!

i'm fairly new here, so if it needs to be moved, i'm hoping you could notify whomever... Thank you!

 

So, why invoke the name of wacky here...still not sure there is any relevace.

 

It could be ANY name, pretty much, but MJ has 'debated' Wacky before, and i've read some of those threads, but whatever, i changed it all up. Better?

 

LOL

Well, I’m disappointed but not surprised and this sure does teach a sorry lesson about politics.

None of you are actually addressing what I’ve said.

Basically you’re all refusing to engage in anything like a normal debate, you have made up your minds and even though none of you seem able to actually back up that viewpoint with rational explanations, you are going to stick with your assumptions.

I’ve asked all of you to give me a direct quote from what I’ve said here to back up what you clearly think was said – none of you can do so – what you are shouting back at me is your opinions based on what you think was said rather than what was said.

I’ve asked you to refute what I said here (or what I linked to)– none of you seem able to do so, some grudgingly have even admitted it seems correct.

But since you have already decided in your own heads that I’m must be wrong then I must be wrong whatever the evidence too the opposite.

To you this was a thread attacking the character of Rat it doesn’t matter that you cannot find anything to back that up, in fact the only thing I do attack is his politics and we are on a politics forum.

To you I’ve called Rat a Nazi, it doesn’t matter that you cannot find anything to back that up, it doesn’t matter that I actually said he wasn’t.

To you the original post was all about Rat it doesn’t matter that it wasn’t, and since all you want to see is the false issues you are going to ignore the real issues that were raised.

Oh I’ve been active in politics for years and I know it happens and I’ve seen it many times – it is how biased assumption or myth can trump evidence or how people can turn innuendo and supposition into hard incontrovertible facts.

 

Also this attention on form over substance it seems to me diminishes political debate, I’ve already said elsewhere recently that “In generalised terms UK political debate is a lot more policy orientated, openly adversarial and discussion driven while in large part in the US it is rhetorically based and politician’s often fane civility while playing hardball in the dark and real debate is shunned or is much more genteel and orchestrated.”

Most of the discussion generated by my post has been about how ‘uncivil’ it seemed to be, that I was acting in an improper or even tasteless way rather than on the issues I made.

It is a way of trying to shut down debate by concentrating on how something is presented rather than dealing with what has been presented or in taking offence at a supposed slur to misdirect from the real argument.

It is like the Republican attack on Obama for using the ‘lipstick on a pig’ quote, a way of trying to misdirect or censor someone over supposed form rather than addressing the substance.

 

I'm not because I don't like your tone and it has already been gone through, oh, about three or more years ago.
I told you the reason I don't like what you are saying.
If that is not good enough for you.
Well, not a lot I can do about that.

 

And Rats name had to be used, why? A reference to Rat had to be made, why? Why couldn't you have just titled your post: "The National Liberatirians are not Nazis but...."

It comes down to this. If you'd have posted a thread that said "Tree Huggin' Hippies Suck" instead of - oh say, "Hannah is a Tree Huggin' Hippie and She Sucks" people might be more than willing to see what you're trying to say. You throw the personal factor in there of someone's name, then you're going to get a reaction from us. That means we all could be a potential target for being singled out. And I don't think that's what we're here for.

Hey, your threads not dead yet. I guess that's the good thing, right? :cheers2:

Xexon - I'm lost. I don't know if this is a new thread or the old thread with our original responses deleted.

 

Odon

I pointed out that - None of you are actually addressing what I’ve said.

To which you relied - I'm not because I don't like your tone and it has already been gone through, oh, about three or more years ago.

Can you please link to where it has been gone through?

As to using the supposed disliking of my tone as a way of not addressing something it seem to me a cop out, a way of trying to blame your own lack of a reply on the other person.

And what happens to political debate (real debate) if everyone just talks to those they like the tone of, those that don’t get annoyed at what they might say or bring up difficult questions they find hard to answer, the ‘right kind of people’.

It seems to me that people would end up in political cul-de-sacs only talking with those they like and excluding any alternative viewpoints.

**

I told you the reason I don't like what you are saying.

That’s what I’m trying to fathom because your reasons for not liking what I’m saying seems to be that you don’t like the way I said say something I didn’t say.

I mean you seem to realise I did not call Rat a Nazi but you seem to be saying I should not call Rat a Nazi (but I didn’t) and you don’t like the way I’ve pointed out that I didn’t call Rat a Nazi.

**

If that is not good enough for you. Well, not a lot I can do about that.

True, but it really does leave me wondering what your objections and motivations were.

 

Hanna

The reason why I mentioned Rat by name was because I was commenting on something Dispoisoned had said about him which was – ““I had you [Rat] pegged as a Nazi for a while” (my brackets)

I was just saying that I agreed with him that Rat was NOT a Nazi, but I could understand his mistake because it reminded me of an earlier post that had also been inspired by things people like Rat and other right wing libertarians had said.

That was the thread -

Why do the national libertarians keep reminding me of the Nazis?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=104835

Which pointed out that while right wing libertarians did NOT have the same ideology as the Nazis, they did seem to use some of the same methods to try and spread their ideas? (E.g. such as using conspiracy theories)

So since Rat or rather his political views and methods were the link in writing the post his name was used.

I have actually made my thoughts felt on the subject of naming many times but the last time was here in a thread I closed.

A thread dedicated to xexon.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=312336

I said just prior to closing it –

“Attacking someone for their POLITICAL views and giving the reasons why is one thing just calling someone mentally ill, ignorant or pathetic is just plain name calling.”


If my original post is actually read it is clear it is a political critic not a personal attack on Rats character or intelligence.

And if we stopped all political criticism of any others persons political viewpoint we basically neuter political debate.

**

 

*

So nobody seems able to actually back up the claim that this was a personal attack.

In the end the only thing that stands up is that a member’s name was mentioned in the title of a thread?

And that doesn’t seem at the moment to be expressly forbidden.

OK – I’ll place a rule in the politics forum guidelines stating that another members name cannot be used in the title of a thread within the political forums.

*

 

Then why did you delete our posts?


x

 

Xexon

I didn't