Well, you're not obliged to respond to what sounds like a right weirdo, BTR1701. I tend to avoid such people as they're not worth the hassle.
The trick to getting along in a society that seems to be leaving us behind is to live and let live. You don't have to interact with people you disagree with in order to convince them to change their minds. You could also -- mad idea -- leave them to it and just get on with your life. I follow plenty of people I disagree with but their discourse generally falls within the parameters of what I personally consider to be reasonable and sensible. There's no point in getting into arguments over emotional issues as there's nothing to gain from it.
Agreed in full. That the conservatives don't kick these people out -- again -- both puzzles and disgusts me. Are they really that desperate for members
Also seeing the same kind of thing over here in the UK Conservative party. They're not conserving anything, just riding roughshod over anyone who's not rich.
Acceptance in general is a Christian ideal, which explains why it's mostly absent from the right (who like to dress themselves up in the trappings of Christianity but not to actually follow Christ's teachings).
Confirmed correct. The idea of dressing in sheep's clothing is to make themselves look less wolfy.
While I've got my issues with self-identifying as X and have seen some horrible examples of bad actors taking advantage of this to behave abusively, I don't generally go out of my way to be offensive towards anyone. If you start from a position of "live and let live" you can't go wrong.
Or, mad idea, give something better than Dumb and Dumber to vote for. The two-party system is profoundly undemocratic. Better to have proportional representation so people can vote for the people they want, not the least worst choice between two dysfunctional parties.
All Hamilton can do is dredge up his secret crush on Wendy Cockcroft and fantasize about her and Janice Duffy
Wendy here, AC. On both mine and Janice's behalves, please make it stop. I'm straight, married to a man, and not interested in getting into someone else's flame war.
If Hamilton wants to be a prat, let him. No one is obliged to answer him, okay? Sooner or later trolls give up and go away if you ignore them. It can take up to three months but sooner or later they do give up.
Eh, per Caroline Cadwalladr of the Guardian the election may not have been rigged but it was unduly influenced by Cambridge Analyitica. It doesn't help that only six entities own the majority of our mass media outlets, including newspapers. This is how that Pound Shop Trump Boris Johnson became our PM.
Re: Re: Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conserva
The only reason my name comes up with my details on page 1 of Google search results is because I'm a noisy so-and-so using my real name on TD and Twitter. But that's the only keyword (both names together) that will do the job. Some professor chap comes up many pages before I do on my surname alone. Could be because he's more interesting to more people than I am. I'm okay with that.
Re: Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conservative
LOL @ SEO unicorns and fairies. The truth is, since everyone and their dog also wants to get page 1 results they've got to either be very careful about what they put on their blog so the keywords will pull it up (good luck with that) or try to hack the system in some way (which search engines penalise).
The only way to make your blog popular is to have the kind of content in that people want to see. SEO hackery just results in ad farms and the like getting to the top of the search results.
Old, proven troll post defamations at that. Desperate, much? Nobody with half a brain would go to a review site to report a crime -- instead of to the police. PLUS if it were true, it'd be easy to work out who my "victim" was unless I was in the regular habit of doing so and had to pick between multiple candidates for "Who's the grass?"
You'd have to look very hard to find me slagging any business off. It's fiscal suicide to fall out publicly with a client; nobody would want anything to do with such a person.
If people could get organised enough to put Obama in office they can organise enough to effect change. This is precisely why we got Trump: people have given up on the political system and only the organised people are getting anything done.
As for the paradise of the proletariat, I've yet to see one that actually works. Uneducated people clinging like grim death to ideologies they don't understand but willing to fight for them anyway create a power vacuum into which dictators are born.
Re: "You need a complete overhaul of your Constitution"
So until the people are willing to capture and hang (guillotine, draw-and-quarter) all three branches of government to force a constitutional convention, it's not going to happen.
How long should the inevitable reign of terror following this revolution be in order to be reasonable?
"The Lord knoweth His own" is not sufficient for me. People need to get more politically engaged. Idiots running around with guns shooting at everyone they think is the bad guy is the absolutely last thing we need.
I get what you're saying, Mason, but I've lived long enough (and so have you!) to know that merely being accused of a crime doesn't make you guilty of it. Remember the Central Park 5? There's your problem.
On the post: Enough With The Myth That Big Tech Is 'Censoring' Conservatives AND That The Law Requires Them To Be Neutral
Re: Re:
Well, you're not obliged to respond to what sounds like a right weirdo, BTR1701. I tend to avoid such people as they're not worth the hassle.
The trick to getting along in a society that seems to be leaving us behind is to live and let live. You don't have to interact with people you disagree with in order to convince them to change their minds. You could also -- mad idea -- leave them to it and just get on with your life. I follow plenty of people I disagree with but their discourse generally falls within the parameters of what I personally consider to be reasonable and sensible. There's no point in getting into arguments over emotional issues as there's nothing to gain from it.
On the post: Enough With The Myth That Big Tech Is 'Censoring' Conservatives AND That The Law Requires Them To Be Neutral
Re: Re:
Agreed in full. That the conservatives don't kick these people out -- again -- both puzzles and disgusts me. Are they really that desperate for members
Also seeing the same kind of thing over here in the UK Conservative party. They're not conserving anything, just riding roughshod over anyone who's not rich.
On the post: Enough With The Myth That Big Tech Is 'Censoring' Conservatives AND That The Law Requires Them To Be Neutral
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Acceptance in general is a Christian ideal, which explains why it's mostly absent from the right (who like to dress themselves up in the trappings of Christianity but not to actually follow Christ's teachings).
Confirmed correct. The idea of dressing in sheep's clothing is to make themselves look less wolfy.
While I've got my issues with self-identifying as X and have seen some horrible examples of bad actors taking advantage of this to behave abusively, I don't generally go out of my way to be offensive towards anyone. If you start from a position of "live and let live" you can't go wrong.
On the post: Amazon Has Already Roped 200 Police Departments Into Its Ring Doorbell Surveillance/Promotional Scheme
Re: At last the minion supports me: FASCISM increasing.
Citation, please. Links or it didn't happen.
On the post: The FTC's Settlement With Equifax Is Such A Joke, The FTC Is Now Begging You Not To Ask For A Cash Settlement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets do some math...
Or, mad idea, give something better than Dumb and Dumber to vote for. The two-party system is profoundly undemocratic. Better to have proportional representation so people can vote for the people they want, not the least worst choice between two dysfunctional parties.
On the post: What Happens When The US Government Tries To Take On The Open Source Community?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All Hamilton can do is dredge up his secret crush on Wendy Cockcroft and fantasize about her and Janice Duffy
Wendy here, AC. On both mine and Janice's behalves, please make it stop. I'm straight, married to a man, and not interested in getting into someone else's flame war.
If Hamilton wants to be a prat, let him. No one is obliged to answer him, okay? Sooner or later trolls give up and go away if you ignore them. It can take up to three months but sooner or later they do give up.
On the post: Cord Cutting Is Setting Records In 2019
Re: Re: Why not both?
I hate Illinois Nazis
On the post: Court Dismisses Democrats' Nutty Lawsuit Against Russia, Wikileaks And Trump Associates
Re: Re: Re: Re: It was good theater at least
I don't like him now for the same reason, and the fact that the swamp is now much swampier than before.
On the post: Court: No Immunity For SWAT Team That Hurled A Flash-Bang Grenade In The General Direction Of A Two-Year-Old Child
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of reasonable, and why so dispara
Decent people don't.
On the post: Amazon's Free Doorbell Cameras Only Cost Law Enforcement Agencies Their Dignity And Autonomy
Re: Re: The Important Thing
Eh, per Caroline Cadwalladr of the Guardian the election may not have been rigged but it was unduly influenced by Cambridge Analyitica. It doesn't help that only six entities own the majority of our mass media outlets, including newspapers. This is how that Pound Shop Trump Boris Johnson became our PM.
On the post: NY Times Calls Out Politicians For Lying About Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conserva
The only reason my name comes up with my details on page 1 of Google search results is because I'm a noisy so-and-so using my real name on TD and Twitter. But that's the only keyword (both names together) that will do the job. Some professor chap comes up many pages before I do on my surname alone. Could be because he's more interesting to more people than I am. I'm okay with that.
On the post: NY Times Calls Out Politicians For Lying About Section 230
Re: Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conservative
LOL @ SEO unicorns and fairies. The truth is, since everyone and their dog also wants to get page 1 results they've got to either be very careful about what they put on their blog so the keywords will pull it up (good luck with that) or try to hack the system in some way (which search engines penalise).
The only way to make your blog popular is to have the kind of content in that people want to see. SEO hackery just results in ad farms and the like getting to the top of the search results.
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz May Have Cost His Client A Ton Of Money, And Set An Expensive Precedent For Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Old, proven troll post defamations at that. Desperate, much? Nobody with half a brain would go to a review site to report a crime -- instead of to the police. PLUS if it were true, it'd be easy to work out who my "victim" was unless I was in the regular habit of doing so and had to pick between multiple candidates for "Who's the grass?"
You'd have to look very hard to find me slagging any business off. It's fiscal suicide to fall out publicly with a client; nobody would want anything to do with such a person.
On the post: District Attorneys Have Figured Out How To Turn Criminal Justice Reform Efforts Into Revenue Streams
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Confirmed correct. Great rebuttals, TFG.
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Rights Were Violated When A Cop Shot At A 'Non-Threatening' Dog But Hit A Kid Instead
Re: Leaders we can trust.
Agreed. It takes time. And a lot of education.
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Rights Were Violated When A Cop Shot At A 'Non-Threatening' Dog But Hit A Kid Instead
Re: "People need to get more politically engaged"
If people could get organised enough to put Obama in office they can organise enough to effect change. This is precisely why we got Trump: people have given up on the political system and only the organised people are getting anything done.
As for the paradise of the proletariat, I've yet to see one that actually works. Uneducated people clinging like grim death to ideologies they don't understand but willing to fight for them anyway create a power vacuum into which dictators are born.
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Rights Were Violated When A Cop Shot At A 'Non-Threatening' Dog But Hit A Kid Instead
Re: "You need a complete overhaul of your Constitution"
So until the people are willing to capture and hang (guillotine, draw-and-quarter) all three branches of government to force a constitutional convention, it's not going to happen.
How long should the inevitable reign of terror following this revolution be in order to be reasonable?
"The Lord knoweth His own" is not sufficient for me. People need to get more politically engaged. Idiots running around with guns shooting at everyone they think is the bad guy is the absolutely last thing we need.
On the post: Court Determines That This Duck Doesn't Look Enough Like Another Duck To Be Infringing
Re:
Is the girl laden or unladen?
I'll see myself out...
On the post: Police Union Responds To Outing Of Officers' Bigoted Social Media Posts By Offering To Erase Officers' Online Presences
Re:
I get what you're saying, Mason, but I've lived long enough (and so have you!) to know that merely being accused of a crime doesn't make you guilty of it. Remember the Central Park 5? There's your problem.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A headline like that makes me wonder if
Cherry-picking; I don't do that. Also, wolves have been known to dress in sheep's clothing to make themselves seem less wolfy.
Why are gross generalisations restricted to people of faith while doing this to anyone else is considered prejudicial?
In case you haven't noticed, no one has a lock on morality.
Next >>