patrick.net

Quigley says

You mean like host a free forum supporting the principle of free speech where even ASSHOLES can vent their spleen with every stupid vicious thought that comes to their tiny brains?

Well, I'm hoping the "uncivil" link will help discourage the stupid vicious thoughts and encourage smarter kinder thoughts. Any other ways I might do that?

errc says

Is Patrick a Republican now?

I swear I remember him defending Obama for years. Think he said he voted for him too

It's probably a smarter approach; just support your president, either way. Rather than expend so much energy ragging on about how much the other party's president is destroying everything. You can't do much about it anyway. Try and remain optimistic

I would not call myself a Republican or a Democrat. I hope to be able to think for myself and choose candidates based on what they are actually proposing.

I did defend Obama from a lot of outright racist slurs, and I did vote for him twice. I was greatly disappointed though. I thought he would be different, but he was not any different, aside from being black. The real low point was when Obama signed the NDAA, allowing indefinite detention of Americans without trial. At that point, I was completely done with Obama. Fucker betrayed the Constitution with that one and we still have that law on the books.

I never supported Bush II because he deliberately started a war for no valid reason, resulting in a bazillion deaths of random Iraqis, and tens of thousands of US soldiers killed. I just saw some memorials to local dead soldiers in Napa, where I am at the moment, and cursed Bush again for that.

I actually do like Trump because he was absolutely not wanted by the globalist corporations or the press. They did everything they could to prevent his election, and failed! That is very exciting. The idea that the people might still be in charge, and not the globalists or the press.

Indiana Jones says

Cops have backing them up powerful laws, powerful people and powerful weapons. Your ordinary citizen does not. Making this a racial issue is a distraction imho.

I agree with you.

And yet BLM has made this 100% a racial issue, and that alone.

rando says

Quigley says

You mean like host a free forum supporting the principle of free speech where even ASSHOLES can vent their spleen with every stupid vicious thought that comes to their tiny brains?

Well, I'm hoping the "uncivil" link will help discourage the stupid vicious thoughts and encourage smarter kinder thoughts. Any other ways I might do that?

Patrick - there aren't a whole lot of forums on the net that let, and encourage, both sides of every issue to vent. I don't see a whole lot of outright hate on here. I do see bias. Oh boy do I see bias.

I thank you Sir, for hosting such a fine site.

rando says

Quigley says

You mean like host a free forum supporting the principle of free speech where even ASSHOLES can vent their spleen with every stupid vicious thought that comes to their tiny brains?

Well, I'm hoping the "uncivil" link will help discourage the stupid vicious thoughts and encourage smarter kinder thoughts. Any other ways I might do that?

Patrick, can you please either A) bring back the ignore function or B) remove all threads from the screen of a user who is not allowed the right to post on that thread.

Uncivil should be used more not less. It is possible to disagree without being uncivil. Most here don't know how to do that. I tried, but kept getting treated like shit so I responded in kind. Some even think it is good entertainment to ad hom attack and uncivil postings are more common from two of the biggest posters on this site. Bias allows them to get away with it. But it is still uncivil no matter how much research you put into your position if you call the opposition names, practice guilt by association or mischaracterize their positions.

Instagram is now taking measures to prevent slurs and other hate type speech. Not saying I agree with it, but recognizing that the discourse in this country and on this site is toxic (at times).

WorkInProgress says

Patrick - there aren't a whole lot of forums on the net that let, and encourage, both sides of every issue to vent. I don't see a whole lot of outright hate on here. I do see bias. Oh boy do I see bias.

I thank you Sir, for hosting such a fine site.

I'm glad you like it! I wish I knew how to get more people to use it. Enforcement of some minimum level of civility does seem to be important for that.

Why do you guys watch so much CNN, if you're so sure it's crap?

errc says

Why do you guys watch so much CNN, if you're so sure it's crap?

I don't watch it. But I used to like the website. Now it is pure propaganda, just like the TV.

PeopleUnited says

Patrick, can you please either A) bring back the ignore function

Yes, will do, just give me a bit of time to finish the conversion from PHP to node.js. I keep thinking it's almost done and then find functionality that doesn't quite work.

Also, when it's converted over to node.js, it will be more amenable to having any user contribute code to change how the site works.

PeopleUnited says

Instagram is now taking measures to prevent slurs and other hate type speech.

That's the kind of thing that makes me worry. When corporations are deciding what "hate speech" is, they are probably going to err on the side of excessive censorship to protect profits instead of a commitment to allowing civil but un-PC points of view to be expressed.

They have the most big blocks of colors and pastels...
And their set LED lighting is second to none...
It's a fake news eye fuck!

errc says

Why do you guys watch so much CNN, if you're so sure it's crap?

errc says

I knew that the democrats were definitely not the party to save us. They were all the lawyers whose business was to profit from bad, complex laws that harmed people.

And that's the enemy we should be fighting, not each other!

Maybe I was slow to get woke.

rando says

Dan8267 says

Republicans never do anything out of principle or kindness. Their motivations are always selfish self-interests.

Oh come on. As if Democrats have some monopoly on virtue?

I don't see how "republicans never do anything out of principle or kindness" implies "democrats have a monopoly on virtue" or even "democrats are virtuous".

The Democratic Party is simply the far less or the two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but if force to choose between the two, the wisest policy is always to choose the lesser evil. The Democratic voters are statistically less evil than Republican voters. Yes, there are some Democratic voters who are downright evil, any Antifa member who votes -- and I doubt many of them do -- would qualify, but only maybe 20% of Democratic voters are selfish little shits who are in favor of violating human rights. In contrast, easily 80% of Republican voters are selfish and do like the idea of violating human rights because "the subhuman enemy deserves it". No, I don't have hard statistics on this as no one would be honest enough to admit their evil desires. I also don't have hard stats that men are more willing to have anonymous one-night stands, but I know it's true because it's so damn obvious.

Neither the two parties, nor their constituents, are equal. So it's a false equivalency to say the two parties are a wash and it does not matter which you support. One party favors the upper middle class and the rich. The other party favors only the rich and is willing to torture, kill, and imprison everyone else in order to increase the power and wealth of the rich. That's a big difference.

The Democratic Party will beat you up and steal your lunch money. The Republican Party will rape your entire family to death, making you watch, and then sow their skin into clothing. The are not in the same ballpark. They aren't even playing the same sport.

errc says

Now AFTER the Neo Nazis ran their ca

Cmon, errc. I know you've chewed on the MSM's Charlotte story a while, but certainly you must have retained enough facts to know that the car was owned by a single individual who did the crime by himself, and wasn't involved with the racist torch march the day before. I just quoted your most egregious mistake. Stating an obvious and provable lie isn't a good way to advance your argument.

errc says

I came back to this thread, thinking somewhere, someone linked some evidence to back up the claims that...Charlottesville was chocked full of AltLeftists causing violence... Why is it so hard to produce evidence of AltLefts provoking the violence?

The L.A. Times has an article on that, quoting each side accusing the other, and reporters noting that many groups on both sides arrived with weapons ready to fight, and fought:

"Hunter Wallace, a far-right blogger at Occidental Dissent: “The streets were not barricaded. Violent antifa [anti-fascists] were not penned in their own area as per our agreement with the Charlottesville Police Department, but were roaming the streets and blocking the entrance to Lee Park. They immediately launched an attack on our group with mace, pepper spray, bricks, sticks and foul liquids. The police stood idly by on the sidelines while a brawl was allowed to ensue. We had to fight our way into Lee Park and dozens of our people were injured by mace and pepper spray as we marched through the gauntlet.”
***
Washington Post reporter Joe Heim: “Counter-protesters fought back, also swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals. Others threw balloons filled with paint or ink at the white nationalists. Everywhere, it seemed violence was exploding. The police did not move to break up the fights.”"

IOW, one side got a permit to rally in a park. Police did not enforce the permit, and alt-left tried to block access, so the permit holders decided "to fight [their] way into" the park, incurring dozens of injuries. Violence escalated on both sides, and police did not break up the fights. The "counter-protestors" outnumbered the permit-holders, and took the streets, after which a Nazi sympathizer drove a car into people.

Quigley says

errc says

Now AFTER the Neo Nazis ran their ca

Cmon, errc. I know you've chewed on the MSM's Charlotte story a while, but certainly you must have retained enough facts to know that the car was owned by a single individual who did the crime by himself, and wasn't involved with the racist torch march the day before. I just quoted your most egregious mistake. Stating an obvious and provable lie isn't a good way to advance your argument.

How is it a lie?

The guy is a Neo Nazi. Fact

He traveled from afar to join his Nazi brothers in stirring shit against the local community, looking for violence. Fact

He drove his car into a crowd of Americans, just like ISIS does to Europeans. Fact

IOW, one side got a permit to rally in a park. Police did not enforce the permit, and alt-left tried to block access, so the permit holders decided "to fight [their] way into" the park, incurring dozens of injuries. Violence escalated on both sides, and police did not break up the fights. The "counter-protestors" outnumbered the permit-holders, and took the streets, after which a Nazi sympathizer drove a car into people.

---------------

So the AltLeft is a broad enough term to include any Charlottesville resident who is anti Neo Nazi. Interesting. I guess yous are just going to call anyone who isn't a Nazi, AltLeft.

errc says

Why is it so hard to produce evidence of AltLefts provoking the violence?

You keep repeating this, but you've been provided with countless pieces of evidence of AltLeft violence. Not only Curious2's most recent piece from the LA Times, but also the fact that in TWO separate incidents, reporters were physically assaulted by AltLeft Protesters who thought they looked like White Supremacists, at Charlottesville alone. There was also Dan's piece on the Middle Aged Harpy who thinks she can punch anybody she thinks is a fascist. Additionally, we have Hodgkinson the Terrorist Assassin who tried to kill 5 people including a Congressmen, who he put into the ICU and Critical Condition.

As for Charlottesville itself, I believe one reporter was a local network affiliate, the other was from The Hill. Both mainstream outfits. The AltLeft Terrorist who assaulted the Hill reporter is being held because he not only struck her, but he's wanted on another warrant.

Duh, I forgot Moldylocks. The Preppy Bourgeois who went to a private school with equestrian activities, announcing on Instagram she was going to "collect 100 Nazi Scalps", and sure enough, charged people.


Unfortunately her sheltered background never provided her with evidence that it's not a good idea to charge and attempt to choke an adult male larger and stronger than her.

I say get an island, set up cameras and drones, and sell tickets on Pay Per View for the AltLeft-AltRight Main Event.

"I'm telling you Acosta, we're gonna take 100 Nazi Scalps. Ummmm Yeahhhhh, make a masturbation video."
"Listen, Sally Kohn, we're gonna crush you Degenerates. I got a lot of meth with me, brother."

Put it on in lieu of SNL. ;) Classic

errc says

yous are just going to call anyone who isn't a Nazi, AltLeft.

A profound change occurred when identitarian (pseudo-)"liberals" embraced Islam, which prohibits blasphemy and commands believers to kill blasphemers.

Time was, if KKK or Nazis wanted to hold a rally, the liberal left would hold a better (and usually bigger) rally. Creative people made entertaining signs, played guitar, sang, etc. Typically, KKK and Nazis were outnumbered by at least 10:1, and seemed like boring losers.

Since the "left" embraced Islam, the "left" assert an Islamic compulsion to suppress blasphemy, and prevent the offensive assembly from even happening. Instead of creative counterprogramming, we see violent suppression. That isn't liberal, and it doesn't have much in common with what used to be the left, so I suppose you could call it "AltLeft."

curious2 says

Since the "left" embraced Islam, the "left" assert an Islamic compulsion to suppress blasphemy, and prevent the offensive assembly from even happening. Instead of creative counterprogramming, we see violent suppression. That isn't liberal, and it doesn't have much in common with what used to be the left, so I suppose you could call it "AltLeft."

«

Yes, this is sadly true.

I used to consider myself on the left, but now find the left to be entirely about fighting blasphemy against the leftist Koran on race, gender, etc, and to have utterly given up their traditional role of protecting labor from the depredations of capitalists.

Maybe this was even planned as a way to de-fang the left and let the corporate globalists operate without any restraints as the various races, genders, and sexual groupings fight each other and forget about who is really running the world. Divide and conquer.

rando says

Divide and conquer.

I've been saying this for years.

Repubs and Dems are working for the same team. Only the wrapper is different.

rando says

Divide and conquer.

Definitely think so. Brilliant and sad in a way. The woman who lost her life at the protest will soon be forgotten as the next outrage that the media will cover like crack-whores on withdrawal is already looming. And people who previously happily exchanged tasty recipes on each others facetwit wall will continue turning into mortal "political" enemies.

How is it we got a President who won ON the border wall and immigration reform, and Congress can't pass jack.

How come Ryan and McConnell all of a sudden think there is "nuance" to repealing ObamneyCare? Neither one had a plan drew up (of course not, Corporate Socialists write the laws, and they want to crush wages)

Also,McCain, Kristol, don't tell me about Russia on one hand, and then tell me how the Border Control isn't an Issue. Russia is over there, the Border is our Border, right here. You don't give two shits about national security if you won't secure the porous-ass border.

If Trump is a Nazi for refusing to call out Nazis as a major threat after one deadly attack...
Is Obama a Radical Islamist for refusing to call out Radical Islamic Terror as a major threat after multiple deadly attacks?

YesYNot says

You guys have truly gone nuts. The picture is of people beating the car AFTER it was just driven by a white Christian Nazi terrorist ISIS style through a massive crowd.

If that were true, bodies would be on the floor.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

If Trump is a Nazi for refusing to call out Nazis as a major threat after one deadly attack...

Is Obama a Radical Islamist for refusing to call out Radical Islamic Terror as a major threat after multiple deadly attacks?

No, Obama is a radical Islamist for putting Hilary Clinton back in the White House as Secretary of State.

rando says

I actually do like Trump because he was absolutely not wanted by the globalist corporations or the press. They did everything they could to prevent his election, and failed! That is very exciting. The idea that the people might still be in charge, and not the globalists or the press.

Patrick, do you realize how illogical this sounds ? That's not enough of a reason to like him.

If there was an incompetent and evil idiot running for President, the press and the globalists might very well not want him to be President for those very reasons.. How can that alone that be a reason to like him ?

Note, I only meant the evil idiot as a hypothetical in making a purely logical point. but as it turns out, so many people I respect, yes including many in the press actually sincerely believe Trump is a dangerous and incompetent idiot. Not dangerous in the sense that he's against globalist interests, but dangerous in the sense that he could ruin this country or even worse. I agree with them.

I like the fact that many in the media and across much of the political spectrum have responded to Trumps claim that the media is the enemy by speaking the truth about Trump even more. .

These are stange times indeed. I almost get it coming from TPB, FWM and Fort Wayne and others on this site(but not really) , but you continue to surprise me.

I agree Trump is somewhat dangerous, but he's not nearly as dangerous as a one-sided ideology that tolerates no dissent at all and has nearly complete economic control over all corporations and all media.

We live in an ideological echo chamber, whose masters are currently on a hysterical witch hunt, looking for unbelievers to punish. Witness the email from Uber today.

rando says

I agree Trump is somewhat dangerous, but he's not nearly as dangerous as a one-sided ideology that tolerates no dissent at all and has nearly complete economic control over all corporations and all media.

We live in an ideological echo chamber, whose masters are currently on a hysterical witch hunt, looking for unbelievers to punish. Witness the email from Uber today.

The left has nearly all economic control over all corporations and media?

Nearly all, yes.

Corporations toe the PC line out of fear of negative publicity. For example, they are not going to publicly question the wisdom of gay marriage, but may publicly support it. They are kept in line by fear of journalists, and journalists are almost all on the left. For example, only 7% of journalists are Republicans:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

Which corporations exude leftist values like strong Labor Rights for the workers?

Here in the real world, everything out my window looks straight out of a Right Wingers wet dream.

A system of Laws and a society captured by Christians and unquestioning right wingers, frothing at the mouth to have their hardcore right wing police state stomp the deviants and those who are different, to death.

"Nearly all, yes. Corporations toe the PC line out of fear of negative publicity. For example, they are not going to publicly question the wisdom of gay marriage, but may publicly support it. They are kept in line by fear of journalists, and journalists are almost all on the left. For example, only 7% of journalists are Republicans:"

I have to disagree with that one. Corporations are in the business of making money. Their job is to appeal to as many potential customers as possible and everything they do is with that in mind. Negative publicity is definitely a factor, yes. But to imply they are tools of the left is utterly ridiculous.

Corporations pretty much universally oppose the ENTIRE economic agenda of liberals. I challenge you to find any economic plank of the Dem platform that corporations favor. And I similarly challenge you to find ANY economic plank of the Republican platform that corporations do NOT favor.

jajojojr, why would you challenge him to search for something he has already declared as non-existent?

errc says

Here in the real world, everything out my window looks straight out of a Right Wingers wet dream.

joeyjojojunior says

Corporations pretty much universally oppose the ENTIRE economic agenda of liberals. I challenge you to find any economic plank of the Dem platform that corporations favor. And I similarly challenge you to find ANY economic plank of the Republican platform that corporations do NOT favor.

The quote was from Patrick so, the challenge was also for Patrick.

joeyjojojunior says

Corporations are in the business of making money. Their job is to appeal to as many potential customers as possible and everything they do is with that in mind. Negative publicity is definitely a factor, yes. But to imply they are tools of the left is utterly ridiculous.

Corporations pretty much universally oppose the ENTIRE economic agenda of liberals.

You brought up a good point, but put the emphasis on the wrong word. It should be like this:

Corporations pretty much universally oppose the entire ECONOMIC agenda of liberals.

Corporations almost universally support the SOCIAL agenda of liberals because that agenda:

1. does not interfere with their profits (for example, gay marriage)
2. helps divide us all so that we fight each other based on the ridiculous divisions and do not fight unlimited corporate power over government

So corporations are indeed tools of the left in terms of the left's social agenda.

I'd argue corporations are in favor of the social agenda that will lead to the highest sales.

joeyjojojunior says

I'd argue corporations are in favor of the social agenda that will lead to the highest sales.

Sales is one aspect, but a huge additional aspect is corporate control of government, arguably a larger factor than sales in corporate profitability.

If the corporations can keep us asking the wrong questions by dividing us with left-right crap, then they don't have to worry about the answer. They retain control of the government.

Feminism is a prime example where corporations (the "owners") learned that sometimes the so called liberal (social) agenda is VERY VERY good for them. As time goes on, we get closer and closer to having nearly a requirement of two wage earners per household (family). It would be an exaggeration to say that workers can be paid half what they were in the 60s, because of this. Even back then, lower income families nearly required two paychecks, if they were going to support a family decently. But these days it's pretty much a necessity across the board.

Having most women out there working means corporations can pay less than they would if a much smaller percentage of women were working.

But Patrick is wrong about this:

errc says

The left has nearly all economic control over all corporations and media?

That's ridiculous.

This is correct.

errc says

Here in the real world, everything out my window looks straight out of a Right Wingers wet dream.

A system of Laws and a society captured by Christians and unquestioning right wingers, frothing at the mouth to have their hardcore right wing police state stomp the deviants and those who are different, to death.

As is this

joeyjojojunior says

Corporations pretty much universally oppose the ENTIRE economic agenda of liberals. I challenge you to find any economic plank of the Dem platform that corporations favor. And I similarly challenge you to find ANY economic plank of the Republican platform that corporations do NOT favor.

Also, I think the political correctness point is often overstated, but I see it very much in the current frenzy to take down confederate statues. That's stupid, but extremely beneficial to the political right. I can finally get on the 'screw the political correctness' band wagon over this issue, but maybe I'm overly affected by a direct ancestor who was a medic that died on the confederate side in the war.

Slavery and secession may have been a mistake, but people fighting a war for "their country" should not to blamed for the the war making decisions of the southern aristocracy and their government officials. I'm pretty liberal on the subject of BLM and minority rights, although I agree the SJWs mess it up. I don't see confederate statues as an endorsement of anti-black racism, even if white supremacists are a little overly fond of all confederacy related symbols.

I don't like to see modern day hate regarding civil war history in either direction.

It was just a little bit of atrocity foreplay.

errc says

Which corporations exude leftist values like strong Labor Rights for the workers?

They don't. They exude a cultural-marxist/fascist agenda which means they will use the current batshit crazy left as a useful tool to stay on top. Occasionally they will have to pay out somebody based on their own adoption of political correct social justice nonsense, but it will be worth it for them as the workers will never be able to concentrate on the fact that their are ALL getting a bad deal, not just whitey mc whitemale. Traditional left labor rights have nothing to do with this social justice nonsense, but fair pay, vacation and certain rights to free speech apart from their workplace which must not influence their employment status,