Title: Who gives shit if Godwinson post here again? Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Oct 26, 2011 Author:A K A Stone Post Date:2011-10-26 11:24:19 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:492263 Comments:595
You are the only forum owner I'm aware of that tolerates being told to 'fuck off' 'suck my dick' 'you are an asshole' 'the site runs better when you aren't here' etc etc etc.
Every thread here degenerates to that eventually, at least the ones you happen to post on. As such, yep, the site is sliding downhill faster with each passing week. Combined with your allowing some to use it for personal attack threads, or racial bullshit...it comes down to a simple question: Why bother with LF? You don't give a shit how it looks. You don't give a shit how these kooks talk trash to YOU for God's sake. Which is why even that idiot Goldi gets more respect than you do in her kooky forum. Or JR at Free Republic, or mystery over at GBR.
You aren't promoting 'freedom of speech' by allowing this crap, Stone. You simply promote your site isn't to be taken seriously, because nobody here takes YOU seriously. I drop by every day, but honestly, there hasn't been anything here worth commenting on for the past couple of weeks.
Its your site, Stone. but the reason it hasn't grown is because you haven't 'grown' as a site owner/operator. This isn't about politics, or anything else, as much as it is kooks talking shit behind absurd screen names in ways they'd NEVER do in the real world. Basically, its a fantasyland for losers that have been banned from legitimate sites for the obvious reasons.
As for 'godwincing' posters come, posters go. The rep of the site is what you should be worrying about. Thats the only 'constant' you have any influence over. So far, this site is just as amaturishly run as it was when I signed up.
And thats the problem...unless you enjoy being humiliated, taunted, and insulted by people on the internet. Maybe you do. I honestly don't get it, but its your site. Like the song says, you can't always have what you want, but you get what you need, eh?
Bullshit Freddie. Neil was a self appointed 'site manager' who was upset I didn't 1) Agree with him on the election...2) Didn't kiss his ass because I knew he was a flat out fraud. Much later, when he laid down and whimpered in court after all his bravado on the internet, he confirmed my view of him.
Which is why he's still my personal internet bitch to this very day (laughing).
I never lied to him, like you, he wasn't worth a lie. Nice spin though.
The same question could be asked of the other House Commies, but I think we know the answer to that query:
To agitate, spam, shill, and otherwise promote Commie propaganda. To their (dis)credit, it's the same reasons Police-Statist fascists frequent and infect conservative forums - to promote their brand of Big Goob control.
"To agitate, spam, shill, and otherwise promote Commie propaganda. To their (dis)credit, it's the same reasons Police-Statist fascists frequent and infect conservative forums - to promote their brand of Big Goob control."
I do believe the speakers on your STEREOtype are out of whack, lippie.
("To agitate, spam, shill, and otherwise promote Commie propaganda. To their (dis)credit, it's the same reasons Police-Statist fascists frequent and infect conservative forums - to promote their brand of Big Goob control.")
I do believe the speakers on your STEREOtype are out of whack, lippie.
Go ahead, Mike. re-calibrate MY characterization of your ilk through YOUR eyes....er through my speakers.
Btw, I find my new pet name clever. I'll have to reciprocate the favor.
"Go ahead, Mike. re-calibrate MY characterization of your ilk through YOUR eyes....er through my speakers."
And you will have to forgive me, but as someone who's name can be written as M. Joseph McCarthy, it is terribly comical for me to hear you talking like you are aspiring to become the chairman of a new Senate Un-American Activities committee. ;-D
And you will have to forgive me, but as someone who's name can be written as M. Joseph McCarthy, it is terribly comical for me to hear you talking like you are aspiring to become the chairman of a new Senate Un-American Activities committee. ;-D
You DO know that McCarthy was right about every single communist agent he named,right?
You DO know that McCarthy was right about every single communist agent he named,right?
Yes he was.
Oh Bullshit...he accused the Secretary of the Army, Robert Stevens, of being a Communist which is how McCarthy lost Eisenhower.
That said, McCarthy actually "named" very few people and those he did name were a) from a list that had been compiled by HUAC in 1946/47 and b) were people who were mostly exonerated and remain so to this day.
McCarthy focused mainly not on people but on the activities of groups and articles in publications.
You've said this before, sneak, and have gotten the smack down.
"The commies that McCarthy names should have been executed."
It is not illegal to be a communist. They are marginalized and unpopular, but the U.S. Constitution gives the political freedom for people to belong to those political parties.
Is it still illegal to embellish on one's military service?
I don't think it is, nor is it illegal to falsely claim military honors one isn't entitled to, according to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court has just agreed to rule on the constitutionality of the 2005 Stolen Valor law.
It is also a federal felony to claim to be a Medal of Honor winner if you're not.
See this story to see why that's not true - yet.
I believe it has been a federal felony for decades now. I think what has happened here is that he was changed under the wrong charges. The original charges are probably unknown to the prosecutor who only knows of the 2005 Stolen Valor Act.
And no,I don't remember the title of the original offense.
The way it was explained to be about impersonating a serving officer being a federal felony is because serving officers have the right (not to mention duty) of carrying loaded firearms anywhere they go,and they can't be arrested for it because if Martial Law were declared they would be the ones who became the local LEO's and Sheriffs until order was restored. If they did not have this legal right they could be arrested by local LEO's for violating local ordinances.
IIRC,this goes back to Colonial Days.
Which means chances are nobody has ever been charged under this stature in the last 200 years.
It is also a federal felony to claim to be a Medal of Honor winner if you're not.
See this story to see why that's not true - yet.
The Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. §704) was revised in 2005. This revised version was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit in 2010. As noted, the Supreme Court has granted cert to hear the case sometime in 2012.
An infraction pertaining to the Medal of Honor provided for imprisonment for not more than one year. A federal felony is subject to imprisonment in excess of one year. The statute would only establish a misdemeanor.
The Act, as presently drafted, applies to pure speech; it imposes a criminal penalty of up to a year of imprisonment, plus a fine, for the mere utterance or writing of what is, or may be perceived as, a false statement of fact—without anything more.
[...]
The rule the government and dissent urge us to apply in order to uphold the Act would, if adopted, significantly enlarge the scope of existing categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. All previous circumstances in which lies have been found proscribable involve not just knowing falsity, but additional elements that serve to narrow what speech may be punished. Indeed, if the Act is constitutional under the analysis proffered by Judge Bybee, then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one’s mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway. The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time. Perhaps, in context, many of these lies are within the government’s legitimate reach. But the government cannot decide that some lies may not be told without a reviewing court’s undertaking a thoughtful analysis of the constitutional concerns raised by such government interference with speech.
Finding no appropriate way to avoid the First Amendment question Alvarez poses, we hold that the speech proscribed by the Act is not sufficiently confined to fit among the narrow categories of false speech previously held to be beyond the First Amendment’s protective sweep. We then apply strict scrutiny review to the Act, and hold it unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling governmental interest.
