A quote literally answering the question you were presenting is not good enough? I addressed that quote here and also in my follow up question here: Last of the V8s is an official owner of an extra large tin of ball polish, he gets a pass. I'm still unsure what exactly he's being accused of. Wiping his Trust list, using only DefaultTrust, and then making a new Trust list doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. I'm still not sure what you (@TECSHARE) are trying to say: do you want V8 to not get a pass? Or do you want others to get a pass too? I commend you and several other members that continue to engage with them in a civil manner even though you get next to nothing in return from them in simple coherent messages. I wish I had your temperament and patience to deal with these attention seeking good-for-nothing members that have created their own gang within a gang to cause disruption to the forum but it was easier for me to simply give up and IGNORE them all. I've put some users on ignore, but TECSHARE isn't one of them, I don't consider him to be "bad". He seems to be on a mission to improve the Trust system, I think his intentions are good, and he sticks to his believes even though many people seem to disagree. I want there to be consistent, objective, and equitable rules, not purely a popularity contest which currently determines the current trust system. |
|
|
|
Maybe read the thread? I read most of this thread. It's a bit long to try to find anything I might have missed. You're the one who claimed he "gets a pass". A link would be nice. A quote literally answering the question you were presenting is not good enough? |
|
|
|
Last of the V8s is an official owner of an extra large tin of ball polish, he gets a pass. I'm still unsure what exactly he's being accused of. Wiping his Trust list, using only DefaultTrust, and then making a new Trust list doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. Weird... I seem to see people get accused of all kinds of manipulation for doing nothing more than using the trust system pretty regularly. That certainly happens, but it doesn't answer my question what Last of the V8s is being accused of. Maybe read the thread? It seems like Switzerland is slowly turning into Austria. You might want to have a look at this person's gaming the system over the last six months adding then subtracting the same/similar users again and again. Same as Peloso has been doing. |
|
|
|
Right, we're down to the "could not" standard LOL. Can you prove that you could not have made this whole nonsense up? I did that in the OP, you just prefer to pretend I didn't. |
|
|
|
"Re: Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone... What are your thoughts on it?" "Re: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody" I've had this deleted along with some other posts so will re post without comment this time so I cannot be accused of infringing terms and conditions and not complying with posting rules.If it is deleted again it means someone is moderating with personal bias   "Re: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody" Quotes from: PopoJeff I received messages that 3 of my comments on this thread were deleted. Upon review, they are all factual information. So the bias is apparent, facts don't matter. 2 decades of actual experience in this subject don't matter.
No reason to post truths here anymore. Y'all have fun.
"Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody"A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. One more aspect to consider.
If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.
Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?
Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.
They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Resisting arrest is a felony. Assaulting cops is a felony. Disarming an Officer is a felony. Stealing an officer's taser is a felony. Pointing the stolen taser at an officer is a felony. Firing a taser at an Officer is a felony.
Assaulting officers is violence. The fleeing felon has demonstrated he is quite capable of being a deadly threat to others.
None of this is grounds for a death sentence. You can make the argument that he was potentially a "deadly threat" to others - the courts may see it otherwise. Regardless, running away with a discharged taser is not a justifiable reason to be executed. It really shouldn't matter what the law says cops can and can't get away with -- they should know better at this point in time that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it. The "rules of engagement" specify when and how they should use deadly force. Simple as that, although there may be gray areas. These rules vary tremendously by state. The problem is some people choose feelings over facts. They get emotionally triggered by the appearance of something, and are ignorant to the application of law. Then add the invention of the internet and social media, and you have a whole new generation who can spout their ignorant position with the same exposure as someone with knowledge. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
OK, that's a great example of the law needing to be changed because it was fucked. Just because something is or isn't a law doesn't make it right.
Not the same circumstances as Brooks didn't tase the officer, and the officer didn't have backup.
1. So, if you think a law needs changed, vote for the people who will change it. The Police will follow suit, and enforce and abide by the new law. Your kind is literally shooting the messenger and burning down buildings of the innocent because you don't like the rules That doesn't change the law. You all act like a bunch of entitled little kids. 2. Correct, not exactly the same, there is only ONE difference; in the linked Texas story, the criminal successfully made Taser contact with the officer before being killed. In Atlanta, the criminal missed. Now, a reasonable person would research if that makes a difference in the reaction and force allowed by Police. You've proven yourself unreasonable, so I'll make it easy for you. Police, and the public in most states, have no duty to "take the first bullet" in any assault, whether physical, less-lethal, or lethal, before responding with appropriate force to the situation they're presented with. And that situation will be judged in accordance with Graham v Conner. |
|
|
|
Bolton is claiming in his book that Trump asked President Xi to buy up farm goods to help his re-election campaign.
I have no idea if this is true or not but this will be damaging to Trump politicallynot sure about this. Bolton has always wanted the US to basically be at war with nearly every country that isn’t our ally and even argued that a preemptive nuclear strike against NK would be appropriate. This is approximately the polar opposite of Trumps position on American wars. Bolton may be trying to get revenge for pulling troops out of Syria and/or Germany, he might be trying to get on the anti Trump bandwagon to make a few bucks, or it may be true.
I would expect Trump to get impeached again over this, however I doubt anything will come of it. I doubt impeaching Trump ~2 months (based on an estimate as to when this might happen) before an election probably won’t look good for Democrats, especially considering Trump was just acquitted for doing basically the same thing with another country earlier this year. I am not sure this would even be illegal.
The Trump DOJ sued Bolton yesterday to stop his book from being published on National security grounds, but what I assume is the most damaging excerpt was just published in the newspaper, probably making the suit moot.
OH THE HUMANITY! YOU ARE TELLING ME TRUMP TRIED TO IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE HOPES OF RE-ELECTION?! THIS MUST NOT STAND! FYI, it doesn't make the suit moot at all. If anything it fucks him twice as hard because he is required by law to get everything he publishes pre-approved as a condition of his security clearance. |
|
|
|
I wonder how realistic it is to offer such a suggestion. That is, knowing that the same crowd the previous day sheltered terrorists, and this one likely did also.
Terrorists according to who? Pretty sweet for Trump that he just gets to call vast, unidentified swaths of the American public "terrorists" and his authoritarian toadies will follow him anywhere with it. I guess its not very feasible seeing how much of the country despises him, but talking to the protesters face-to-face would have been symbolic of strength and leadership -- two qualities he simply does not possess. Trump toads should really ask themselves a question: what happened during the leadership of your president that forced him to call his own citizens "terrorists"? According to the law. You got it all wrong. His base has been calling for ANTIFA to be labeled a terrorist organization since 2016 at least, because that is what they are. They use violence and intimidation to effect political change. That is the definition of terrorism under federal law. Stop pretending like you cunts are interested in any kind of discussion. That time has long since past and you have been riding on the pretense so long no one believes you any more. Now you see the results. Terrorists hate this one simple trick! What comes next will shock you! |
|
|
|
I've had this deleted along with some other posts so will re post without comment this time so I cannot be accused of infringing terms and conditions and not complying with posting rules.If it is deleted again it means someone is performing censorship or moderating with a personal bias [img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaHsDhhUwAA9Mhx?format=jpg&name=small[/img] [img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGuOCVU0AEhmPh?format=jpg&name=small[/img] [img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGDt__UYAA7mPd?format=jpg&name=small[/img] [img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaFjMS2XsAEfb1Q?format=jpg&name=small[/img] [img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ4O0xhU8AA6-cr?format=jpg&name=small[/img] We wouldn't wan't people sharing the horrible reality of these riots now would we? We cant have that, it goes against wokeness dogma. Theymos is letting this place get turned into another Facefuck or Twatter where all that has to happen is some little turd who thinks free speech is only for those that agree with them sends reports and an ideologically aligned moderator of course is happy to oblige. Funny how those rules seem to magically not apply when they agree with the sentiment though. |
|
|
|
I've had this deleted along with some other posts so will re post without comment this time so I cannot be accused of infringing terms and conditions and not complying with posting rules.If it is deleted again it means someone is moderating with personal bias It wouldn't be the first time. This place is a bastion of free speech, until the moderators decide to selectively interpret the rules. Your post is clearly on topic regarding police violence and the Minneapolis riots, but I can already hear Flying Hellfish say "Yeah but gender wasn't related to this case. Gender is just a social construct anyway." |
|
|
|
But he did take the bait -- the guy literally teargassed peaceful protestors in D.C. as a show of force so he could take a photo op. Is there anyway that you could justify that photo op as many any sense? No one wants to see peaceful protesters being rushed by police with the reason of "The President wants to take a picture in front of the Church"
The optics behind doing that was horrible, and you know it's true TecShare. Give me a fucking break. The POTUS should be able to cross the street in front of The White House safely. I can absolutely justify it, it was him sending a message that you don't get to riot out of control, and at any time he can end this. That is called deterrent effect. No one was teargassed, and they were given an order to disperse with several warnings, making their presence there ILLEGAL. This is a well established precedent. These are not fucking peaceful protestors. They are rioters, and at best intentionally serving as cover for rioters. If they weren't they would be regulating themselves. I see it any time there is a conservative rally when some ass hat wants to start shit, usually intentionally trying to make them look bad. They get shut down FAST by ACTUAL peaceful protestors. All these city centers are being burned to the ground, police being poisoned, murdered, people being beat, robbed and shot, but OH THE HUMANITY! WHATABOUT MUH TEARY BOIS! You are either a fucking chump or a liar if you pretend this was a lopsided use of force. As far as the optics and as far as the media goes Trump could walk on water and the media would report that he can't swim. The only ones sucking down this propaganda jizm are the ones who are already true believers of the orange man bad at all costs cult. |
|
|
|
I meant more as a uniformed statement. He may have been moderate in the one speech itself, but on Twitter / his actions are a bit of a different story. Though with the recent executive order and pulling the national guard out of areas it seems like he is walking back some of his comments and actions. He also cancelled the rally he was going to be holding on the 19th.
His actions have to support the statement. As his whole D.C. photo op looked HORRID. Governors made the decision to pull out The National Guard, he can not unilaterally deploy them domestically. Also he is smart enough to know this is all bait, and the dems would LOVE nothing more than him going in hard and shutting this disaster they created so they can blame it all on him. He is making the smart move and letting these leftists just wallow in the bed that they just shit in. Also it never ceases to amaze me that any kind of moderation is treated as walking back or weakness, then you pretend to wonder why everyone is so divisive and divided. |
|
|
|
I don't know what you mean, but if you have a specific problem with something on there it shouldn't be a dealbreaker. Its all approximate. You could look at other ones that have been filled out with people. These individuals are all in the correct vacinity but different people might have subtle disagreements about the exact positioning of where they are. No one should confuse Stalin's position with Chomsky's though.  What deal? You are garbage and so are your arguments. |
|
|
|
I suggest reading up on the different ideologies instead of just referring to everything thats not capitalism as "communism". Thats the way I learned it in grade school too but its wrong.  Even once you understand that all these things are different, theres still a lot more nuance to be learned. It still won't be as simplistic as you want it to be because there are so many different types of anarchists, communists,etc. Hell, even the parties in our federal republic can't agree much on the role of government. I like Democratic confederalism and recommend reading up on Bookchin or Abdullah Ocalan to learn more about how it works. This is on it's face a garbage chart. The point is to have an evenly distributed map to show a spectrum ideologies. Of course King Comtard finds the one that includes special exceptions only for his preferred ideology expanding the centrist area as if that makes them seem a little more reasonable by redrawing a line arbitrarily. Special rules for special people, always looking for new ways to put their thumbs on the scale. |
|
|
|
you just magically happened to find these 3 users
I already explained how I "happened to find" them and since you're checking my trust list you should be able to see that I often make multiple changes during the DT1 shuffle week but that obviously doesn't fit your narrative. Ah I see! Since you made more changes that proves the changes could not have been related purely by proximity! It makes perfect sense! |
|
|
|
Last of the V8s is an official owner of an extra large tin of ball polish, he gets a pass. I'm still unsure what exactly he's being accused of. Wiping his Trust list, using only DefaultTrust, and then making a new Trust list doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. Weird... I seem to see people get accused of all kinds of manipulation for doing nothing more than using the trust system pretty regularly. I guess all that matters is how shiny the user leaves the nuts after they are done. |
|
|
|
I've had a lot of guilty people make up stories in my life. But OG hasn't mounted any defense at all, other than to deflect on me. You have raped an entire herd of goats Vod. I have yet to see you mount ANY defense at all. Of course this means these accusations are absolutely true because you can't prove a negative. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
