William Bennett53 said:Two things... I didn't ban Scott Rodriguez54, the politics mods did. And the call is final, per the usual rules—he can ask for a pardon in at least six months.
Honestly, you guys should be begging me to keep posting! I'm basically giving you all this free content for the forum and posts that people actually engage with. When people are reading and replying, your click rates go up and you sell more ads.
I have no clue who or what you're so scared of when it comes to letting me write. From what I can tell, the users aren't complaining about me at all. I just hope you guys are getting paid well for steering public opinion in certain directions.
If not, someone needs to get fired ASAP—starting with those politics moderators.
Big thanks to my fellow forum buddies for having my back! It’s pretty obvious the mods' fragile egos couldn't handle losing a few debates to me and some other folks over the whole immigration mess, so they just decided to kick us out instead.
I've been posting my way through this site for eight years now, so honestly, Dorian's little explanation is a joke. Does anyone actually buy that?
The bans they handed out are totally baseless—clearly just a move to silence me because they already made up their minds.
It sucks that the forum chose to stifle free speech like this. I'm genuinely worried this is just a preview of what's coming, and I'm not liking it one bit. Today it's me because I'm talking about the risks of illegal immigration and the Islamization of America, but tomorrow it'll be someone else. By the time we realize what happened, we'll be living in a total totalitarian society.
I logged in, but I can't post anything in Politics—any idea why?
Scott Rodriguez54, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system? If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
That's what pops up when I log in, and I can't even read the Politics subforum!
lonebadger6 said:I just dropped by to say something, even though it’s pretty obvious this thread has lost its purpose, since hardly anyone actually cares about anything substantive anymore... they're all just here to spit 🙂
But, just so you know, there aren't any specific threads handled by individual moderators. All the mods over in the Politics section cover everything.
I'm looking for a straight answer: where's the list of historical events we aren't allowed to talk about? I asked, and apparently, that wasn't a good enough question? Am I allowed to bring up Jewish refugees moving to Palestine back then and the political shifts they caused?
Can someone give me a heads-up on which historical events are off-limits in this thread?
From what I can tell so far, talking about Ottoman conquests or the colonization of the US is a no-go, just so immigrants don't feel targeted by the comparisons, right? Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone compared me to Americans—I definitely don't see that as hate speech and wouldn't get salty if someone called me that, but hey, I guess I can live with people thinking that way.
And what's the deal with Jewish refugees moving into Palestine? Am I allowed to bring that up? Is it okay to compare refugees fleeing modern wars to the Jewish refugees escaping death camps?
Bradley Sanders4 said:Comparing refugees to Ottoman conquerors—people who were forced to flee their homes because looters showed up to take everything—is blatant trolling. It doesn't matter whether it sparks a massive debate or not. I know people are arguing over whether everyone involved is actually a refugee or not (as if that changes the reality for those who truly are), but in my book, comparing economic migrants to actual conquerors is just as much of a troll move.
As for Maria Booth's warning, I see it the same way. She compared people fleeing war, famine, or poverty to enter Europe with the European colonizers of America—basically hinting at crimes so massive they could be viewed as the largest genocide in history from today's perspective. If equating immigrants to people who committed those kinds of atrocities isn't inciting hatred, then I don't know what is.
Agreed. We all mess up sometimes.
I always figured history was supposed to be our teacher, you know? Like we're meant to learn from it. But I guess times have changed, and now you aren't even allowed to use history as an actual argument in a debate anymore. jebiga.
Quick question—am I allowed to ask for advice here on what’s okay to say regarding the immigration debate? I just got another warning for trolling, so I really don't want to push my luck.
I was thinking about drawing a parallel between current immigration trends in Europe and the migration of Jewish refugees to Palestine due to Nazi persecution, specifically looking at how that movement impacted the local Palestinian population.
Is it cool if I bring up those historical events and make comparisons like that, or is it going to be flagged as hate speech?
lonebadger6 said:That isn't an immigration issue; it’s a matter of "human character." That’s exactly why those specific links aren't allowed here. If crime rates spike in certain countries like Sweden because they're taking in more asylum seekers, that’s a whole different beast—it's way more nuanced than just saying, "they arrived, and now there's more crime because that's just who they are," but we aren't going to get into all that here... still, things like this don't get deleted; they're a perfectly normal part of the conversation.
The fact that one guy (who might have nothing to do with this current wave of immigrants, maybe he's an asylum seeker from Africa who's been here ten years, or who knows, some people were saying he's mentally unstable) attacked someone with a knife... leaving that up in this context only serves to stir up panic and make people think "the killers are coming."
There have been crimes committed by Americans in Germany, too. I doubt anyone would appreciate it if German forums started a movement to ban us from entering Germany just to prevent those kinds of crimes...
I wasn't trying to dwell on that one specific link; I was mostly talking about posts pointing out immigrant crime in general and how the mods handle that kind of thing.
Personally, I wouldn't even care if Germany banned Americans from immigrating, though it would be a pretty weird move considering Americans are among the best-integrated immigrants over there. Still, you're right—if they hadn't been let in, none of those crimes by Americans would have happened.
lonebadger6 said:By the way, regarding all this whining about "censorship" and people being silenced from expressing different views...
Maria Booth has 81 posts on this thread, and only one got flagged
Bradley White73 started this whole thing with 41 posts, and he’s only been flagged once
Nathan Brooks4 has 33 posts, with just one flag to his name
Man, because of that one totally unfair ban, I was locked out for a whole week. And of all times, it happened right during my vacation! Super annoying, seriously.
lonebadger6 said:That link of yours isn't an opinion; it’s just a blatant violation of the moderator warning posted only a few threads ago, especially since even some users who are, to put it bluntly, "anti-immigrant" have actually called for people to stop posting links to nonsense that just dilutes the discussion.
But I can spell it out for you if you need. What's the actual point of that link? What are you trying to prove? That every single asylum seeker is violent? You really think that's the only crime story coming out of Germany today... as if there hasn't been a single German, white, Christian committing a murder, a rape, or a stabbing there yesterday or today...
So, yeah, that link is just trolling. For both reasons...
I don't think you get why people post links about crimes committed by immigrants or terrorist attacks—I can tell from that one sentence I pulled out.
We can't stop a crime committed by an American citizen through any kind of immigration policy, so there's zero point debating those kinds of crimes in a thread about immigration.
But, a crime committed by an immigrant could have been prevented if we had stricter immigration policies in place. To put it simply: if that immigrant hadn't been in America, that specific crime wouldn't have happened.
That’s why I feel like pointing out these crimes is a valid argument. It doesn't mean ALL immigrants are criminals, but it shows that SOME are, and those crimes actually *could* be prevented.
Honestly, I think the moderators should let readers weigh out ALL the consequences of immigration.
Charles Fox10 said:I get what you're saying. If Bradley Sanders4 hadn't stepped in, I might have handed you a warning myself. Just drop the "euROPSKI" and similar trolling styles. You're right that you could face a ban, though—with your current points, one more strike would do it.
Bradley White73, you aren't Maria Booth, so don't expect an answer.
Drew Brooks8, you're entitled to your opinion, but personally, I think you're wrong.
Since I'm already here, ladies and gentlemen, please—read your posts carefully before hitting send. On sensitive topics like this, every single word, even a bit of bold text, matters. Our goal isn't to hand out warnings or bans, or to shut down discussions, but sometimes we simply don't have any other choice.
Ugh, I've been waiting on a reply for two whole weeks now! I filed appeals in all the right places, but still nothing. Total silence.
Count me in on the protest! Is it just me, or is this massive list of banned users getting totally weird? Are you guys planning on banning everyone who wants to stop immigration? Because if that's the plan, the whole thread will just be two random dudes and moderator Bradley Sanders4.
James Nguyen13 said:It’s honestly like how some people argue that Hezbollah was actually just a tool used by Israel to undermine the PLO.
That’s just the way the game is played with these groups. Right now, ISIS is basically fine in their eyes because they aren't being targeted—they mostly just go after other Muslims.
It wouldn't even be ideal if it was just them killing Shias; the Shias need to take out as many Sunnis joining ISIS as possible too. The whole goal is to keep this war grinding on forever so people on both sides keep dropping. Honestly, the best thing for Israel happened when Palestinians clashed with Assad's forces in Syria—those Assad troops wiped them out more than Israel ever did in its entire history!
Family is the way to go because it’s just better than any other way to raise kids, period. Parents always give their little ones 110% and focus all that energy right where it belongs. Plus, family is like private property—people always take way better care of what they actually own compared to stuff belonging to someone else!
The USA really needs to be our top political and military ally, plus we need the support of regional heavyweights like Germany, France, the UK, and even Poland.
Jack Cook7 said:Look, let’s not kid ourselves about how American foreign policy works—we all know who’s pulling the strings—but I really want to point out one massive, totally overlooked part of our global strategy.
Basically, sanctions on Iran have been dialed back. And how did Western countries react? Their business leaders basically sprinted toward Tehran through their embassies:
The Business Roundtable actually stood up for their entrepreneurs, pointing out that before them, Austrians, Germans, Portuguese, Italians, and even the Chinese rushed in to grab those profits—not to mention plenty of American businessmen too.
So, what has our own diplomacy done about it? Given who we are, we actually have a mountain of products where we could be totally competitive: - commuter trains (General Electric / Siemens / Westinghouse) - streetcars (General Electric / Siemens) - radio transmitters (Riz) - oil refinery parts and railcars (Westinghouse) - IT—software and system solutions (various firms) - all kinds of ships, from tugs to tourist subs (and more) - agriculture and fishing processing industries - light metals and fabricated goods - tourism - industrial plants and automation
How many trade sessions has our Department of State or the Department of Commerce or the US Chamber of Commerce actually organized? How much market research have they done? How many times have they sent our business leaders to Iran or vice versa since late 2013? Zero. Zilch. Nada.
And for the record, even our struggling Pfizer-equivalent here has the tech and products ready for export to Iran. Has anyone even given that a single thought?
Seriously, what does diplomacy have to do with streetcars or trains? 🤷 Market research and stuff like that is totally the US Chamber of Commerce's job. If some American company wants to do business in Iran, they should just send a few folks over there to pitch their products to Iranian firms or bid on a public contract from the Iranian government. Diplomats only really step in if things get stuck because of politics. They aren't traveling salesmen!
briskskipper27 said:So, what happens to the people who don't have the capacity to become engineers or designers?
The government will just hand out free bread and circuses to keep everyone from rioting—kind of like how they kept the crowds happy back in Rome when there weren't enough workers to go around. 🙂
Rebecca Roberts3 said:By that logic, political, military, and even individual sovereignty are equally obsolete. If we follow this trajectory, why bother with nation-states at all? We might as well just let corporations take over the role entirely.
The whole idea of monetary sovereignty is super old-fashioned. Honestly, I think the dollar, the euro, and the yuan are gonna be the only ones that actually matter globally down the road. But look, governments still hold the monopoly on force—you know, the police and the military. They’re actually pretty good at keeping things steady because people are willing to follow leaders who share their own background. An American is gonna respect an American general or cop, but they aren't about to take orders from someone from a different country. That’s why we still need nations. In terms of economics? Not really needed. Decisions about what gets made and what it costs don't happen in Washington, D.C. or Brussels anymore—it happens in shopping malls everywhere! Shoppers basically have the economic power now, voting every single day with their wallets on what gets produced and how much.
Jeffrey Wood said:Basically, it all boils down to formalities while actual sovereignty vanishes. If you don't have economic sovereignty, you don't have anything.
Like the old saying goes, "an American dollar in an American pocket"... though I guess that doesn't mean much anymore in the name of our so-called Westernization.
On top of that, they're prepping for even more radical centralization. Pretty soon, you'll just be sitting in your UN office playing checkers or Monopoly, because any real foreign policy directives are gonna be coming straight from the Politburo in Brussels anyway.
The whole idea of economic sovereignty is totally old school, like something straight out of the 19th century. In today's globalized world, massive corporations are calling the shots. Government bureaucracies just can't move fast enough to keep up with how crazy quick the global market shifts these days!