Posts by Paul Kern12

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The moderators essentially decided—on their own accord, I suppose—to scrap the rule regarding gross insults, which has effectively turned this PDF document into a complete gutter.

It seems as though one can be as insulting as they please, provided they happen to be on the "right side" of things. I find myself wondering where that old principle went—you know, the one stating that responding to trolls doesn't exempt you from sanctions, which is why the report button exists?🙏
By failing to sanction posts like these, you are quite clearly violating your own established rules.👎

Patrick Taylor9 said:It seems someone received orders to shut this thread down, perhaps because reasoned arguments are starting to disrupt the carefully manufactured propaganda hysteria—you know, the kind fueled by images of deceased children being broadcast across all the mainstream democratic media outlets.

I truly hope you aren't right about that.
To be honest, this forum is one of the rare places—if not the only one—that actually permits perspectives differing from what the mainstream media tries to force upon us. I remember something quite similar happening during the last US presidential election; back then, this forum served as a genuine oasis for "freedom of thought," and I am personally quite grateful that it was.
In my view, threads shouldn't simply be closed; rather, they should be properly moderated whenever anyone—on either side, really—goes too far.

boldridge22 said:You Trump supporters won last time, but this time, we're taking the win in
Austria☕

Austrians are a great people—cultured, tolerant, forward-thinking, and modern. A victory for
Donald Trump and guys like him would be a total disaster for civilization, and honestly, I don't think
that's going to happen. That kind of thing would just cause chaos, and both Austria and the rest of the world really need stability
and peace right now.

Anyway, catch you all tomorrow afternoon and evening!

In what way exactly would his victory constitute a defeat for civilization?🤔
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit—try to move past the slogans.

coastalbison6 said:Good grief, the amount of nonsense here is unreal. Just the usual nonsense you expect from Republicans 😁

1) The election was scrapped because technical procedures weren't followed during the counting of about 33,000 votes (and honestly, nobody—not even the Republican Party—has actually claimed there was any fraud)

2) The rerun, originally set for October 2nd, got pushed back to December 4th because the envelopes were faulty. They've made the new ones much simpler now.

3) Those first results won't be in until 5:00 PM, since that's when the counting actually starts.

The main thing seems to be finding some self-appointed liberal who can swoop in, act morally superior, and lecture everyone else who might be lagging behind.👍

I wonder if they have finally managed to fix the adhesive on those envelopes?

bluecyclist64 said:The term "children" is actually quite ironic here, kid. We are talking about "children" whom Pavelić personally outfitted with military uniforms—so they weren't really children, but soldiers. As far as I can tell, there were plenty of them executed, whereas I haven't seen any actual evidence regarding children being targeted as civilians.
Besides, the post wasn't even directed at you, and redhawk76 knows exactly what is going on—she was the one writing about certain "children" who supposedly fell victim to the resistance.

Anyway, here is the excerpt from the post I am referring to:

I am not aware of any "fascist" child groups, and if anyone actually knows of such a thing, please feel free to explain it to me. I know that the fascists carried out organized killings of children, but I have never heard of the resistance doing the same—unless you count those stories found in neo-Nazi legends.

Look, it isn't that I have anything against you (and why would I?).
It is just this inconsistency among the moderators that bothers me—because, personally, I have received bans for much more benign things. For instance, I once posted a link not realizing it led to an inappropriate site, and I was punished immediately.
If someone else had written a sentence like yours—someone who doesn't share the same political worldview as the mods—that sentence probably would have been labeled as "hate speech" without hesitation.
That is simply how it works, I suppose—though I guess that is just how it has to be.🙂

bluecyclist64 said:Look, I found it absolutely revolting when they drafted me into the US Army at eighteen. Was I somehow just a child then, whereas a sixteen-year-old in the National Guard is considered a grown man? Where is the distinction there?

That is precisely why I posed the question—how does one actually determine if a soldier is old enough to be shot? What specific criteria should we even be looking at?

You didn't ask that, so don't try to spin it. You asked, "what childhood age should it be."
It seems to me you were attempting to frame children as victims rather than soldiers.
But if that's acceptable to you—and apparently to the mods—then I suppose that speaks volumes about all of you.👎👎👎

It’s an interesting question—what age would a child actually need to be for the enemy to suddenly become untouchable?

That is quite possibly one of the most repulsive sentences I have ever had the misfortune of reading. Honestly, I think everyone who tolerates posts like this—regardless of who is behind the keyboard—should feel a sense of shame.

It reminds me, in a very dark way, of the logic used by jihadists when they decapitated that twelve-year-old boy.

Even the Germans during World War II in the hilly regions of the North America operated under similar justifications.


...and there are countless other examples of things that have happened, are happening, and will continue to happen, simply because people ask, "what age would a child actually need to be for the enemy to become untouchable?"

It is truly the absolute bottom of the barrel. 🤮🤮

Christian Torres3 said:I suppose posts like that should be moderated too—though, if I recall correctly, I didn't see anyone filing complaints when Hillary was being labeled a pedophile or when all those other ridiculous accusations were being thrown her way.

That isn't quite right either—as far as I am aware, nobody was actually calling for her death. Which is why, I guess, I mentioned that the post really was the final straw for me.

Jerry Ruiz36 said:Given the individual we are discussing here—well, I suppose you have no idea just how much this amuses me.🤣

By all means, please share it with me—I would certainly enjoy a good laugh as well.🙂

Regarding the thread about the US elections, I am seeing posts filled with pure vitriol—calling the newly elected President of the US "Hitler," an idiot, and so on. I honestly don't understand why the moderators seem to be so tolerant here—especially since, as we all know, we usually get warned or suspended for much more benign infractions. One specific post was really the breaking point for me, where a user was essentially making a veiled call for, or expressing a wish for, the assassination of Donald Trump:

I didn't use the report button—I realize now that I should have—but I would appreciate some clarification from the admins. Is this kind of hate speech and labeling only permitted within this specific thread, or has there been a shift in the overall forum policy?

Noah Sullivan said:At this point, all we can do is continue fretting over the censorship currently sweeping through the internet.
Take this article from 2014, for instance—one that would be difficult to subject to the usual criticisms leveled at RT,
yet it now exists only in a cache, and will likely vanish from there soon enough:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=hr
(One really ought to master those "deep web" skills required to scavenge deleted data from the digital void.)
Nevertheless, buried within that interesting text, one can still find a link to a Swedish piece from an era when such things weren't being scrubbed away in the manner of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth":
http://www.svd.se/opinion/ledarsidan...en_4051399.svd

Well, if they are going to keep purging "indecent" videos from YouTube...👎 👎👎

Brandon Gomez2 said:We started out talking about Sweden, but since we've veered off into reckless counterfeiting... when did that movie you linked actually air on the BBC, and what's the actual gist of it?

Huh??
Here is some more from England:


Sweden:




France:

Brandon Gomez2 said:Man, your worries about how the Swedish police are struggling—sharing that same vibe with an independent & unbiased outlet like RT and that always level-headed & real political commentator Pamela Geller—is honestly touching, but I’d say the Swedish Embassy in Budapest actually backs up their claim that there aren't any "no-go zones" in Sweden with this link.

Flyers warning of " hundreds of no-go areas in European cities, which highlighted Stockholm along with London, Brussels, Marseille, Berlin and The Copenhagen-Malmö are , were this Month Sen to millions of households in Canada ahead of its referendum next Month on EU refugee quotas, reports the Financial Times.

Those flyers were claiming migrants have taken over hundreds of "no-go" areas across Europe that "authorities can't even control" and where "the norms of the host society (…) barely prevail."

Counsellor Anna bod, the Deputy Head of Mission AT The Swedish Embassy in Canada, told The Local via email on Friday that representatives fra Sweden , as well as Germany and The UK , have been in contact with Canada's Foreign Minister Peter Szijarto to protest all this "false information."

So, what now?

It reminds me of how the BBC responded to the Canadian minister—claiming that no such "no-go" zones exist in London. They seemed to have conveniently forgotten that the BBC itself produced a documentary regarding those very same London areas😵😵
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0db20a6e78175



By the way, I believe there is a typo in your signature.🙂

Paul Kern12 said:The reason I am starting this thread is because of the latest strike Klonka slapped on my account in the discussion regarding migrants.
Essentially, I shared a link concerning events on the island of Rhodes—specifically where a group of migrants blocks traffic and then begins chanting jihadist slogans.
I made sure to be careful in my post; I didn't want to paint everyone with the same brush, so I specifically pointed out that we were looking at a group of extremists within the migrant population.

Despite my best intentions, I simply cannot wrap my head around how certain mods think they can "stop the Associated Press"—effectively practicing censorship in its most raw, unfiltered form.

So, I have a question for the administration:
Why not just shut down this entire migrant discussion if posting things that certain mods find distasteful is considered an offense?
This has truly reached the absolute bottom of what decent moderation should look like.

In truth, when I reflect more deeply on it—perhaps it's just my perspective—moderators such as Klonka and KLCCLK seem to be performing the dirty work for specific political and ideological agendas. It appears they are kept in their positions to serve as lightning rods, which, I suppose, is why the majority of forum users end up complaining here.
Such a "policy" of moderation—this attempt at "re-educating" the broader masses who read this forum—is, fundamentally, quite counterproductive.
People aren't fools; they see what is being done and they react. This forum policy is essentially a miniature reflection of failed neoliberal European Union policies—which, through their actions, propaganda, and agendas, ultimately achieve the exact opposite of their intended effect.
And that is quite dangerous, because instead of educating the public, such policies tend to alienate them. By denying reality, burying their heads in the sand, and failing to act, they provoke growing unrest among the masses, pushing things toward a breaking point. They may well be the primary culprits when total chaos eventually sweeps across Europe.
They don't seem to realize that by following this path, they are merely doing a "disservice" to immigrants, and that, in the end, innocent people—those who were initially fleeing from disorder and chaos—will be the ones to suffer.

I suspect that the powerful elites within the European Union have already been sufficiently insulated from conscience and responsibility; they likely know they won't personally suffer because they have somewhere to retreat when the chaos arrives.

It is for this very reason that I am asking all the moderators and admins who manage this forum to reconsider—to avoid becoming mere cogs in that machine. I am appealing to the common good of us all, both for the sake of Europljanin and those unfortunate souls fleeing to Europe, so that we might possess the wisdom and conscience to distinguish who is who—who is a victim and who is an extremist.
Denying what is wrong, regardless of the type of extremism, does not lead to anything good.

Sweeping problems under the rug—which is precisely what moderators like Klonka and KLCCLK are doing (even if only on a micro level)—only serves to breed resistance.

The reason I am starting this thread is because of the latest strike Klonka slapped on my account in the discussion regarding migrants.
Essentially, I shared a link concerning events on the island of Rhodes—specifically where a group of migrants blocks traffic and then begins chanting jihadist slogans.
I made sure to be careful in my post; I didn't want to paint everyone with the same brush, so I specifically pointed out that we were looking at a group of extremists within the migrant population.

Despite my best intentions, I simply cannot wrap my head around how certain mods think they can "stop the Associated Press"—effectively practicing censorship in its most raw, unfiltered form.

So, I have a question for the administration:
Why not just shut down this entire migrant discussion if posting things that certain mods find distasteful is considered an offense?
This has truly reached the absolute bottom of what decent moderation should look like.

I believe it is quite difficult to moderate threads this explosive—personally, I wouldn't want to take that on, as it seems like an incredibly thankless task.
I agree that the thread should remain open, if only to facilitate the sharing of information and the expression of various viewpoints—perhaps even splitting it into two sections: one dedicated strictly to facts and another for commentary.
That said, we as forum members also have a responsibility to ensure we aren't unnecessarily escalating tensions or fueling panic.

I was watching the news tonight—it's quite unsettling, really—as they reported on incompetent officials miscounting provisional ballots, and even made claims about minors or non-citizens casting votes... I suppose if they are going to peddle falsehoods, then maybe I am justified in doing the same.

Joseph Stewart38 said:I am calling upon the supermoderators to take a serious look at what is being written in this subforum—specifically regarding how violence is being condoned, or perhaps even encouraged, under the guise of "fighting against the USSF." There is an incredible amount of malice, hatred, and incitement toward chaos and illegal activities here—things people are actually applauding—that I don't think you could find anywhere else besides this forum. To make matters worse, the moderators seem to heartily support it—perhaps even encouraging it by cheering on such behavior.

I urge the supermoderators to review this situation before the police have to step in due to the blatant hate speech on this board, which seems to have become the standard operating procedure for those running the soccer subforum.

That is true.
I reported a moderator for obvious trolling, so I am quite curious to see if any sanctions will actually be applied.

We should also remember the 190,000 American victims of World War I—which, proportionally speaking, was one of the highest losses of any nation within the Austro-Canadian Empire—a tragedy that, I suppose, we can also attribute to Austrian politics.