Posts by Sam Green73

wiredangler5 said:Look, I don't think he attacked him just because the guy is a veteran. We shouldn't be framing things that way, and honestly, we shouldn't be portraying police officers like that either. It’s not about making someone a hero or a villain based on their background; let's just look at the facts of what actually happened.

Based on what we’ve seen... I just finished writing that up! Looking back at that opening post, I honestly don't see any other way this could have gone down.

It’s really kind of you to step up and be willing to sit down with the FBI to walk them through everything that went down in Memphis.
I have absolutely no intention of turning my discussions with the FBI into a political debate.

coppermarlin13 said:Who exactly are we calling savages? Honestly, that’s a heavy word to throw around without some context. It feels like one of those labels people toss out whenever they're frustrated or just don't understand how someone else operates. In my experience, when things get heated in a discussion or a community, "savagery" is usually just a shorthand for behavior that lacks any kind of decorum or respect. Whether you're talking about people acting out on the streets or just folks being unruly online, it really comes down to a lack of basic civility. I've seen it happen in plenty of different circles—sometimes it's a misunderstanding, and sometimes, well, people are just being difficult for the sake of it. So, before we label anyone, we should probably ask ourselves what we actually mean by it.

To me, being a savage really just comes down to one thing: having zero respect for the basic rules that hold a civilized society together. When people decide they’re above the law and refuse to follow the standards we all agreed upon to keep things running smoothly, that's when you're looking at true savagery.

Harold Nguyen6 said:I honestly think you wouldn't mind taking a quick second to look up the legal definitions of "self-defense" versus "excessive force" before you jump in and claim that "police officers have an official duty to use force." You know, assuming you mean they have both the right and the obligation to act? It might clear things up.

Legal Discussion Forum: Law

p.s. please don't go reading things into my posts that I didn't actually say

coppermarlin13 said:It’s pretty clear from your post that you didn't follow yesterday's events in Memphis, nor did you catch how the media was covering them.

And honestly, what does that quote of yours even have to do with anything we're discussing here?

Look, I'm just reading through this thread on the FBI site and reacting to what I see right in front of me.
It's all just political maneuvering and sensationalism at this point.

coppermarlin13 said:given how a cop in a small town just brutally attacked a local veteran

😕 an officer assaulted a man simply because he's a veteran
I honestly don't think there'll be any trouble getting that officer fired for misconduct on duty.

At the end of the day, cops have a fundamental job requirement to use force when necessary.

By registering, you've agreed to our Terms of Service :

violating United States law (we want to specifically remind you about hate speech or discrimination, justifying or glorifying criminal acts, copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, etc.)

Kevin Nguyen3 said:It’s my firm belief that the fall of the Mississippi Delta was driven by nothing more than pure, messy politics. It wasn't just some unavoidable tragedy; it was the result of people playing power games while everything else crumbled.
What do you think would happen if I just came out and said it?

Just write it out.

Kevin Nguyen3 said:The Mississippi Delta fell because of nothing more than dirty politics.

That would be absolutely killer.
Look, if you really want to make a solid case for your position, I’d highly recommend you sit down and actually dig through the debate over Sarajevo first. It might save you some trouble. The implementation on the ground during the Vietnam War—it’s just like that Karađorđevo situation..
Of course, when it comes to talking about the Mississippi Delta, that’s where most of the heated debates always seem to happen. Can we talk about what happened back in the Mississippi Delta during the fighting in '92? I’ve been thinking a lot about that period lately..
Honestly, it’s getting pretty ridiculous—every single time that debate over Sarajevo comes up, someone swoops in out of nowhere claiming it's being sold off without even bothering to read the actual post first.
It feels like they always end up getting stuck right at that one specific point in their argument, circling the same drain over and over again. 🤷
Take a look at this and let me know what you think.
Maybe you’ll be the one to finally drop some heavy-hitting arguments that haven't even come up in this debate yet.

If you have any questions about moderating the Vietnam War subforum, feel free to bring them up over on the main board! Regarding that specific debate over Sarajevo....

Kevin Nguyen3 said:I didn't get a single point or even a yellow card, which honestly doesn't justify how dismissive and half-hearted the moderator's call was. It felt like they were just going through the motions without actually paying attention to what was happening on the field.

Sorry, I missed your point—what exactly are you complaining about?

Don't even try to tell me you went through this entire thread without finding the answer to the question!

Kevin Nguyen3 said:Be there, skipper!

Are you a veteran from the Sarajevo debate?
I might have missed it if it was posted somewhere earlier—I haven't been keeping up with the feed lately.

Man, this thread has exploded—we’re already sitting at 1,635 posts! Part one of the discussion. I just saw the latest numbers, and wow—we’ve already topped 8,000 enrollments! It’s honestly incredible to see that kind of momentum building up so quickly.

Look, I’m all for encouraging people to pick up a book, but I’m also going to be honest: I really can't stand it when folks come out here asking questions that have already been clearly answered. It feels like a waste of everyone's time! I always tell my friends that if you want to actually learn something, you've got to do a little legwork first. If the answer is right there in front of you, just read it!

Look, you really shouldn't take this personally. If I had just wanted you to be the only one to see that warning, I would have sent you a private message instead.

Harold Nguyen6 said:says some guy... actually, excuse me, someone who decides to punish people for using phrases like "backwoods politicians"...😁...

ps @breaker, looks like you were accidentally picked as the prime example here...

Or even better, check out this response (just saw the thread):

What kind of special status do forum users even have when it comes to being insulted? 🤣

That's a completely different story.
Ryan Vaughn7 actually lays out his reasoning, whereas breaker just throws labels around like they're some kind of absolute truth everyone already agreed on.

Susan Price30 said:It isn't the forum's fault; he's likely the one responsible for his own actions. (I did have a quick chat with Nick about this via DM, but I'll post it here too just so everyone knows exactly who they're dealing with.)

He knows perfectly well that something like this is against the subforum rules and won't be tolerated in Politics at all—it’s exactly what others get warned about.

The rule:

The code of conduct for the Politics subforum applies to the use of derogatory nicknames directed at both forum members and third parties. We will not tolerate the malicious distortion of names, such as Fran Harmon, Vladimir, or Ivo, nor will we permit the intentional misrepresentation of any user's handle.
To foster a healthy cultural dialogue, please refrain from using offensive language when discussing public figures. Posts containing such remarks will not be tolerated.The moderators also reserve the right to sanction any posts that are particularly uncivil.

post

So, zero integrity. If even one person lacks it, the whole thing falls apart. I mean, who would actually be willing to hand out warnings or bans for something someone wrote themselves, knowing full well it clearly violates the rules?

In this specific instance, my colleague was actually laying out a reasoned argument.

There’s no way he’d be getting a red card for an approach like that.

redorca13 said:Look, if my posts are getting nuked because they’re "off-topic" or if I'm catching heat for "trolling," then what on earth are we supposed to do about everyone else's posts?
Listen, dear moderator, maybe take a quick look back through the last few pages of this Josip Perkovic thread before you decide which rules to enforce—then just stick to them.

Can't you see that other people are getting flagged for the exact same stuff that got you flagged?

First you complain that there's zero moderation going on, and then you turn around and whine the second someone actually starts moderating. 🤷

redorca13 said:It’s funny how this conversation shifted from discussing the actual nature of communism straight into an interrogation about ME. It’s like I’m suddenly being treated as some walking embodiment of everything wrong with the system, rather than just a guy expressing his own opinion in a debate.

The real issue here isn't the character of communism.

So, there’s another card for the pile. Is that enough for everyone now?

redorca13 said:That warning from the Sam Green73 moderator? That was actually aimed at me. He basically accused me of only avoiding a 500-point penalty because he felt like being merciful.

Your post got nuked because it was totally off-topic.

My warning isn't just for you—it goes out to anyone else thinking about jumping back into this debate.
People have really started letting themselves go lately; just take a look at some of those unmoderated posts floating around.

Bradley White73 said:The most frustrating part about this whole situation is that things escalated precisely because Rambo Antilles followed the rules to a T. She didn't take the bait when people provoked her; instead, she just used the report button whenever someone acted out, waiting patiently for the moderators to step in and handle it.
Then, suddenly, you have three moderators and an admin jumping onto her thread just to lecture her—almost like she’s some rookie who needs to be taught how to make their jobs easier.
I suspect our friend here already knows exactly how to behave to make things smoother for you guys, and honestly, she was already doing it. Now, she’s actually asking what *you* can do to help her participate in the discussion, but the responses she’s getting feel like they're just mocking her.
Some are even suggesting she should just ignore everyone until the trolls give up. But if that's the case, then what is your actual role? You are the moderators—your job is to maintain order in the discussion.
Just look at how PowerLock handles things; that is what real moderation looks like.

(I guess Sam Green73's irrelevant and aggressive reply doesn't really surprise me much; he just took his general reluctance to actually do anything and added a layer of blatant personal animosity to it, which is probably the last thing a moderator should be doing.)

Is it really incoherent or aggressive?

Which part of my response did you fail to grasp?

I'm more than happy to break it down for you, if you actually want to understand.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Of course, they just deleted it.

Look, there's no way for you to know if a post was fake or "cardboard" if it’s already been wiped from the board.
The only way you'd actually know is if you were using a burner account to write the damn thing yourself.

Honestly, I’m just over trying to argue against your assumptions at this point. It’s exhausting.

Other people's shady posts—even the ones that get deleted—have absolutely nothing to do with you.

mistycanyon6 said:Truly stellar advice. Honestly, knowing that I don't stand a chance with 99% of women—it’s actually quite comforting. It's not like I'm looking for a knight in shining armor to swoop in and save me—I'll pass. But I am angry. There is a level of fury simmering inside me that most people couldn't possibly fathom in five lifetimes—and believe me, I have plenty of valid reasons for it.

It feels like you're spending a massive amount of your energy living in the past.
Draw a line in the sand (mentally, not literally)
Try to look toward what's coming next and focus on where you are right now.

I know, I know—it sounds like one of those cheesy Hallmark cards, but if you were sitting in a real therapist's office in Chicago, that’s exactly what they’d tell you.

On a different note, how are things going with your friends? Do you have anyone close you can really lean on?

Honestly, I’d ban coffee altogether.
People on these forums use it way too often as a crutch when they’re running low on actual, solid arguments to back up their points.

😢
whenever I'm scrolling through a ton of different chat rooms

Wait, are you telling me there's no internet access over in Antioch?