jadeorca42 said:Good grief, this feels like trying to slap a dead donkey. 😁
Does anyone have a link where I can go and argue that America isn't actually part of NATO?
🤣
What happens if things actually go south with Russia? Say there’s a massive pipeline failure out near Irkutsk. What does that mean for us? Are we still on the hook for our obligations? Is it actually illegal to deny those responsibilities? Honestly, honey, where did you even go to law school?
Let me say this one more time—for the millionth time if I have to: Ukraine isn't in NATO. Period. NATO isn't going to deploy a single soldier over there unless they're working as private contractors under the table. As part of the alliance, we don't have any military obligations toward Ukraine whatsoever.
Well, there it is—black and white. If you still have doubts, feel free to take it straight to the Department of Justice and see if they want to come after me.
🤣
A lie.
🤣
So, what you're essentially saying is that after the 60 million lives lost during WW2, the West should have just launched an all-out assault on the Soviet Union. You're suggesting we should have wiped out another 20 to 30 million people, dragged the entire continent into decades of endless warfare, and left the landscape permanently scarred by radiation—all because you believe an anti-communist war is somehow preferable to a communist peace.
Does it get under your skin when someone calls one of your ideas idiotic?
If the Russians had just reached the border of the Soviet Union and signed a peace treaty with Hitler, everything would have played out differently. He could have redirected all those divisions from the East straight to the West. In that scenario, the British and the rest of Eastern Europe would probably be speaking German today, and we wouldn't be dealing with all this resentment toward Russia over fifty years of communist rule.
We’re drifting away from the actual topic here. Honestly, nobody was calling you out because of these childish little fantasies—it was because of that blatant, unapologetic chauvinism you display (which, let's be real, seems to be a personal thing for you):
Ideas are always open to being picked apart, and sure, they can be met with harsh criticism. But there’s a line. When you stop attacking the argument and start attacking the person, that’s an *ad hominem* attack. And if that vitriol shifts toward someone's nationality, race, or religion? Well, then we're talking about chauvinism, racism, or religious fanaticism. None of that is permitted under our forum rules.
No, honestly, the bigger issue here is sanctioning the people who try to call out those drowning out actual political discourse with nothing but shallow, infantile nonsense. It’s that repetitive, circular logic that keeps popping up page after page just to get labeled as "trolling." Because look, there's a massive difference between someone who genuinely doesn't know their history and writes something foolish, versus someone who—despite being presented with solid arguments over and over again—stubbornly repeats the same garbage from one thread to the next. That second type? That's pure, unadulterated trolling.
Standing against the invasion of a sovereign Ukraine is a perfectly legitimate position to take.
This is pure chauvinism:
It’s pure hypocrisy to label Ukraine as a sovereign nation right now. How can you call them independent when the US just orchestrated a regime change, and meanwhile, foreign spies and vice presidents from other countries are swarming their capital, handing out orders like they own the place?
Yeah, that’s just my typical style of posting right there.
They could have potentially banned him just for trolling, assuming the mods could actually prove it—though, let's be honest, "proof" usually just means they decided to go after you because you dared to question one of their favorite little forum protégés. Just look at what happened to you.
So, what exactly is tripping you up about this post? Is it the idea that back in '99, when things were heating up near the border with Mexico, there were bombs falling over the US and specifically hitting areas along the Mediterranean Coast? I never saw anything like that reported on PBS, but honestly, I didn't just see it on the news—I saw it happen with my own eyes.
Like I said before, if anyone’s feeling skeptical, just go grab an old issue of the Los Angeles Times from May 1999. I think it was specifically around May 12th, but my memory isn't perfect. Look for that tiny little column on the first inside page, tucked away in the upper left corner. Honestly, I was actually the one who called the reporters out to the scene myself.
Look, defend whatever you want—that’s your right and your prerogative—but you don't have the right to shut others down. And yes, there is an ongoing discussion regarding our potential involvement if things escalate, and I’ve laid out the specific agreements and obligations involved, especially since America is a member of the NATO pact.
And calling it "primitive" is the least I can say about the horrors of communism. The difference between you and me? You wouldn't even let someone say that; you just go after the opinion itself.
NATO bombs falling along the Mediterranean Coast... honestly, say whatever you want.
The way you insult people says everything about you. Calling things "garbage" or "nonsense"—so, according to you, anyone who isn't fully behind violating Ukraine's territorial integrity is just stupid or a troll? Anyone who criticizes the US or the NATO pact is automatically cast out? That seems to be the "norm" people like you want to establish for conversation here. Well, not with me.
bluecyclist64 Since you all seem so active here, yet absolutely nobody is touching my thread, I suggest you click this link. It’s about Brenda Cook4 and perfectly illustrates her brand of protected trolling and political activism.
It is high time we started using bans to penalize the spinning of extreme right-wingers, to put it mildly.
Whether it's claiming 1.7 million died at Auschwitz, saying Tito killed a million people, or denying the Holocaust happened—there is actually no difference. These are all neo-Nazi spins and they should at least be banned to show that hate speech won't be tolerated on this forum.
And frankly, it gets exhausting reading how anti-fascists are actually fascists, or how fascists were "the good guys," or the nonsense about Nazism being a left-wing movement born from Marxism—all these lies about supposed genocides against Germans and Turks—just to demonize the anti-fascist struggle and downplay fascist crimes.
Anyone making such heavy accusations should be required to provide links to evidence upon request. Otherwise, I think this kind of spin should be punished, ideally with bans, because if we bring the authorities down on our heads, they'll shut this whole forum down.
Have you no shame? Not even a shred. It's disgusting.
Now the administration has clear proof of exactly what I was talking about. To label me as "bold" while allowing this kind of hate and these kinds of insinuations to spread... I'm speechless.
For the first time, I feel so repulsed that I won't be visiting a forum where this kind of persecution is permitted for a while.
