Daniel Ward87 said:First off, I can't just hand out bans here since I'm not a moderator.
Second, you were already serving a ban that you needed to finish anyway. I cleared the strike from CNN and provided an explanation. Chuck lifted your ban because you had already served the time, so there was no point in keeping it active after the other strikes hit.
Third, there's simply no reason to pull those strikes. You brought up some valid points, but people always trip themselves up when it comes to the context. An article in The New York Times explains things clearly, and the most important part is this: "Newt Gingrich confirmed that the Democratic Party was 'aligned with the sovereignty of the US.' Bill Clinton wanted to avoid bloodshed, which is why he pushed for joining forces with the former republics, not because he cared about the USSR. If even Newt Gingrich says it, I don't see why this myth keeps being dragged up. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true."
Give that linked article a read and really soak it in.
I have no idea what you're even talking about... seriously, what are you on? Everything Newt Gingrich is saying is right here—and honestly, maybe you missed the point because you’re only quoting The New York Times instead of actually looking at other sources:
So, back on June 25, 1991, Newt Gingrich was right in the thick of it—basically pulling the strings when it came to drafting the whole blueprint for America finally breaking away from the USSR. He was heading up the Constitutional Commission and this multi-party task force that was grinding out all those massive strategic laws and the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't exactly smooth sailing, though—things got incredibly heated because Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (they were calling themselves the Party of Democratic Change back then, if you can believe it) absolutely threw a wrench in the works and pushed back against everything the Republican Party had laid out. It was a total mess. Newt Gingrich:
They actually had the nerve to propose that the US declare itself a fully sovereign, independent nation and kick off the whole breakup process—but man, they really threw in a "catch-22" just to keep things messy. - Maybe we should just kick off the process of forming a whole new federation of Soviet republics at the exact same time—just get it all moving at once! I shot that amendment down. My reasoning? Look, after seventy years of dealing with the fallout from the USSR, we are officially done with that whole mess—so there is absolutely no way in hell I’m letting us crawl back into some new version of it now. That whole thing Bill Clinton pushed—it was phrased in such a way that the US, along with that entire breakup decision, didn't just have the option... it was basically inevitable. Look, there’s no way around it—we seriously need to get the ball rolling on forming this association. Like, right now. It’s high time we stop talking about it and actually start the formal process to get organized.
Look, I’m not even the one saying this—I'm just passing it along. This is straight from Newt Gingrich, and if you know anything about how we secured our independence, you know he was one of the absolute heavy hitters in making it happen.
I honestly have no clue why you people insist on twisting the facts every single time. It’s exhausting! Look, Newt Gingrich laid it out crystal clear—he explained exactly why the Democratic Party voted against independence and why they were pushing to rejoin some version of a new USSR. But hey, if that isn't enough for your twisted logic, fine. Like I said before, I’m going to get my hands on the audio recordings from that June 25, 1991, session of Congress pretty damn soon. Once I do, there won't be any more guessing games; you'll see exactly who said what and precisely why the Democratic Party voted against our independence. Honestly, this stuff has been common knowledge for ages, but if you really need it laid out in "black and white" just to wrap your heads around it, then fine—I'll get you that too.
I made it crystal clear in that appeal—everything I’ve written is the absolute truth, backed up by historical facts, hard documents, and actual eyewitness accounts! Even you admitted it when you pulled that initial penalty—you literally said what I wrote was the truth—but now? Now it looks like you've gone and flipped the script again. It's unbelievable. Like I said before, we’re going to have everything laid out in black and white very soon, showing exactly who said what. Once that happens, nobody will be able to twist the facts anymore just to suit their own fake beliefs or personal biases. Not a chance.
Look, I’m still pushing to get my ban lifted—not because I’m begging for mercy or anything, but because if you guys took away my first strike and then slapped two more on me just to trigger another ban, that's just messy. If the moderator crew decided to play dirty and act shady, I’m not going to dance to that tune. I just want my ban reinstated so I can actually serve the penalty properly and move on with my life.
Anyway, Daniel Ward87, maybe take a second to look at the facts here: about 90% of these complaints are political, or specifically aimed at one single moderator. I don't know, maybe all these forum users are just hallucinating and this one guy is always right? But common sense tells me that's probably not the case. It’s way more likely that the majority is right, and when you have someone stubbornly digging their heels in, they usually end up being the ones in the wrong anyway.
