Being a mod has zero to do with anything being discussed here. 

The political forum didn't exist here for a long time because mods knew it would be divisive and combative. 

We eventually relented due to more and more folks asking for the space to talk politics. 
I voted against it FWIW but agreed to support the majority - as is our standard method of decision making as a mod team. 

I'm sorry I've clearly upset you by being crass about not agreeing with you on occasion. 

In case you missed the context, I'll refresh your memory. 
The first time - "almost nothing he says resonates with me" I was countering a post that haphazardly threw my whole line of principle in with yours. 
I hate braod-sweeping-generalizations in debate because they are lazy, inaccurate and counter productive to discourse so I disagreed in the manner you took offense to. 

Next: YOU made a broad-sweeping-generalization about how the left feel on a topic that was wildly inaccurate - so I pointed that out as ruining your entire ensuing post. It did. 

I'm fine with both of those instances, and as far as I remember those are the only times I've posted anything that might offend you. Apologies offered for the harshness, but I don't feel I did anything wrong besides expressing myself with minimal filter. 

I wouldn't post in this forum AT ALL if I needed people to agree with me. 
You might consider a similar approach.

The most I hope for is to occasionally broaden someones perspective and have my own perspective augmented by others viewpoints.

I appreciate your reply and your apology.
But I really don't understand why you took such umbrage at my generalization. 
You don't mind being identified with the left,
You said reform priority #1 is getting corporate money out of politics
I said all lefties feel that way,
So what is the problem?
If you weren't a lefty, or if you didn't care about corporate money in politics, I could see why my statement would upset you. No one likes to be mischaracterized. But I was just reflecting your own positions back to you.  Why is that not OK?
Why do you let actual violent extremism pass with no comment, and then drop bombs on my stuff?

To the bolded:

That is an inaccurate version of the posts in question. 

I made zero attempt to prioritize anything about campaign reform at all. I made a statement. You're adding your own interpretation of priority. 
You took a thread about election results being validated into the waters of corruption and campaign/primary reform, which is fine, but when those words come out, it is my inclination to mention big money driving campaigns.  
I wasn't saying finance reform is the ONLY fix, I wasn't saying this is the #1 priority. That's all coming from you. 

Then - you went on to proffer this little chestnut:
Anyone remotely left leaning thinks everything is because big bad corporations give money to candidates.

Huh?? 
No. 
That's a broad sweeping generalization of millions upon millions of people who have a wide array of nuanced opinions about that topic. 
If you want to acknowledge the comment is ill advised and inaccurate - I'd take you more seriously. 

I certainly never asserted that  - and I'm sure there are many other left leaning folk out there who would not characterize corporate money to candidates as the main cause of "everything." Whatever the [BLEEP] that means. 

Now - to put a bow on this - because I'm not going to keep digressing  - I'll tie this clearly in to the topic at hand. 

Millions and millions of corporate and private dollars are being spent on campaign ads by PACs and Super PACs to promote candidates  - and the ads are using increasingly alarming disinformation.
 Where we draw the line on this stuff is one facet of controlling the dangerous rhetoric I was attempting to spotlight in this thread, and one of the reasons I still want campaign finance reform even though you think you prioritize it differently than I do.

Oh, and did you just say I let violent extremism pass without comment?? 
I started a [BLEEP] thread about it!

---

I appreciate your reply and your apology.
But I really don't understand why you took such umbrage at my generalization. 
You don't mind being identified with the left,
You said reform priority #1 is getting corporate money out of politics
I said all lefties feel that way,
So what is the problem?
If you weren't a lefty, or if you didn't care about corporate money in politics, I could see why my statement would upset you. No one likes to be mischaracterized. But I was just reflecting your own positions back to you.  Why is that not OK?
Why do you let actual violent extremism pass with no comment, and then drop bombs on my stuff?

To the bolded:

That is an inaccurate version of the posts in question. 

I made zero attempt to prioritize anything about campaign reform at all. I made a statement. You're adding your own interpretation of priority. 
You took a thread about election results being validated into the waters of corruption and campaign/primary reform, which is fine, but when those words come out, it is my inclination to mention big money driving campaigns.  
I wasn't saying finance reform is the ONLY fix, I wasn't saying this is the #1 priority. That's all coming from you. 

Then - you went on to proffer this little chestnut:
Anyone remotely left leaning thinks everything is because big bad corporations give money to candidates.

Huh?? 
No. 
That's a broad sweeping generalization of millions upon millions of people who have a wide array of nuanced opinions about that topic. 
If you want to acknowledge the comment is ill advised and inaccurate - I'd take you more seriously. 

I certainly never asserted that  - and I'm sure there are many other left leaning folk out there who would not characterize corporate money to candidates as the main cause of "everything." Whatever the [BLEEP] that means. 

Now - to put a bow on this - because I'm not going to keep digressing  - I'll tie this clearly in to the topic at hand. 

Millions and millions of corporate and private dollars are being spent on campaign ads by PACs and Super PACs to promote candidates  - and the ads are using increasingly alarming disinformation.
 Where we draw the line on this stuff is one facet of controlling the dangerous rhetoric I was attempting to spotlight in this thread, and one of the reasons I still want campaign finance reform even though you think you prioritize it differently than I do.

Oh, and did you just say I let violent extremism pass without comment?? 
I started a [BLEEP] thread about it!

On violent extremism:
You made a thread about it at least 2 years too late. 
After insulting those who have already been posting about it
All while refusing to use your mod powers to warn and steer these discussions
You're as useless as a gelded stud.

On the priority you assign to campaign finance reform:
You obviously assign it a higher priority than term limits, single subject rules, ranked choice voting, or any of the other many reforms that other posters were bringing up.  It's the only one you wanted to talk about.  Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.  Yes, I used the word "everything".  It's hyperbole, man.  Deal with it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

To the bolded:

That is an inaccurate version of the posts in question. 

I made zero attempt to prioritize anything about campaign reform at all. I made a statement. You're adding your own interpretation of priority. 
You took a thread about election results being validated into the waters of corruption and campaign/primary reform, which is fine, but when those words come out, it is my inclination to mention big money driving campaigns.  
I wasn't saying finance reform is the ONLY fix, I wasn't saying this is the #1 priority. That's all coming from you. 

Then - you went on to proffer this little chestnut:
Anyone remotely left leaning thinks everything is because big bad corporations give money to candidates.

Huh?? 
No. 
That's a broad sweeping generalization of millions upon millions of people who have a wide array of nuanced opinions about that topic. 
If you want to acknowledge the comment is ill advised and inaccurate - I'd take you more seriously. 

I certainly never asserted that  - and I'm sure there are many other left leaning folk out there who would not characterize corporate money to candidates as the main cause of "everything." Whatever the [BLEEP] that means. 

Now - to put a bow on this - because I'm not going to keep digressing  - I'll tie this clearly in to the topic at hand. 

Millions and millions of corporate and private dollars are being spent on campaign ads by PACs and Super PACs to promote candidates  - and the ads are using increasingly alarming disinformation.
 Where we draw the line on this stuff is one facet of controlling the dangerous rhetoric I was attempting to spotlight in this thread, and one of the reasons I still want campaign finance reform even though you think you prioritize it differently than I do.

Oh, and did you just say I let violent extremism pass without comment?? 
I started a [BLEEP] thread about it!

On violent extremism:
You made a thread about it at least 2 years too late. 
After insulting those who have already been posting about it
All while refusing to use your mod powers to warn and steer these discussions
You're as useless as a gelded stud.

On the priority you assign to campaign finance reform:
You obviously assign it a higher priority than term limits, single subject rules, ranked choice voting, or any of the other many reforms that other posters were bringing up.  It's the only one you wanted to talk about.  Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.  Yes, I used the word "everything".  It's hyperbole, man.  Deal with it.

Not sure why you've decided that a moderator who until recently avoided this forum minus brief interjections should somehow now save it from itself. 
I didn't realize it was on me to pick up some torch I didn't know existed and lead a parade with it. 

If it wasn't obvious - this place bears a "beware all who enter here" sign when compared to the rest of the message board. 

I converse here with the knowledge that things get divisive and heated and it requires a thick skin. 

I'm not trying to let anyone down by not over-policing the one place on the board where things are going to understandably become uncompromising. I'm just being realistic. 

It's OK to just disagree, and there are going to be some despicable opinions blurted about here. I've called many posters out for that when I've seen it - if I felt like stating a dissenting opinion at the time. Sometimes I don't bother. 
I'm not here to make this a happy place for anyone including myself. Just occasionally adding some food for thought from a rarely expressed viewpoint by most of our regulars. 

I'm OK with that. 
Sorry you feel like I let you down somehow, but I don't have any magical ability to rein in web-based political debate. I don't know anyone who does. You can continue to insult me about it if it makes you feel better. 

Regarding the bolded, that just isn't true. You are putting words in my mouth. I made a statement and you've attributed all those other things to me with absolutely nothing to support them. In fact - I've never even considered how I'd prioritize all of those things.

---

Guys, guys, guys...cmon now, you can't be arguing like this. You're on the same side!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But you and NYC are both Moderates... YOU'RE on the same side! Down with the elites!!!

Seriously, though, this might be the weirdest direction Mikey's ever taken a thread.

---

But you and NYC are both Moderates... YOU'RE on the same side! Down with the elites!!!

Seriously, though, this might be the weirdest direction Mikey's ever taken a thread.

LOL



I thought I'd made it clear I was an opinionated jerk with no allegiances but I guess I'll need to put it in my signature or something

---

You guys better use protection..

---

Mike just contrarianed himself into a weird place. Don't say anything to him about his purple hair and Spiro Agnew t-shirt. He's exploring boundaries right now.

---

On violent extremism:
You made a thread about it at least 2 years too late. 
After insulting those who have already been posting about it
All while refusing to use your mod powers to warn and steer these discussions
You're as useless as a gelded stud.

On the priority you assign to campaign finance reform:
You obviously assign it a higher priority than term limits, single subject rules, ranked choice voting, or any of the other many reforms that other posters were bringing up.  It's the only one you wanted to talk about.  Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.  Yes, I used the word "everything".  It's hyperbole, man.  Deal with it.

Not sure why you've decided that a moderator who until recently avoided this forum minus brief interjections should somehow  now save it from itself. 
I didn't realize it was on me to pick up some torch I didn't know existed and lead a parade with it. 

If it wasn't obvious - this place bears a "beware all who enter here" sign when compared to the rest of the message board. 

I converse here with the knowledge that things get divisive and heated and it requires a thick skin. 

I'm not trying to let anyone down by not over-policing the one place on the board where things are going to understandably become uncompromising. I'm just being realistic. 

It's OK to just disagree, and there are going to be some despicable opinions blurted about here. I've called many posters out for that when I've seen it - if I felt like stating a dissenting opinion at the time. Sometimes I don't bother. 
I'm not here to make this a happy place for anyone including myself. Just occasionally adding some food for thought from a rarely expressed viewpoint by most of our regulars. 

I'm OK with that. 
Sorry you feel like I let you down somehow, but I don't have any magical ability to rein in web-based political debate. I don't know anyone who does. You can continue to insult me about it if it makes you feel better. 

Regarding the bolded, that just isn't true. You are putting words in my mouth. I made a statement and you've attributed all those other things to me with absolutely nothing to support them. In fact - I've never even considered how I'd prioritize all of those things.

I'm fine with the minimal moderation, though I would like more.
I'm fine with moderators being rude and harsh with me, though I wish they would be constructive while being harsh. But I know that takes a lot of mental energy.
I'm fine with anybody coming on here and saying let's speak against violent extremism.
But it's the combination of the three, man.  
When you refuse to do anything about it in your actual zone of influence, when you're rude and dismissive to those who are trying to help, and then you say that you really do care, it's just a baffling level of hypocrisy that one doesn't see every day. 

What's done is done. I'm sure I overreacted.  
But like, try to see it my way.  Posters have been saying my posts seem inauthentic.  So I put some authentic emotion into them, and you blast me for using hyperbole.  Granted, you're not the one who called me inauthentic, and they're not the ones who overreacted to the hyperbole I used, but it's frustrating.  Can't reach those who don't want to be reached, I guess.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I mean, can you even "put" authenticity into anything without it immediately becoming manipulative?

---

I mean, can you even "put" authenticity into anything without it immediately becoming manipulative?

It's there regardless.  You can leave it there or edit it out.  But thanks for proving my point.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not sure why you've decided that a moderator who until recently avoided this forum minus brief interjections should somehow  now save it from itself. 
I didn't realize it was on me to pick up some torch I didn't know existed and lead a parade with it. 

If it wasn't obvious - this place bears a "beware all who enter here" sign when compared to the rest of the message board. 

I converse here with the knowledge that things get divisive and heated and it requires a thick skin. 

I'm not trying to let anyone down by not over-policing the one place on the board where things are going to understandably become uncompromising. I'm just being realistic. 

It's OK to just disagree, and there are going to be some despicable opinions blurted about here. I've called many posters out for that when I've seen it - if I felt like stating a dissenting opinion at the time. Sometimes I don't bother. 
I'm not here to make this a happy place for anyone including myself. Just occasionally adding some food for thought from a rarely expressed viewpoint by most of our regulars. 

I'm OK with that. 
Sorry you feel like I let you down somehow, but I don't have any magical ability to rein in web-based political debate. I don't know anyone who does. You can continue to insult me about it if it makes you feel better. 

Regarding the bolded, that just isn't true. You are putting words in my mouth. I made a statement and you've attributed all those other things to me with absolutely nothing to support them. In fact - I've never even considered how I'd prioritize all of those things.

I'm fine with the minimal moderation, though I would like more.
I'm fine with moderators being rude and harsh with me, though I wish they would be constructive while being harsh. But I know that takes a lot of mental energy.
I'm fine with anybody coming on here and saying let's speak against violent extremism.
But it's the combination of the three, man.  
When you refuse to do anything about it in your actual zone of influence, when you're rude and dismissive to those who are trying to help, and then you say that you really do care, it's just a baffling level of hypocrisy that one doesn't see every day. 

What's done is done. I'm sure I overreacted.  
But like, try to see it my way.  Posters have been saying my posts seem inauthentic.  So I put some authentic emotion into them, and you blast me for using hyperbole.  Granted, you're not the one who called me inauthentic, and they're not the ones who overreacted to the hyperbole I used, but it's frustrating.  Can't reach those who don't want to be reached, I guess.

You only want more moderation because you think it will be in your favor. You only cry because people know you for what you are. You are so arrogant as to think you are in a position that people need you to reach them never considering that you're the one who is lost.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Not sure why you've decided that a moderator who until recently avoided this forum minus brief interjections should somehow  now save it from itself. 
I didn't realize it was on me to pick up some torch I didn't know existed and lead a parade with it. 

If it wasn't obvious - this place bears a "beware all who enter here" sign when compared to the rest of the message board. 

I converse here with the knowledge that things get divisive and heated and it requires a thick skin. 

I'm not trying to let anyone down by not over-policing the one place on the board where things are going to understandably become uncompromising. I'm just being realistic. 

It's OK to just disagree, and there are going to be some despicable opinions blurted about here. I've called many posters out for that when I've seen it - if I felt like stating a dissenting opinion at the time. Sometimes I don't bother. 
I'm not here to make this a happy place for anyone including myself. Just occasionally adding some food for thought from a rarely expressed viewpoint by most of our regulars. 

I'm OK with that. 
Sorry you feel like I let you down somehow, but I don't have any magical ability to rein in web-based political debate. I don't know anyone who does. You can continue to insult me about it if it makes you feel better. 

Regarding the bolded, that just isn't true. You are putting words in my mouth. I made a statement and you've attributed all those other things to me with absolutely nothing to support them. In fact - I've never even considered how I'd prioritize all of those things.

I'm fine with the minimal moderation, though I would like more.
I'm fine with moderators being rude and harsh with me, though I wish they would be constructive while being harsh. But I know that takes a lot of mental energy.
I'm fine with anybody coming on here and saying let's speak against violent extremism.
But it's the combination of the three, man.  
When you refuse to do anything about it in your actual zone of influence, when you're rude and dismissive to those who are trying to help, and then you say that you really do care, it's just a baffling level of hypocrisy that one doesn't see every day. 

What's done is done. I'm sure I overreacted.  
But like, try to see it my way.  Posters have been saying my posts seem inauthentic.  So I put some authentic emotion into them, and you blast me for using hyperbole.  Granted, you're not the one who called me inauthentic, and they're not the ones who overreacted to the hyperbole I used, but it's frustrating.  Can't reach those who don't want to be reached, I guess.

I don't discount your sincerity. If you see yourself as fighting a good fight here, more power to you.
I personally don't take it that seriously.
I just have a jaded view of any actual good coming from this type of discourse and I don't kid myself about being anyone's savior in a political debate.
Out of general respect, I'll be more mindful of your intentions when I respond.
Afraid that's the best I can offer.

---

I'm fine with the minimal moderation, though I would like more.
I'm fine with moderators being rude and harsh with me, though I wish they would be constructive while being harsh. But I know that takes a lot of mental energy.
I'm fine with anybody coming on here and saying let's speak against violent extremism.
But it's the combination of the three, man.  
When you refuse to do anything about it in your actual zone of influence, when you're rude and dismissive to those who are trying to help, and then you say that you really do care, it's just a baffling level of hypocrisy that one doesn't see every day. 

What's done is done. I'm sure I overreacted.  
But like, try to see it my way.  Posters have been saying my posts seem inauthentic.  So I put some authentic emotion into them, and you blast me for using hyperbole.  Granted, you're not the one who called me inauthentic, and they're not the ones who overreacted to the hyperbole I used, but it's frustrating.  Can't reach those who don't want to be reached, I guess.

You only want more moderation because you think it will be in your favor. You only cry because people know you for what you are. You are so arrogant as to think you are in a position that people need you to reach them never considering that you're the one who is lost.

That's not constructive.  Being constructive would take more mental energy, and I respect that you may not have that, or may not want to invest it in an internet rando if you do have it.
 
But you don't know [BLEEP] about me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You only want more moderation because you think it will be in your favor. You only cry because people know you for what you are. You are so arrogant as to think you are in a position that people need you to reach them never considering that you're the one who is lost.

That's not constructive.  Being constructive would take more mental energy, and I respect that you may not have that, or may not want to invest it in an internet rando if you do have it.
 
But you don't know [BLEEP] about me.

Lol, it's constructive, you're just too egotistical to hear it. And I only know what you present, so you're either the fraud you present or the fraud you don't.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's not constructive.  Being constructive would take more mental energy, and I respect that you may not have that, or may not want to invest it in an internet rando if you do have it.
 
But you don't know [BLEEP] about me.

Lol, it's constructive, you're just too egotistical to hear it. And I only know what you present, so you're either the fraud you present or the fraud you don't.

The only thing you want me to do is shut up and leave.  That's what you call constructive.

And how could you say that an aspect I don't present is a fraud? By definition any aspect I haven't presented to you is something you know nothing about.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm fine with the minimal moderation, though I would like more.
I'm fine with moderators being rude and harsh with me, though I wish they would be constructive while being harsh. But I know that takes a lot of mental energy.
I'm fine with anybody coming on here and saying let's speak against violent extremism.
But it's the combination of the three, man.  
When you refuse to do anything about it in your actual zone of influence, when you're rude and dismissive to those who are trying to help, and then you say that you really do care, it's just a baffling level of hypocrisy that one doesn't see every day. 

What's done is done. I'm sure I overreacted.  
But like, try to see it my way.  Posters have been saying my posts seem inauthentic.  So I put some authentic emotion into them, and you blast me for using hyperbole.  Granted, you're not the one who called me inauthentic, and they're not the ones who overreacted to the hyperbole I used, but it's frustrating.  Can't reach those who don't want to be reached, I guess.

I don't discount your sincerity. If you see yourself as fighting a good fight here, more power to you.
I personally don't take it that seriously.
I just have a jaded view of any actual good coming from this type of discourse and I don't kid myself about being anyone's savior in a political debate.
Out of general respect, I'll be more mindful of your intentions when I respond.
Afraid that's the best I can offer.

I appreciate it. Hope you're never on fire.  Here's to a new start.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Getting back on track to what the original post was about.

You have an unhinged, mentally unstable person. The FBI knew who he was and was monitoring him for at least 2 years. He isn't a conservative. He has been kicked out of every conservative group he has tried to be a part of.

The FBI didn't arrest him even though I believe there was a warrant from Jan 6.

He's actively in DC trying to join protests and no one arrests him. He continually has issues with conservative groups.

He finally snaps, is groomed and pushed, or just went down the wrong street.

The guy appears to be an anarchist, antifa type and probably has mental issues that someone was using to push to do things.

There were apparently issues after they placed him in the block with the jan 6 prisoners. They all know who he is and he isn't one of them so they don't want him there.


All the unhinged people that snap are usually leftists that have mental issues. They are easy to groom and push. While they can do plenty of damage, generally they can be stopped beforehand if someone would deal with the mental issues.

If you want to see what happens when someone on the right snaps, look at the guy who built the bulldozer tank thing and took out the town. If someone that wants to be left alone is pushed too far and sees no options, the ending can be devastating.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

Lol, it's constructive, you're just too egotistical to hear it. And I only know what you present, so you're either the fraud you present or the fraud you don't.

The only thing you want me to do is shut up and leave.  That's what you call constructive.

And how could you say that an aspect I don't present is a fraud? By definition any aspect I haven't presented to you is something you know nothing about.

No I don't, I just want you to be you instead of slipping in and out of different characters to manipulate the people you're talking to at the moment. Folks get tired of always feeling like your every post is just a Gotcha Trap.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm fine with the minimal moderation, though I would like more.
I'm fine with moderators being rude and harsh with me, though I wish they would be constructive while being harsh. But I know that takes a lot of mental energy.
I'm fine with anybody coming on here and saying let's speak against violent extremism.
But it's the combination of the three, man.  
When you refuse to do anything about it in your actual zone of influence, when you're rude and dismissive to those who are trying to help, and then you say that you really do care, it's just a baffling level of hypocrisy that one doesn't see every day. 

What's done is done. I'm sure I overreacted.  
But like, try to see it my way.  Posters have been saying my posts seem inauthentic.  So I put some authentic emotion into them, and you blast me for using hyperbole.  Granted, you're not the one who called me inauthentic, and they're not the ones who overreacted to the hyperbole I used, but it's frustrating.  Can't reach those who don't want to be reached, I guess.

You only want more moderation because you think it will be in your favor. You only cry because people know you for what you are. You are so arrogant as to think you are in a position that people need you to reach them never considering that you're the one who is lost.

We all know he’s lost… I mean he is CNN’s number one fan…

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"