Please ban Rogerstaubach

[danmand]

Moderator, please ban Rogerstaubach from the "Politics and International affairs" forum. His latest post in the "Commitment in Afghanistan" goes beyond his usual juvenile rantings into the realm of the perfide.

 

[Asterix]

What, no poll? Geez, you're no fun at all.

 

[Fred Zed]

He can still view posts in this forum [ in lurker mode] but his posting priviledges for this forum only have been suspended.

 

[Asterix]

I must have missed something, or perhaps it was deleted. In a nutshell, what did roger say?

 

[Pete Graves]

Bad move, but at least this board makes no pretense of having a double standard.

 

[Don]

Wow, I have seen a lot of crap on this thread so I can't imagine what he could have said to be banned!

 

[someone]

I must have missed something, or perhaps it was deleted. In a nutshell, what did roger say?

I'm also wondering. Boy, you don't log on to the board for a day and you miss everything

 

[WoodPeckr]

Moderator, please ban Rogerstaubach from the "Politics and International affairs" forum. His latest post in the "Commitment in Afghanistan" goes beyond his usual juvenile rantings into the realm of the perfide.

What did rogie say, was it deleted? I can't find it there.
I kinda got a kick out of his incessant paranoid RIFT rantings he does all the time. He sees them RIFTs everywhere!
The only thing I could find was him and *d* going back and forth at each other, where rogie came across as a pretty bad and befuddled barrister trying to make a case that RIFT suspects have no human rights and can locked up in Gitmo forever if Team 'w' deems it. I thought maybe the reason for his befuddled reasoning could be due to too much OxyContin, same thing happened to that dope addict Rush Limbaugh awhile back.....
Awhile back we lost archy (archlighter) and now we may lose rogie. Their presense does serve a useful purpose in showing how the mind on a neocon, or is it neocrazy, ticks & thinks! That is education enough.

Dubya, neocrazy extraordinaire!!!

 

[papasmerf]

I am not sure what rodger said but I can safely say Woodpecker and others have said things I have found offensive (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=offensive).


Thicker skin required

How about it you Clintonites and Al Kata belivers? Bring Back Rodger? What has he said that you have not?

 

[clearwaterjim]

When did Stephen Harper become a Moderator on this site???

 

[LancsLad]

I didn't see what was posted, but agree that generally what Roger posts is no "worse" , whatever that means, than any of the verbal effluent that spews from the mouthpieces of the left. Certain bleeding hearts have said some things that I consider offensie yet I take it with a grain of salt, thats the nature of the forum.

 

[LancsLad]

Your "bleading hearts" and the "left" aren't inclusive enough.
What about the rest of US that think Bush is a disaster,
period. The moderates and independents are also in an
uproar. Don't forget to include those groups as well.

OK, its a matter of degrees. You and I share similar views on many but not all topics on this board, I share views similar to some or, but not all of Rogers postings. Alignment of people on this board seems to be fluid, with a few exceptions. I tend to be so far to the right that I often make the mistake, I know and try to correct, of referring to others as lefties, when they may indeed be a moderate conservative. There are some people who post on this board who clearly have no original thought or opinions they merely post links and parrot their masters teachings. While I do not like that and would suggest summary execution if I were in charge, I respect the rules of the Board and agree they can have a say.

This is a tough call. On balance though society and this board are far more likely to take offence at and therefore ban someone from the right side of the political spectrum than they are from the left. It seems that way to me, but again that is my opinion based on my reference points.

In another thread MLAM, was baiting me by referring to me as a Nazi. Clearly he just wanted to get under my skin which he did, as my family paid its share of the cost of fighting those bastards in WW2, I find the reference offensive. There are lots of things I could have called him tht would likely have caused a call for me being banned but I didn't take the bait. Perhaps I should have it may have been a good test.

Thats it for now, just venting.

 

[danmand]

OK, its a matter of degrees. You and I share similar views on many but not all topics on this board, I share views similar to some or, but not all of Rogers postings. Alignment of people on this board seems to be fluid, with a few exceptions. I tend to be so far to the right that I often make the mistake, I know and try to correct, of referring to others as lefties, when they may indeed be a moderate conservative. There are some people who post on this board who clearly have no original thought or opinions they merely post links and parrot their masters teachings. While I do not like that and would suggest summary execution if I were in charge, I respect the rules of the Board and agree they can have a say.

I daresay that this is a thoughtful posting from you (disregarding the concept of summary execution). What I find illuminating is that we obviously agree on the wish for people to think for themselves, not to follow their "masters". The interesting point is of course, that you believe that someone who does not agree with you (=a liberal) is not thinking for himself. Likewise, some of us who disagree with you (=right winger) think that you are not thinking for yourself.

 

[LancsLad]

Danmand

On the contrary many of the liberal thinkers do express their own thoughts it is just that there are a few specific posters ( linkers) who seem to be incapable. I raised the prospect of summary execution to see who was awake. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech but just like anything else one does it should have its consequences. While execution is perhaps a little bit severe in most cases I am sure that we may be able to find some common ground in which we might suggest eligible candidates from both ends of the spectrum.

 

[Big Sleazy]

Personally...I alway's thought Rogie was and is a raving lunatic. But I'll defend his right to be a raving lunatic. Even if it bores me to tears. It actually got to the point I stopped reading his posts. It was obvious that he was a looney. But I still think he should be allowed to be a ranting, raving looney. I can alway's ignore him if I want. And he I. That's what this so called democracy is supposed to be about. Rogie or I can be ranting raving lunatics. You can't be that in most parts of this world.

BS

 

[SilentLeviathan]

Unfortunately, people who rant and rave tend to ditract others from the conversation. I've seen a couple of good threads that were successfully derailed becuase of what others have said. Sometimes this type of action is neede to maintain order. In any case it's a privately run board and the mods can do as they see fit.

 

[Malibook]

Personally...I alway's thought Rogie was and is a raving lunatic. But I'll defend his right to be a raving lunatic. Even if it bores me to tears. It actually got to the point I stopped reading his posts. It was obvious that he was a looney. But I still think he should be allowed to be a ranting, raving looney. I can alway's ignore him if I want. And he I. That's what this so called democracy is supposed to be about. Rogie or I can be ranting raving lunatics. You can't be that in most parts of this world.

BS

I am not familiar with his posts but it is simple enough to skip his posts or just put him on ignore.

 

[SilentLeviathan]

I am not familiar with his posts but it is simple enough to skip his posts or just put him on ignore.

That's what I do with annoying posters but they problem is that many people don't and it derails otherwise good threads.

 

[TOVisitor]

On the contrary many of the liberal thinkers do express their own thoughts it is just that there are a few specific posters ( linkers) who seem to be incapable. I raised the prospect of summary execution to see who was awake. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech but just like anything else one does it should have its consequences. While execution is perhaps a little bit severe in most cases I am sure that we may be able to find some common ground in which we might suggest eligible candidates from both ends of the spectrum.

Your meagre attempts at humor aside, laddie. What you are engaging in by talking about summary executions of those on the left has been documented by many -- most notably David Neiwert -- as the eliminationist rhetoric of the right.

From Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, the right wing has made it "legitimate" to speak of killing one's political adversaries.

This rhetoric has made it into the mainstream of the right. Let's examine John Derbyshire of National Review Online, talking about Chelsea Clinton:

"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

Got that? The Derb is talking about killing Chelsea and all the Clintons.

If you need more proof and links to the heinous quotes and actions of the right-wing, I suggest you look at these posts by Neiwert:

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the resulting "war on terror" and subsequent invasion of Iraq all played major roles in fomenting this syndrome. At each step of the drama, liberals (increasingly defined as "anyone not in line with conservative movement dogma") in the media and elsewhere were accused of aiding and abetting the enemy, and increasingly became identified with the enemy. Manipulating a traumatized national psyche, the conservative movement throughout the drama began responding to its critics by mobilizing intimidation campaigns both from above and below, further shutting liberals off from national discourse, and doing their utmost to silence dissent, especially as its intiatives on a variety of fronts began producing grotesque disasters.

These campaigns played a decisive role in the way American journalists covered the misbegotten decision to invade Iraq, an invasion we now know was based on false pretenses. ...

What's important to understand is what the nature of these appeals -- and their self-evident success -- tells us simultaneously about the nature of the audience. Because the very nature of fundamentalist apocalypticism is profoundly dualist -- entirely contingent on a black-and-white Manichean worldview -- it is clear that the majority of at least the religious followers of the conservative movement are what is known as "totalists".

Fundamental to understanding totalitarianism is realizing that, contrary to the "brainwashing" model in which the totalitarian regime is imposed on a society from without and against their will, the reality is that nearly every totalitarian regime in history has succeeded because of the avid and willing participation of citizens eager to be its subjects.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/06/hunting-of-liberals.html

And this one:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/06/eliminate-them.html

I really don't expect someone of your tender sensibilities to understand Neiwert and what he is getting at, but perhaps others on this board will read his words and be careful about what they say in the future about one's political adversaries.

More importantly, it's necessary to be vigilant aganst these types of words and they actions they engender. Face the facts: the conservative movement has been infiltrated by racists, fascists, homphobes, misygonists, gun nuts, religious fanatics, and other assorted crazies. Until the conservatives clean up their own house, we will continue to see the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Michael Savage, David Duke, David Horowitz, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and so many, many others be accepted and feted by the Republican party.

As for me, I am tired of being demonized by the right-wing and I am not going to let the nutjobs on the right take over the discourse.

Since 911, the right wing has been WRONG, utterly and completely wrong about just about everything. Listening to hacks like roger squeal and pee his pants when he thinks about the "threat" posed by Iran -- and yet he does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up his insane rhetoric -- makes my blood boil.

 

[Asterix]

To update the topic of the thread a bit. Roger pm'd me yesterday to say he was barred from this forum because of a fairly mild five word response in one of the threads. Personally, I doubt that, as I think it was more a reaction to the body of his posts but I'm guessing here. He subsequently began a thread on this theme and was quickly booted from terb altogether. When I queried the moderator about it the reply was, "he's done". So that's that. Now someone explain to me why arclighter was banned.