civil_discourse

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Another campaign promise fulfilled: Draining the swamp! #44354
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Check out this video. There’s a lot more to it than that. I’m happy for Blago and Trump wants reform to help all who are incarcerated unfairly.

    https://www.fox32chicago.com/video/656491

    in reply to: Cancer #44349
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    I’m surprised and overwhelmed by so many kind and thoughtful responses. You guys made my day!

    Thank you!

    in reply to: Cancer #44342
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Thanks everyone for the kind words. I also want to make it clear that I meant that I am in favor of socializing medical care for a small segment–for those who fall through the cracks–and not on a large scale. Or a “safety net” as Herb said. I don’t think we should break what we have and is working well for many.

    in reply to: Senate Impeachment Trial #44335
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Schiff at his best:

    It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

    in reply to: Jurisprudence R.I.P. 2020 #44332
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Trump was asking for help in investigating the Bidens enriching themselves courtesy of pressure and influence from the office of the VP. I’m grateful he did that and I hope the investigation goes forward, even though Biden is toast and is no longer a rival. Just because at that time Biden was a potential rival, it doesn’t mean he gets a pass and doesn’t get investigated. Just because it might have helped Trump doesn’t mean that Trump should just look the other way regarding the millions the Bidens unjustly acquired. It’s amazing to me that Trump did not withhold the aid, did not get any dirt on Biden, and was still impeached–for what–what they think he was thinking? Yet Biden ACTUALLY DID almost exactly the same thing Trump was accused of and he bragged about it on video, and nobody is saying anything about it.

    in reply to: Jurisprudence R.I.P. 2020 #44319
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Trump did not “escape justice.” The impeachment itself was unjust. And it was not quite the bipartisan effort promised by Pelosi, was it?

    Trump had every right and a duty to want to know about the Biden corruption. Besides that, no aid was withheld and Trump got nothing in return.

    The impeachment was a total sham and to complain that the Senate did not allow witnesses is ridiculous since that was the job of the House and they called many “witnesses.”

    Bottom line is that Trump was helped by the impeachment because the American People saw the unfairness of it (except for the Trump-haters).

    in reply to: Jurisprudence R.I.P. 2020 #44317
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Yes, KSKD, I should just “do me,” and then you go to Dan and say, “Ban that guy. I don’t like what he says.” Or you might even have the nerve to tell him I’m not being civil. You’ve got the deck stacked in your favor and even though you don’t want “rules,” a rule is created as an excuse to ban me (and others). Whenever I’ve posted here, I’ve had a sword hanging over me by a thread, and at any moment I could be on the outside looking in, wondering what my crime was “this time.”

    I’m supposed to take whatever is thrown at me, but must simultaneously walk on egg shells so I don’t offend Andy_Brown and then get booted. I’m not allowed to “do me” or freely post the way you and others do. Do you see the inconsistency and that there is a double standard?

    I’m actually amazed I’m still posting since I thought I’d be cut off by now, but that could happen at any moment. I at least got off my chest what I wanted to say, which was my main intention, and I feel a lot better for having done so, though I sadly cannot resist the temptation to jump in while I can.

    in reply to: Jurisprudence R.I.P. 2020 #44316
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    This is what it says when registering. Not MY rule or a proposed rule by me, but Dan’s rule:
    ————————————————
    As a posting member, you agree to engage in civil discourse on the Portland Radio Message Board, and to the following points:
    ————————————————
    So what does “civil discourse” mean? In the eyes of a reasonable person, name calling, harassment, and bullying is not “civil discourse.” It really ought to be self-evident. It’s incredible one would have to make a case that it’s wrong to call someone a f*ckface during a discussion, for example. THAT ought to be obvious to any decent person with half a brain.

    The discussion and the views of those doing the discussion are TWO DISTINCT THINGS. There would be no point in discourse if we all agreed 100%. If I think your beliefs and policies are disgusting, but you present them in a civil manner, I have no reason or excuse to beat up on you personally. I should only be attacking the idea. Otherwise, nothing is really accomplished.

    If “drumpf” were to be a member here, I would expect him to be subject to the same rules. But he’s not a member here and what he says in his arena is totally irrelevant.

    in reply to: Jurisprudence R.I.P. 2020 #44292
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    You’re lying to yourself. No conservative has “agency” here. You run them off with abusive comments or have them banned.

    You don’t want a dialog. You want a monologue.

    And…some people simply want the fun of belittling others and use their convictions as an excuse, although the pleasure derived from that is very disordered.

    And note that “ugly” is a one way street here. You don’t get ugly from Deane or Broadway or Herb or me or any of the other conservatives you’ve banned or chased away. Most have tried to have a dialog in good faith yet you guys respond with “fuckface,” “asshole,” “scumbag”, “hey stupid,” etc. That’s not even an ugly dialog. It’s verbal assault.

    I’ve noticed this phenomenon in the social media as well. The Trump-haters are incapable of a dialog. They berate and belittle any opposition and then do everything they can to silence it.

    Calling Deane an “asshole” is an attempt to silence him. Heckling Herb about Nixon and not responding to his positions is an attempt to silence him. It’s not a “dialog” at all. And of course the obvious–you silence them by banning.

    You often say “have the conversation” but you won’t have it with us. You preach. And you support the “ugly”, which again is simply trying to get us to shut up.

    Why don’t you go to Dan and tell him to make it clear that this board is for Trump-haters only and that will prevent misunderstandings from people like me who think this is an open forum where the civil expression of a diversity of ideas is welcome.

    in reply to: A Question for Dan… #44265
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    @Chris, Interesting concept. I’m going to look into that. But my complaint is about something much greater than simply one “asshole” comment. If that’s all it were I wouldn’t bother.

    @KSKD, As I said to Chris, it’s about more than just a “you’re stupid” comment. Did you read the quoted posts? You’re cool with them all? I’m the one who “has the problem” and not the bullies and abusers?

    @Dan, I’m not posting any more for real unless I have your permission. But I didn’t make this thread for the purpose of requesting such permission. Simply, I was fed up with reading this board and seeing conservatives and Christians posting in good faith and in the spirit of “civil discourse” as you require of all posters. while seeing them suffer personal attacks and verbal abuse, which I can identify with, since I experienced that hundreds of times here. I would be very surprised and disappointed if you permitted or encouraged that type of behavior and suspect that you just didn’t know about it. So I’ve provided a small sampling of it so you can consider making appropriate changes. I also posted this as a form of “closure” since it was very frustrating to have been the victim of verbal assault and bullying, while being the one to be banned. In my view, bullying is always wrong and bullies shouldn’t win.

    in reply to: A Question for Dan… #44261
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    This is one of the cruelest posts I’ve seen on this board, and once again it’s from the left towards the right. To out someone publicly regarding a financial difficulty? That goes BEYOND STALKING. And beyond being mean spirited. The conservatives and Christians who post here would never stoop so low. As usual, with this poster and some others, it’s not about the ideas, but about attacking the person who presents the ideas. (No need to “stalk” to find this. I just remembered this one and did a search on “foreclosure”). I won’t mention who posted it. You can find out for yourself by doing the search. On a moderated board with true civil discourse this post alone would be enough to get someone kicked out, but here the liberals get away with anything while conservative posts are put under a microscope.

    ———————————————————

    Hey Herb, Merry Christmas to you too. I hope you haven’t had any recent foreclosure notices sent to you. You know what they say when you sign a deed of trust when you borrow money “Pay you stay, don’t you won’t”. Lucky for you the law allows 120 days to get your shit straight with the bank. But as the saying goes, when you are in default on the mortgage, that’s the last bill you pay late (or not at all).

    As for tax cuts, you have to PAY federal taxes to get a tax cut. I’m sure you pay no federal taxes, so no tax cuts for you. But, expect to see your Medicare and Social Security payments to be at risk.

    Federal judges? They’ll throw out your case against the bank when you can’t pay. Good luck with that.

    in reply to: A Question for Dan… #44256
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Using the search bar is being a stalker? LOL

    You asked for the proof and I furnished it.

    I’m sure you do stand by it. You have no remorse regarding your verbal assaults and abusiveness, hence the need for moderation for people like you and Andy who can’t control yourselves.

    in reply to: A Question for Dan… #44252
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Here ya go Vitalogy–your words:

    I’m sure Herb is a YUGE fan of Pat Robertson. They come from the same cloth. A terrible cloth for sure.

    Remember, this Saudi dude went to get the papers he needed to move forward with a marriage, and he was sabotaged. Recordings say they cut his fingers off and dismembered his body, all on tape while the cohorts listened to music.

    Just another example of the extreme right taking a pass on morality in exchange for power.

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/pat-robertson-khashoggi.html

    Apparently a $100 billion contract is more important than life. So spare me with the abortion rhetoric fuckface.

    ———————————————————

    Pat Robertson Cares More About a Saudi Weapons Deal Than a Journalist’s Murder

    in reply to: A Question for Dan… #44208
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Dan,

    This will be my last post unless you give me permission to continue posting. Yes, I would appreciate that permission since it is frustrating to read this board and not be able to respond. I also have topics I would like to propose regarding healthcare, Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi, the impeachment, election predictions, etc. (I don’t understand why there are some who are anxious to ban diversity or run it off the board by means of abusive comments).

    But my main purpose for these recent posts was to plead with you to make some corrections regarding personal attacks and civil discourse. Even as someone who can only read this board, I was very angered to see Deane called an “asshole” and felt I must speak up about that as well as all the other many personal attacks against others and myself in the past. (The victims being almost exclusively Christians and/or conservatives).

    If this were truly a forum for civil discourse, nobody would be called an asshole for presenting his beliefs. Nobody would be called a f*ckface.

    I wouldn’t have been called an asswipe, loser, asshole, stupid fucking moron, faux Christian, scumbag, etc., etc., etc., by Andy_Brown, and neither would I have been followed around the board by him and heckled for every post I made.

    It’s impossible to have real discussions on that basis. It just becomes a place for snarky comments and meanness, and IMHO is the reason why this board has shrunk considerably. It’s become a lot less fun and interesting.

    Thank you again for having given me the opportunity to have posted as “Bacon.” I don’t see why I couldn’t have continued. I don’t understand what is so difficult about either entering into the conversation and challenging me or just ignoring those posts.

    I think this board might have the possibility of thriving again if you were to really enforce the idea of “civil discourse” and were to welcome and encourage the expression of all ideas, and not just one particular political persuasion.

    Regards,

    Bacon

    in reply to: A Question for Dan… #44206
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    If Dan is the decent and reasonable guy I think he is, he will be somewhat mortified by the atrocious personal attacks that have occurred on his board and will do something to correct it.

    I would be happy to see that happen even if he pulls the plug on me without explanation.

    Posters like Andy_Brown, Vitalogy, and LurkingGrendel who have no self-control and no conscience regarding their hateful comments and personal attacks need to be kept under control by some form of moderation and enforced rules, otherwise the claim that this board is for the expression of “civil discourse” is just a joke.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)