The NY Times finally comes around...

[Moosefish]

...and agrees w/ Moosefish (who is as smart as he is good-looking, fwiw):








All joking aside...it should be abundantly clear now that those who were pointing out all the obvious sketchy things are now clearly justified. I guess it's only coincidence that POTUS is now no longer running for re-election.

If I had the energy, I'd point out the number of similarly obvious shenanigans are being played out re: the Harris/Trump contest and how many things being dismissed are clearly falling along similar, obvious lines...but nobody who should acknowledge it would ever admit it.

Enjoy the chaos, I guess.

 

[9836dawg]

...and agrees w/ Moosefish (who is as smart as he is good-looking, fwiw):

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

All joking aside...it should be abundantly clear now that those who were pointing out all the obvious sketchy things are now clearly justified. I guess it's only coincidence that POTUS is now no longer running for re-election.

If I had the energy, I'd point out the number of similarly obvious shenanigans are being played out re: the Harris/Trump contest and how many things being dismissed are clearly falling along similar, obvious lines...but nobody who should acknowledge it would ever admit it.

Enjoy the chaos, I guess.

Ok that was pretty funny you handsome devil!

 

[Moosefish]

To clarify: I've been consistent in saying that Hunter's FARA issues were his biggest obvious issue & it blew my mind how nothing had been made of it, before.

It's not just Romania. It's Ukraine, China, Russia, and whatever other countries he had business in...absent any official FARA registration.

 

[BlessedDawg]

The plan is set in motion to get Biden out of office now rather than later. The MSM is being told to drop the hammer that they’ve been sitting on for years.

 

[kckd]

...and agrees w/ Moosefish (who is as smart as he is good-looking, fwiw):

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

All joking aside...it should be abundantly clear now that those who were pointing out all the obvious sketchy things are now clearly justified. I guess it's only coincidence that POTUS is now no longer running for re-election.

If I had the energy, I'd point out the number of similarly obvious shenanigans are being played out re: the Harris/Trump contest and how many things being dismissed are clearly falling along similar, obvious lines...but nobody who should acknowledge it would ever admit it.

Enjoy the chaos, I guess.

What's pretty clear is that the twitter voices don't understand the difference between an op-ed, reporting and investigative journalism.

 

[Moosefish]

What's pretty clear is that the twitter voices don't understand the difference between an op-ed, reporting and investigative journalism.

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[WyoDawg307]

The plan is set in motion to get Biden out of office now rather than later. The MSM is being told to drop the hammer that they’ve been sitting on for years.

Yep, if she survives the convention the plan will be to get rid of Joementia based on all the recent "perfectly timed revelations" into Hunter's dealings. Then the idiot can run as the President for the next couple of months and the media fawning will increase even more.

I'd pay good money to see Hitlary's face if the above does happen.

 

[Moosefish]

What's pretty clear is that the twitter voices don't understand the difference between an op-ed, reporting and investigative journalism.

If you want to go full-on obtuse & snarky, I'm game. But, if you're actually what you claim: A person who's simply anti-Trump (sure, respect it)...I have no idea why you seem to be defending things that have nothing to do w/ Trump.

oops, forgot the snark & obtuse-ness:

 

[kckd]

If you want to go full-on obtuse & snarky, I'm game. But, if you're actually what you claim: A person who's simply anti-Trump (sure, respect it)...I have no idea why you seem to be defending things that have nothing to do w/ Trump.

oops, forgot the snark & obtuse-ness:

It's a guest editorial, meaning it's not someone that works for them.

I agree that they should have reported accurately about Hunter.

My point is it's not really like they (the editor and NY Times employees themselves) said this.

Reporting- writing about an event of the time. Usually, no real opinion expressed by the writer but can slant the story due to what they want to include or exclude in the story.

Investigative journalism- Usually a very long story, may be released in a series, that's been investigated for weeks, months, even years.

An editorial- Someone's opinion.

A guest editorial- Someone not employed by the newspaper/magazine that gives their opinion on a current topic.

I guess it's a win/win for those that are upset about this.

You get to point out they relented by letting someone else talk about it in their paper, but you still get to complain about the fact they, themselves haven't.

 

[Moosefish]

It's a guest editorial, meaning it's not someone that works for them.

I agree that they should have reported accurately about Hunter.

My point is it's not really like they (the editor and NY Times employees themselves) said this.

Reporting- writing about an event of the time. Usually, no real opinion expressed by the writer but can slant the story due to what they want to include or exclude in the story.

Investigative journalism- Usually a very long story, may be released in a series, that's been investigated for weeks, months, even years.

An editorial- Someone's opinion.

A guest editorial- Someone not employed by the newspaper/magazine that gives their opinion on a current topic.

I guess it's a win/win for those that are upset about this.

You get to point out they relented by letting someone else talk about it in their paper, but you still get to complain about the fact they, themselves haven't.

Your standard is ever-shifting sand.

 

[MUSMDawgs]

These stories were nuked by our own intelligence agencies people.

Election interference is ok when it’s our own country though I suppose

 

[kckd]

Your standard is ever-shifting sand.

Not at all. Am I wrong in what I said?

 

[kckd]

These stories were nuked by our own intelligence agencies people.

Election interference is ok when it’s our own country though I suppose

Well, our own POTUS was fine with it when the Russians did it. Tit for tat I guess.

 

[MUSMDawgs]

Well, our own POTUS was fine with it when the Russians did it. Tit for tat I guess.

Proof?

And it’s far more worrisome that our own agencies are meddling with elections than foreign entities- that’s kind of what we assume they do right?

We are probably doing the same to other countries

 

[sallen4250]

Truth! And I believe you will find that to true with our other so called conservative anti-Trumpers on the board!

Your standard is ever-shifting sand.

 

[kckd]

Proof?

And it’s far more worrisome that our own agencies are meddling with elections than foreign entities- that’s kind of what we assume they do right?

Proof that Trump didn't care? Again, you are confusing collusion with interference. Happens all the time on here.

There is no proof that Trump colluded with them. There are bundles of proof the Russians interfered.

Trump asked them to give out any information they had on Hillary while he was running for POTUS publicly and also sided with Putin when said he said he didn't interfere over the FBI who said he did. All of this is factual.

The FBI has a list of like ten plus Russian hackers with pictures on their site that they would arrest if they are ever in the US or another country that would release them to the US. They having a hotline asking for tips to anyone that knows their whereabouts.

 

[Moosefish]

Not at all. Am I wrong in what I said?

I'm playing your game. Apply the same standard to the recent Trump MoH 'comments'. You are wildly inconsistent for what you "call out" vs. what you accept as legitimate reporting or disregard as "opinion".

It's all here in this thread & literally posted on this very board within the past 24 hours. Your disregard/dismissal of the Hunter reporting vs. political hand-wringing of Trump's comments re: the MoH frames your hypocrisy perfectly.

You're going to dismiss this with:

1. Sarcasm

2. Dismissal

3. Distraction

4. A change of subject


The problem is I'm not engaging in it. You never respond directly when caught. As I said yesterday: I have no interest in this crap. You either engage in legitimate discussion or I'm going to ignore the trolling you constantly engage in.

 

[kckd]

I'm playing your game. Apply the same standard to the recent Trump MoH 'comments'. You are wildly inconsistent for what you "call out" vs. what you accept as legitimate reporting or disregard as "opinion".

It's all here in this thread & literally posted on this very board within the past 24 hours. Your disregard/dismissal of the Hunter reporting vs. political hand-wringing of Trump's comments re: the MoH frames your hypocrisy perfectly.

You're going to dismiss this with:

1. Sarcasm

2. Dismissal

3. Distraction

4. A change of subject


The problem is I'm not engaging in it. You never respond directly when caught. As I said yesterday: I have no interest in this crap. You either engage in legitimate discussion or I'm going to ignore the trolling you constantly engage in.

I think you're right in that the left media (or whatever name they go by on here these days) blew it. I said it in an earlier post. My point was more that it's not like the NYT themselves are saying it. I wasn't defending them.

What you may have missed: I agree that they should have reported accurately about Hunter.

My comments on Trump's MoH comments is at best it's just a weird thing to say. That's pretty much all I said though I do think it kind of lines up with statements others have attributed to him that were not made in front of the press when talking about how foolish the men are that voluntarily sign up to serve.

Go Dawgs!

 

[Moosefish]

I think you're right in that the left blew it. I said it in an earlier post. My point was more that it's not like the NYT themselves are saying it. I wasn't defending them.

Go Dawgs!

1. This isn't or shouldn't be about "the left".

2. Hunter did some clearly illegal things, at best. At worst? Lord help us.

3. My issue is that you keep trying to bring in Trump or the GOP into this.

4. The NYT printing anything is still the NYT printing something...or do you not remember when there was literal insurrection within that paper when Sen Tom Cotton wrote a (now, very accurate) opinion piece?


It's the hypocrisy.

(I'll also note that you didn't respond to anything else I wrote. Your choice...but, it's still valid)

 

[kckd]

1. This isn't or shouldn't be about "the left".

2. Hunter did some clearly illegal things, at best. At worst? Lord help us.

3. My issue is that you keep trying to bring in Trump or the GOP into this.

4. The NYT printing anything is still the NYT printing something...or do you not remember when there was literal insurrection within that paper when Sen Tom Cotton wrote a (now, very accurate) opinion piece?


It's the hypocrisy.

(I'll also note that you didn't respond to anything else I wrote. Your choice...but, it's still valid)

1. The media that's not Fox on here is called the left wing media. I'm following suit.

2. Agree.

3. Okay no Trump. Hunter did some bad things.

(Will point out that "what aboutisms" are legion when you point out stuff Trump did that is indefensible. Are you as headstrong in pointing that out? It's okay. We all pick our sides.)

4. Yes. But I was just pointing out that much of those twitter posts called it something it was not. I guess I wasn't suppose to do that.

Hypocrisy is rife everywhere these days. It comes with polarization.

I think the mainstream media should've done a better job reporting on Hunter Biden. I think this is the third time I've said it now.

 

[Moosefish]

1. The media that's not Fox on here is called the left wing media. I'm following suit.

2. Agree.

3. Okay no Trump. Hunter did some bad things.

(Will point out that "what aboutisms" are legion when you point out stuff Trump did that is indefensible. Are you as headstrong in pointing that out? It's okay. We all have pick our sides.)

4. Yes. But I was just pointing out that much of those twitter posts called it something it was not. I guess I wasn't suppose to do that.

Hypocrisy is rife everywhere these days.

I think the mainstream media should've done a better job reporting on Hunter Biden. I think this is the third time I've said it now.

As I said:

You're going to dismiss this with:

1. Sarcasm

2. Dismissal

3. Distraction

4. A change of subject

1. "Fox News"?!? As pointed out in my OP...the NYT is finally reporting on what has been known for years. Yet, you bring in Fox News? Ok. (#2 Dismissal)

2. Summary: "Hunter did bad stuff, but Trump!!!" (Wiinner: #1 Sarcasm, #2 Dismissal, #3 Distraction, & # 4 Change of Subject)

3. What twitter post called anything that it wasn't? Not clear. You provided no reference, context, or any evidence to refute anything I posted. (#2 Dismissal & #3 Distraction)

You did exactly what I said you would. As I said, I'm on to your "game" & not interested in playing it.

 

[kckd]

As I said:



1. "Fox News"?!? As pointed out in my OP...the NYT is finally reporting on what has been known for years. Yet, you bring in Fox News? Ok. (#2 Dismissal)

2. Summary: "Hunter did bad stuff, but Trump!!!" (Wiinner: #1 Sarcasm, #2 Dismissal, #3 Distraction, & # 4 Change of Subject)

3. What twitter post called anything that it wasn't? Not clear. You provided no reference, context, or any evidence to refute anything I posted. (#2 Dismissal & #3 Distraction)

You did exactly what I said you would. As I said, I'm on to your "game" & not interested in playing it.

1. Honestly, that wasn't sarcasm at all. I admit that the NYT's leans left. I think most do realize this. I would agree that the major networks lean left, not as much as Fox does right IMO, but they aren't without bias.

2. Hunter did bad stuff. (That's all, hope it fixes this for you.)

3. "Such investigative journalism"

"Pretends the evidence has only just emerged". Again, this is a guest editorial piece, so it's not really the NYT's pretending anything. Maybe she is reference something else they wrote. Not sure if they put it in this one, but usually the paper puts something out that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the editor and the paper itself.

Dude, I think you are thinking a lot more about this than I ever intended anyone to. "On to my game". I guess, I don't think any votes have changed on here in the four years plus I've kind of been heavily involved (sporadically) commenting on here. So there's not much to my game. I doubt I could walk on if we were trying to field a team of the best Chat posters.

 

[Moosefish]

Dude, I think you are thinking a lot more about this than I ever intended anyone to.

1. I've called out Hunter & his clear FARA violations on this board for years. I've been asked, more than once "well, where's the indictment?", as if that's the only measure of validity

2. The simple fact that the (as you admit) left-leaning NYT dares to broach the subject is clear evidence that there is 'something' there.

3. What I would hope is that those of us that have been mocked/disregarded for pointing out blatantly obvious facts, might be awarded some measure of benefit of the doubt, vs. being disregarded as merely parroting something "...from Fox News".

Literally every time that is used as some sort of "gotcha", I disregard whatever point is being made. It's either lazy, ill-informed, purposefully misleading, or all of the above.

The really frustrating thing is the assumption that whatever I'm discussing/pointing out is parroting some political spin.

 

[kckd]

1. I've called out Hunter & his clear FARA violations on this board for years. I've been asked, more than once "well, where's the indictment?", as if that's the only measure of validity

2. The simple fact that the (as you admit) left-leaning NYT dares to broach the subject is clear evidence that there is 'something' there.

3. What I would hope is that those of us that have been mocked/disregarded for pointing out blatantly obvious facts, might be awarded some measure of benefit of the doubt, vs. being disregarded as merely parroting something "...from Fox News".

Literally every time that is used as some sort of "gotcha", I disregard whatever point is being made. It's either lazy, ill-informed, purposefully misleading, or all of the above.

The really frustrating thing is the assumption that whatever I'm discussing/pointing out is parroting some political spin.

1. Okay. I mean that's good. You were right.

2. I think most kind knew there was something there weeks ago when the prosecutor said he had done it.

3. For the most part, I don't recall mocking you on this. I guess it's possible. I don't remember it.

Most of the opinions I've seen posted here regarding it is pointing to all of this being tied to Joe Biden, which as of yet has not been shown. It may be in the future. But Republicans investigating it (the dude from Tennessee and Jim Jordan primarily) have said on Fox many, many times they have the evidence to impeach him, but then when called to do it, they just sit there. Democrat from Florida dared them to do it and made the motion to see if any of them would give him a second. They just sat there. So on the Joe Biden end of it, it does or did kind of look like a political play to be something to drag out while the campaign was going on. One Republican even when interviewed by Fox said he didn't expect anything to be wrapped up with it before Nov. Seemed to suggest that they wanted it to drag out. Will be interesting going forward as it has nothing to do with Harris just as Ford had nothing to do with Watergate.

 

[Moosefish]

1. Okay. I mean that's good. You were right.

2. I think most kind knew there was something there weeks ago when the prosecutor said he had done it.

3. For the most part, I don't recall mocking you on this. I guess it's possible. I don't remember it.

Most of the opinions I've seen posted here regarding it is pointing to all of this being tied to Joe Biden, which as of yet has not been shown. It may be in the future. But Republicans investigating it (the dude from Tennessee and Jim Jordan primarily) have said on Fox many, many times they have the evidence to impeach him, but then when called to do it, they just sit there. Democrat from Florida dared them to do it and made the motion to see if any of them would give him a second. They just sat there. So on the Joe Biden end of it, it does or did kind of look like a political play to be something to drag out while the campaign was going on. One Republican even when interviewed by Fox said he didn't expect anything to be wrapped up with it before Nov. Seemed to suggest that they wanted it to drag out. Will be interesting going forward as it has nothing to do with Harris just as Ford had nothing to do with Watergate.

...and, another Fox News rant. What bizzaro world am I living in where my literal comments are disregarded?

Got to stick to the script, I guess.

Good grief.

 

[kckd]

...and, another Fox News rant. What bizzaro world am I living in where my literal comments are disregarded?

Got to stick to the script, I guess.

Good grief.

I don't see where I ranted on Fox. I said those guys said it on Fox News. That's where they said it if you want to find it. I guess I could've linked it. But anyways, nothing in that post said anything positive or negative about Fox. Was talking about the two reps (Comer and Jordan) leading the House investigation of Biden.

I'm sorry, Moose. I will never speak of Fox again. We should not listen to mainstream media. That's all....I guess.

No clue, man. I think I need a break. Y'all have fun. Should be an interesting week coming up.

You're right bud, about whatever you say. No more comments from me.

 

[brimur]

I don't see where I ranted on Fox. I said those guys said it on Fox News. That's where they said it if you want to find it. I guess I could've linked it. But anyways, nothing in that post said anything positive or negative about Fox. Was talking about the two reps (Comer and Jordan) leading the House investigation of Biden.

I'm sorry, Moose. I will never speak of Fox again. We should not listen to mainstream media. That's all....I guess.

No clue, man. I think I need a break. Y'all have fun. Should be an interesting week coming up.

You're right bud, about whatever you say. No more comments from me.

You were way more indulgent in the conversation than I could have been. I understood your initial point just fine. Maybe he just misunderstood or is overtired.

 

[kckd]

You were way more indulgent in the conversation than I could have been. I understood your initial point just fine. Maybe he just misunderstood or is overtired.

I've had my bad days on here as well. Maybe so.

 

[ClydeDawg]

...and agrees w/ Moosefish (who is as smart as he is good-looking, fwiw):

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

All joking aside...it should be abundantly clear now that those who were pointing out all the obvious sketchy things are now clearly justified. I guess it's only coincidence that POTUS is now no longer running for re-election.

If I had the energy, I'd point out the number of similarly obvious shenanigans are being played out re: the Harris/Trump contest and how many things being dismissed are clearly falling along similar, obvious lines...but nobody who should acknowledge it would ever admit it.

Enjoy the chaos, I guess.

Pics

 

[JackRussellDawg]

It's a guest editorial, meaning it's not someone that works for them.

I agree that they should have reported accurately about Hunter.

My point is it's not really like they (the editor and NY Times employees themselves) said this.

Reporting- writing about an event of the time. Usually, no real opinion expressed by the writer but can slant the story due to what they want to include or exclude in the story.

Investigative journalism- Usually a very long story, may be released in a series, that's been investigated for weeks, months, even years.

An editorial- Someone's opinion.

A guest editorial- Someone not employed by the newspaper/magazine that gives their opinion on a current topic.

I guess it's a win/win for those that are upset about this.

You get to point out they relented by letting someone else talk about it in their paper, but you still get to complain about the fact they, themselves haven't.

Ok now, take your list and reverse it.

Guest editorial
Editorial
Investigative Journalism
Reporting

This is the MO of how the NYT ever so slowly admits to the truth about something that doesn’t fit with their leftist ideology.

Let’s call it the four steps of leftist journalistic grief.

 

[stray]

...and agrees w/ Moosefish (who is as smart as he is good-looking, fwiw):

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

All joking aside...it should be abundantly clear now that those who were pointing out all the obvious sketchy things are now clearly justified. I guess it's only coincidence that POTUS is now no longer running for re-election.

If I had the energy, I'd point out the number of similarly obvious shenanigans are being played out re: the Harris/Trump contest and how many things being dismissed are clearly falling along similar, obvious lines...but nobody who should acknowledge it would ever admit it.

Enjoy the chaos, I guess.

None of this is done without a plan. It’s possible/likely that they need his crimes to come out and maybe even have him be charged ASAP so he can be pardoned before Joe leaves

 

[atlanta cock#]

Well, our own POTUS was fine with it when the Russians did it. Tit for tat I guess.

Link?

 

[kckd]

Link?

Really?

 

[oldmandawg]

All this attention to poor ole Hunter when Joe is the real culprit. I'd bet Joe and his brother James are behind all of this treasonous activity. Hopefully the Trump DOJ will hold all the Bidens accountable.

 

[khonelson]

Well it’s obvious to me that the chat regulars who think this is their forum run to the mod and complain nonstop about kckd that he is nothing but an agitator………and now the mod is going to make him his personal project, never hiding that he is part of the one sided thinking that dominates this place. I think it borders on disgraceful to be honest.

The main reason I don’t bother with the chat anymore is this massive dbl standard. I’ve been called a baby killer, pedophile or pedophile sympathizer, demon rat, demorat, etc more times than I can count, and many other things thru the yrs. Many of the regulars here constantly flame or gaslight, never seen the mod take them to task daily like what is being done now to kckd. It is a bad look, and probably bad for this buisness . I’ve asked myself many times why I waste my money on this mean spirited crap, but realize I don’t need to participate anymore so I don’t, and just use it for recruiting news primarily, and to grant prayer request when asked, which I do think is one of the main things keeping me a paying customer.

Bottom line, if you find yourself talking about someone or something that was on the chat, they bother you soooo much, maybe you should be the one to log off like me, like I did when I couldn’t take the cult of personality anymore, or the insults, or very dark mean spirit that dominates this place. You will probably be happier for it rather than thinking you are making a difference in the culture war.

Last thing, maybe it would be helpful for me to highlight 2 regular posters who are the class of this place when it comes to conservative posters who manage to go toe to toe, but rarely if ever get too personal , or resort to the name calling and insults, and who manage to respect the posters who maybe think differently than them.
@Dirty Hairy Dawg, and @ToddBburn, thank you for being a great example for what I think the chat should be about. We may not always agree, but I feel like you would be great guys to actually be friends with based on your chat demeanor and persona , feel like maybe you would legitimately pray for me or ANYONE else that asked for it, and you are good ambassadors to your family name.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Well it’s obvious to me that the chat regulars who think this is their forum run to the mod and complain nonstop about kckd that he is nothing but an agitator………and now the mod is going to make him his personal project, never hiding that he is part of the one sided thinking that dominates this place. I think it borders on disgraceful to be honest.

The main reason I don’t bother with the chat anymore is this massive dbl standard. I’ve been called a baby killer, pedophile or pedophile sympathizer, demon rat, demorat, etc more times than I can count, and many other things thru the yrs. Many of the regulars here constantly flame or gaslight, never seen the mod take them to task daily like what is being done now to kckd. It is a bad look, and probably bad for this buisness . I’ve asked myself many times why I waste my money on this mean spirited crap, but realize I don’t need to participate anymore so I don’t, and just use it for recruiting news primarily, and to grant prayer request when asked, which I do think is one of the main things keeping me a paying customer.

Bottom line, if you find yourself talking about someone or something that was on the chat, they bother you soooo much, maybe you should be the one to log off like me, like I did when I couldn’t take the cult of personality anymore, or the insults, or very dark mean spirit that dominates this place. You will probably be happier for it rather than thinking you are making a difference in the culture war.

Last thing, maybe it would be helpful for me to highlight 2 regular posters who are the class of this place when it comes to conservative posters who manage to go toe to toe, but rarely if ever get too personal , or resort to the name calling and insults, and who manage to respect the posters who maybe think differently than them.
@Dirty Hairy Dawg, and @ToddBburn, thank you for being a great example for what I think the chat should be about. We may not always agree, but I feel like you would be great guys to actually be friends with based on your chat demeanor and persona , feel like maybe you would legitimately pray for me or ANYONE else that asked for it, and you are good ambassadors to your family name.

Miss seeing you over here my friend. I love exchanging ideas with folks that have a different perspective but ultimatley want what is best for all.

 

[kckd]

In any dm's I've had with Moose, he's been great. I think he bl'd me once, but it was warranted. It was totally unintentional, but had a habit of starting threads about politics on the vent instead of the Chat. I explained what was happening. He gave me a warning and let me back in. I'm not angry with him. He may still feel going at me was justified and that's fine. I've never complained about someone coming after me to a mod. Have had one or two that have complained about me. I was being sarcastic and using the very way they attacked anyone linking wapo or NYT or CNN against them when the Trump supporters linked those very same untrustworthy news sources if it was a story they liked. They didn't pick up on it somehow and one of them turned me in. I try not to go after people on here, just candidates. I do address in plural my thoughts on the people who support them sometimes.

 

[Moosefish]

Well it’s obvious to me that the chat re gulars who think this is their forum run to the mod and complain nonstop about kckd that he is nothing but an agitator………and now the mod is going to make him his personal project, never hiding that he is part of the one sided thinking that dominates this place. I think it borders on disgraceful to be honest.

If you can point to where I've personally attacked him or called him names, please do. As a volunteer mod, I'm allowed to have opinions & debate. I'm allowed to disagree with the same person over & over. If you can show where I've moderated unevenly, please point it out.

1. I have blacklisted people from "both sides". Personal attacks/name calling are not allowed. Period.

2. I don't remove posts because of the opinion stated. I remove them according to the board rules.

3. If you have been personally called a pedophile, report it or provide a link. Apologies for missing it, we don't see every post.

 

[kckd]

Well it’s obvious to me that the chat regulars who think this is their forum run to the mod and complain nonstop about kckd that he is nothing but an agitator………and now the mod is going to make him his personal project, never hiding that he is part of the one sided thinking that dominates this place. I think it borders on disgraceful to be honest.

The main reason I don’t bother with the chat anymore is this massive dbl standard. I’ve been called a baby killer, pedophile or pedophile sympathizer, demon rat, demorat, etc more times than I can count, and many other things thru the yrs. Many of the regulars here constantly flame or gaslight, never seen the mod take them to task daily like what is being done now to kckd. It is a bad look, and probably bad for this buisness . I’ve asked myself many times why I waste my money on this mean spirited crap, but realize I don’t need to participate anymore so I don’t, and just use it for recruiting news primarily, and to grant prayer request when asked, which I do think is one of the main things keeping me a paying customer.

Bottom line, if you find yourself talking about someone or something that was on the chat, they bother you soooo much, maybe you should be the one to log off like me, like I did when I couldn’t take the cult of personality anymore, or the insults, or very dark mean spirit that dominates this place. You will probably be happier for it rather than thinking you are making a difference in the culture war.

Last thing, maybe it would be helpful for me to highlight 2 regular posters who are the class of this place when it comes to conservative posters who manage to go toe to toe, but rarely if ever get too personal , or resort to the name calling and insults, and who manage to respect the posters who maybe think differently than them.
@Dirty Hairy Dawg, and @ToddBburn, thank you for being a great example for what I think the chat should be about. We may not always agree, but I feel like you would be great guys to actually be friends with based on your chat demeanor and persona , feel like maybe you would legitimately pray for me or ANYONE else that asked for it, and you are good ambassadors to your family name.

The name calling has been a bit one sided. That is certainly true. And many of us never Trumpers do get talked to as if we're a Gator fan visiting a UGA board on here.

 

[Moosefish]

In any dm's I've had with Moose, he's been great. I think he bl'd me once, but it was warranted. It was totally unintentional, but had a habit of starting threads about politics on the vent instead of the Chat. I explained what was happening. He gave me a warning and let me back in. I'm not angry with him. He may still feel going at me was justified and that's fine. I've never complained about someone coming after me to a mod. Have had one or two that have complained about me. I was being sarcastic and using the very way they attacked anyone linking wapo or NYT or CNN against them when the Trump supporters linked those very same untrustworthy news sources if it was a story they liked. They didn't pick up on it somehow and one of them turned me in. I try not to go after people on here, just candidates. I do address in plural my thoughts on the people who support them sometimes.

Thank you. To be clear: I go after opinions, not people and I was trying to pull an opinion/point out of you. If I didn't care what you thought, I'd ignore it and wouldn't have bothered.