Official War Room Awards 2018

[NoDak]

Among other public buildings in a certain town, which for many reasons it will be prudent to refrain from mentioning, and to which I will assign no fictitious name, there is one anciently common to most towns, great or small: to wit, a workhouse; and in this workhouse was born; on a day and date which I need not trouble myself to repeat, inasmuch as it can be of no possible consequence to the reader, in this stage of the business at all events; the item of mortality whose name is prefixed to the head of this chapter.

 

[Trotsky]

In the past, Conservatives have been terrible on the issue of free speech. Both Liberals and Conservatives are hypocrites on this issue. Right now, Liberals are the ones clamoring for censorship, so I'm understandably more concerned with them.

No, they aren't. It's the right-wing that fetishizes speech suppression, whether through anti-BDS bills, or demonizing factual journalism and cheering on the marginalization of the press because right-wingers are triggered by facts, or the President calling for the firing of athletes or the jailing of protesters.

I am not "my side," just as you are not "your side." I did not write Citizens United. I believe there many problems with the reasoning used in that opinion, and I would have written it differently. But the Left has benefitted from Citizens United just as much as the Right has (if not more), so IDK what you're mad about. To be clear, I believe the right to speak is held by natural persons exclusively. Corporations are not "people" in that sense, even if they are operated by people, so their spending on behalf of political parties can and should be well-regulated.

Just lol @ "the Left has benefited from Citizens United just as much as the Right has (if not more)." L. O. L.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Best All Around Poster

• @kpt018 - I like his style, he writes like he's having a conversation and he usually offers an interesting perspective.
• HM: @PolishHeadlock , @Prokofievian , @luckyshot , @helltoupee
• There are plenty more. I like posters who are smarter than me, but that doesn't narrow it down enough, so I had to include "and they don't make me feel bad about it" to come up with a manageable list.

Worst All Around Poster

• Everyone entertains me, so it's either nobody, or a tie between everyone.

Best TS

• @luckyshot

Worst TS

• @abiG
• He seems like a bot, but the programmers skipped the QA phase of development and just went straight to production.

Best Thread

• The Mueller thread

Drunkest poster

• @AgonyandIrony
• I want to say me, but he's more active than I am, a better overall poster, and he's the only guy who's posts actually, physically smell like Jameison and weed. I don't know how he does it. I bow to his mastery. Also because not picking @RockstarChris will drive him to do more shots.

Worst user name

• Not sure.

Best user name

• Mr. President, @Cubo de Sangre

Rookie of the Year

• @NoDak

Best Feud

• I'm going with @Jack V Savage vs. @waiguoren , because that guy took a beatdown on the mid-terms and has slunk off ever since. DOMINANT. Probably neck deep in battle sluts right now.

Best Quote

• Couldn't remember any. I'll try harder and come back.

Most Likely to Get Banned in 2019

• Not sure.

Sketch or Sniper?

• @sniper , because the art of great writing lies in thrift

It's an art for sure. I'm drinking absinthe at a jazz club in the French Quarter in New Orleans watching the game. @RockstarChris is busy thinking Vegas Bombs are still cool while telling a single mom she's interesting because she's a CNA.

I am absolutely drunkest poster on Sherdog and I challenge all of y'all on Bourbon Street about it.

 

[Gandhi]

The thread about a guy that got Stand-Your-Grounded by a couple of rednecks and the victim's wife made a Sherdog appearance to explain what happened was one of my favorite moments this year. Many people were shamed in that thread.

I saw that thread but missed that, sounds epic please link

 

[JamesRussler]

No, they aren't. It's the right-wing that fetishizes speech suppression, whether through anti-BDS bills, or demonizing factual journalism and cheering on the marginalization of the press because right-wingers are triggered by facts, or the President calling for the firing of athletes or the jailing of protesters.

Well, we can agree to disagree about that, but we do agree that suppression of speech is wrong... right?

Just lol @ "the Left has benefited from Citizens United just as much as the Right has (if not more)." L. O. L.

I swear you're stuck in a 1980's time warp. We live in an age where big business swings progressive.

 

[sickc0d3r]

It's an art for sure. I'm drinking absinthe at a jazz club in the French Quarter in New Orleans watching the game. @RockstarChris is busy thinking Vegas Bombs are still cool while telling a single mom she's interesting because she's a CNA.

I am absolutely drunkest poster on Sherdog and I challenge all of y'all on Bourbon Street about it.

The lol, it was legit.

 

[Quipling]

Link?

The quoted sections are largely accurate statements of law. The issues are the implications that:
1.) Criminal liability necessarily attaches to those actions (it almost never does; the remedy is typically dismissal of the charges and sometimes ethical sanctions)
and
2.) those issues are applicable to the SCO.

 

[Trotsky]

I have free speech but if I get together with someone else and form some sort of group then we no longer have it?

Yeah, you don't know what corporate spending entails for publicly traded corporations. It is constrained by corporate fiduciary law such that it cannot be in furtherance of any objective but pursuing profit. Likewise, investors in corporations enjoy limited liability, which means that they cannot be held financially liable beyond their investment. So, pursuant to the fiduciary law, the corporation's spending is not political speech except to the extent that the speech itself serves the interests of the corporation's stock price or market share. To allow unfettered corporate political spending would be to allow penetration of apolitical and non-democratic influence into a democratic polity. And because of laws on limited liability (for shareholders and directors) and the state-level race to the bottom on director liability, there is basically no way to democratize that spending or hold it accountable for its policies when you can't get to the money, whether to seek remedies for aggrieved citizens or for aggrieved shareholders.

All of these things (fiduciary law, limited liability, corporate veils) are put in place to politically quarantine publicly traded countries and maximize corporations' ability to pursue profits without having to having to hedge against losses and worry about internal and external political issues. To then allow them to parlay those profits back into the government that is protecting them to further weaponize it in their favor amounts to more than just having cake and eating it too: it's systemically undemocratic.

I swear you're stuck in a 1980's time warp. We live in an age where big business swings progressive.

No, it doesn't, unless your political understanding is restricted to only identity politics and does not regard (frankly, much more important and MUCH more relevant to corporate spending and lobbying) matters of economic and regulatory policy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You''d need to quote that. My comments have been simple and direct.

I quoted you in the post you responded to. You didn't see it? You insinuated something that you knew was false and that you would be unable to defend, right?

"Show me the man, I'll find you the crime."
That appears to be the mantra of one Robert S. Mueller. But in the USA, all full-scale searches, seizures, and charges must be based upon probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Intentionally violating a person's civil rights is illegal. Threatening Defendants to coerce confessions or testimony is illegal. Knowingly using false or fabricated evidence / testimony is illegal. Hiding or destroying exculpatory evidence is illegal. Using administrative authority to interfere with or overturn an election is illegal. In time, Mr. Mueller will regret his decision to spite the will of the People.

OK, but none of this stuff is real. What it comes down to is that anyone who investigated Trump was going to find a lot of crimes and as a result was going to get fascists wanting to arrest them. Despite your dishonest approach, we all know where you stand. But Cubo was earlier talking about believing in due process. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the cops to be used as a weapon or you believe in rule of law.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I quoted you in the post you responded to. You didn't see it? You insinuated something that you knew was false and that you would be unable to defend, right?

What I see is that you continue to have an active imagination where my posting is concerned. But you're welcome to quote my words and show the forum your analysis of their meaning.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have actually stated my thoughts / beliefs quite clearly. If you understand a few things about me, my positions on so-called "edgy" topics will all make sense:

• I value freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and robust public debate.
• I despise censorship, political correctness, and group think.

It's really that simple. With very few exceptions (e.g., terror threats, child pornography, etc.), my positions are absolute. I am not one of those people who feels compelled to "disavow" people who offend others. If you are on the side of the people saying "You can't say that," I am most likely on the other side. Doesn't matter whether you're talking about the Holocaust, the Holodomor, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, or forum moderators.

This is the same issue I was talking about in the post you're responding to. You're not being upfront about your actual beliefs. OK, we all agree that you should be able to express your views, now what are they? What is free speech for? Liberals believe that it's necessary to protect free speech because they want a society where power is based on reason, and people need to be able to tell the truth to the best of their ability (even when doing so puts them against entrenched power) to have that. If you believe in power based on tradition or inheritance or some kind of racial caste system, free speech isn't necessary. So your post would imply a liberal outlook that is not generally in evidence in your posts. That's why it seems that you are insincere.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What I see is that you continue to have an active imagination where my posting is concerned. But you're welcome to quote my words and show the forum your analysis of their meaning.

I already quoted the post. Are you going to dishonestly pretend that "you're welcome to your opinion" doesn't imply that the opinion is somehow misguided? Why? Just own what you say. I'm not going to bite.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I already quoted the post. Are you going to dishonestly pretend that "you're welcome to your opinion" doesn't imply that the opinion is somehow misguided? Why? Just own what you say. I'm not going to bite.

Then all you need to do is substantiate your conclusion. It's not my responsibility to walk you through your mistakes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Then all you need to do is substantiate your conclusion. It's not my responsibility to walk you through your mistakes.

I substantiated it by quoting your post. But you're now trying to dishonestly deny that you said what you said.

 

[Fawlty]

Of course I was certain you were being misrepresented. Although that doesn't sound like "a danger to the public". Surrendering his passport would suffice in my book.

You're a joke. He's talking about arbitrarily locking up special counsel because it's getting too close to the President. That's third world dictator garbage. But now you've committed to this all the way. Locking up political opponents arbitrarily is now firmly in your wheelhouse, with both Clinton and Mueller. You won't be able to deny it now. That's end of democracy shit.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I substantiated it by quoting your post.

What are you accusing me of again? And what exactly was the quote? Stop wasting everyone's time. Take me apart, if you've got what you need.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You're a joke.

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[Fawlty]

Am I Rip Van Winkle? When did all this shit happen?

Also, burn them down Mueller.

Your "boy" Cubo thinks it's reasonable to lock up political opponents for doing their duty for this country.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What are you accusing me of again? And what exactly was the quote? Stop wasting everyone's time. Take me apart, if you've got what you need.

You're the one wasting time, friend. I typed out a post, and your only response was "you're welcome to your opinion," and then I said that you presumably disagree but will not say why, and you disagreed that you said that. Go back and read the posts.

 

[SBJJ]

Wait. I thought Russler wanted Mueller locked up with no trial. So that was all Bullshit from a well known shitposter?