PotWR- The Power of the Pardon

Should I have used my Presidential Pardon Powers to unban Trotsky?


  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
He's been here since 2005, so I should hope he's made a few friends here. It's probably got something to do with that Platinum membership too.
Well, you’ve been here for three years.

How many friends in high places have you made?

(Double yellow cards don’t count.)
 
Wasn't he a mod for minute? Like literally a minute? His username is always changing colors.
That was an April fools day prank. A bunch of dick jerker were mods for a minute..
 
Hey President @HomerThompson, can I get some kind of executive order that addresses my new neighbor, who has decided that it's appropriate to fire off his handguns in the suburbs under cover of neighborhood fireworks? Or am I supposed to shut up and taste all of the freedom? Please guidance for this thanks.
I have the perfect thing for that.

tenor.gif
 
Well, you’ve been here for three years.

How many friends in high places have you made?

(Double yellow cards don’t count.)

Let's see – judges, mayors, county counsels, DAs, AUSAs... nope no Sherdog mods! FML
 
Ha. I remember the thread of that second post. Good times

Yeah, if that’s all it is I definitely support Homer’s overreach of power in bringing you back. If we banned everyone who devolved to calling other posters fucking idiots and fuckwits at some point there’d be no one left here

Still gonna disagree with you on the dangers of pushing your brand of communism in the states, but welcomed to have you back

Has he persuaded anybody? I think it's having the opposite affect so it's actually a good thing.
 
If we banned everyone who devolved to calling other posters fucking idiots and fuckwits at some point there’d be no one left here
Well met HockeyBjj,

If it came to that, this forum would consist of only me talking to myself.


-IGIT
 
Yeah, if that’s all it is I definitely support Homer’s overreach of power in bringing you back. If we banned everyone who devolved to calling other posters fucking idiots and fuckwits at some point there’d be no one left here

The policy regarding the amount of flaming allowed in the War Room has varied over the years.
At the moment though, if you make a post which doesn't address the thread topic and consists of nothing but flaming, you can expect infractions (which escalate).
In other words, don't just reply to people's posts with something along the lines of, "Go fuck yourself to death."
 
The policy regarding the amount of flaming allowed in the War Room has varied over the years.
At the moment though, if you make a post which doesn't address the thread topic and consists of nothing but flaming, you can expect infractions (which escalate).
In other words, don't just reply to people's posts with something along the lines of, "Go fuck yourself to death."
Awe, golly gee. :(
 
The policy regarding the amount of flaming allowed in the War Room has varied over the years.
At the moment though, if you make a post which doesn't address the thread topic and consists of nothing but flaming, you can expect infractions (which escalate).
In other words, don't just reply to people's posts with something along the lines of, "Go fuck yourself to death."

Go fuck yourself to death you stupid crow eater.
That was a bit harsh...













I totally take that back.














You're not South Australian.
<{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}>
 
Go fuck yourself to death you stupid crow eater.
That was a bit harsh...













I totally take that back.














You're not South Australian.
<{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{natewhut}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}><{cum@me}>

Yes exactly. Posts like that will get you infracted.
Not sure how you can accuse me of not being a crow eater, when it looks like you've gone mexican.
 
I still really don't get the animosity from you in particular. You've called yourself a moral revivalist and a fan of Kirk and Bloom. One would think you'd at least be a hardcore Never Trumper righty who appreciates someone like Homer stomping on a lot of the nastier trolls here.

I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Allan Bloom. I appreciate his book The Closing of the American Mind, but I cannot respect his promiscuous lifestyle that eventually led to him dying of aids.

It would be interesting to know what both Russell Kirk and Bloom thought of the 2016 election. I am certain both would be disgusted (though not entirely surprised) by the two candidates. I am not sure which candidate Bloom would support if (probably not either), but I have no doubt that Kirk would not support the democrats winning and he would be much more sympathetic to Trump voters. I imagine both men (especially Kirk) would have a similar view to Sir Roger Scruton who strongly dislikes Trump, but can understand why "the deplorables" voted for him out of feelings of betrayal and being despised by the media and the political class.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Allan Bloom. I appreciate his book The Closing of the American Mind, but I cannot respect his promiscuous lifestyle that eventually led to him dying of aids.

Do you think he was more promiscuous than Trump? Or generally that his ethical standards for himself were lower than Trump's?

It would be interesting to know what both Russell Kirk and Bloom thought of the 2016 election.

I think it's irrelevant to anything we've discussed. Point is just that neither would be fans of Trump or posting Pepe memes or defending his personal immorality, corruption, and boobery. That's why I say that I'd expect you to at least be a Never-Trump righty rather than that I'd expect you to be a Clinton supporter (though of course Clinton did have the more pro-family agenda and the far better record of personal morality and better skills as a head of state).

I imagine both men (especially Kirk) would have a similar view to Sir Roger Scruton who strongly dislikes Trump, but can understand why people would vote for him out of feelings of betrayal and being despised by the media and the political class.

He sounds clueless in that video. "I voted" stickers have been given out for as long as I remember, and I've never seen an "I voted for X" sticker given out. And both candidates were popular with voters in their own party. It's actually more media-bubblish to think that everyone hated both candidates (they both were particularly unpopular with the opposing party and with minority factions within their own party, though). That said, of course it's understandable that people who feel that they are out of the cultural mainstream despise that mainstream. It's just not wise or decent to react to those hurt feelings by trying to hurt the country by putting someone like Trump in the WH.

BTW, I think that a lot of these people have painted themselves into a corner. They're calling for civility following denunciations of previous calls for civility ("PC culture"), and they demand that their hurt feelings related to exclusion be taken seriously following mocking of the same idea. I think they know it and are uncomfortable with it. They're like Fry (like Fry!):

Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: Don't tell me you believe in Bigfoot, you blithering ninny-hammer.

Fry: Of course I do. Bigfoot's my hero. Growing up, he was the celebrity I most identified with.

Dr. Zoidberg: Why?

Fry: 'Cause he was a loner who hated the popular monsters, yet longed to be one.
 
Last edited:
Do you think he was more promiscuous than Trump? Or generally that his ethical standards for himself were lower than Trump's?



I think it's irrelevant to anything we've discussed. Point is just that neither would be fans of Trump or posting Pepe memes or defending his personal immorality, corruption, and boobery. That's why I say that I'd expect you to at least be a Never-Trump righty rather than that I'd expect you to be a Clinton supporter (though of course Clinton did have the more pro-family agenda and the far better record of personal morality and better skills as a head of state).



He sounds clueless in that video. "I voted" stickers have been given out for as long as I remember, and I've never seen an "I voted for X" sticker given out. And both candidates were popular with voters in their own party. It's actually more media-bubblish to think that everyone hated both candidates (they both were particularly unpopular with the opposing party and with minority factions within their own party, though). That said, of course it's understandable that people who feel that they are out of the cultural mainstream despise that mainstream. It's just not wise or decent to react to those hurt feelings by trying to hurt the country by putting someone like Trump in the WH.

BTW, I think that a lot of these people have painted themselves into a corner. They're calling for civility following denunciations of previous calls for civility ("PC culture"), and they demand that their hurt feelings related to exclusion be taken seriously following mocking of the same idea. I think they know it and are uncomfortable with it. They're like Fry (like Fry!):

I agree with most of what you said, however, I take some issue with a couple of things.

I'm not a Never-Trumper and I think it unreasonable to be one. Why decide to stand against someone no matter what they do, good or bad? It seems a little silly. Trump is the president and all of the smug late night talk-show mockery and self-righteous celebrity nonsense will not change that. It only makes people more resentful. Outside of Trump's hilarious tweets, I don't recall ever championing Trump's sexcapades. I would prefer if he would have remained married to his wife and stayed a humble family man instead of running around like a sleeze ball.

You greatly underestimate the negative influence that the words and behavior of democrats, progressive pundits, activists, academics and celebrities had on Trump winning. They are hardly blameless in contributing to the current divisions that have arisen. To downplay or completely ignore the left's role in this mess is to be willingly ignorant and will do nothing to tear down the walls of resentment people are building. Both sides have their issues, but it seems that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge there is a problem on the left.

The best approach is a spiritual discipline against resentment:

The Spiritual Discipline Against Resentment
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s transformational encounter with Reinhold Niebuhr.

According to [Christopher] Lasch, the spiritual discipline against resentment

discriminated “between the evils of a social system . . . and the individuals who are involved in it.” . . . Self-righteousness and resentment, as Niebuhr understood the latter term, went hand in hand. Victims of injustice, whose suffering entitled them to resent it, had all the more reason to renounce resentment, lest it confer the sense of moral superiority that allegedly excused them in retaliating against injustice with injustice of their own. In order to undermine their oppressors’ claims to moral superiority, they had to avoid such claims on their own behalf. They had to renounce the privileged status of victims.

...the spiritual discipline against resentment is just that—a spiritual discipline. It does not seek entitlement or revenge, but reconciliation for all. It is not a natural but a theological response, rooted in love and virtue, one that acknowledges a higher plane of justice than that attainable in this life...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not a Never-Trumper and I think it unreasonable to be one. Why decide to stand against someone no matter what they do, good or bad? It seems a little silly.

It would be, but that's not what "Never Trumper" (note caps) refers to. It's a movement of conservatives who acknowledge the harm he has done to the country and to the conservative movement and have committed to rejecting putting tribalism or partisanship above conservative principles. I note that you do defend him and use the silly memes and stuff, while a lot of your other posting would lead me to think you're more in that camp.

You greatly underestimate the negative influence that the words and behavior of democrats, progressive pundits, activists, academics and celebrities had on Trump winning.

I didn't comment on that in the post you're responding to. I said that I understand destructive and stupid behavior, but I still criticize it. If you want to shift, though, I'd say that I'm open to seeing evidence to support your claim. From what I can see, the 2016 election was generally favorable to Republicans, but Trump fared worse than would be expected (of course, expectations were already--rightly--adjusted downward to account for his unusual shittiness) and underperformed down-ballot Republicans.

They are hardly blameless in contributing to the current divisions that have arisen. To downplay or completely ignore the left's role in this mess is to be willingly ignorant and will do nothing to tear down the walls of resentment people are building. Both sides have their issues, but it seems that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge there is a problem on the left.

The best approach is a spiritual discipline against resentment

You seem to be contradicting yourself if you're defending people reacting to cultural resentments by behaving destructively. If you're broadly claiming that both sides are to blame in culture wars, OK.

Good piece on the issue here:

https://medium.com/s/trustissues/th...mp-didnt-start-with-donald-trump-1e44751116bb

The part that follows this:

What was perhaps not yet clear to Hunter in 1991 was that when the Cold War ended, Americans’ sublimated religious energies, which have traditionally sought an “other” to oppose, were left facing a profound vacuum. As I have written elsewhere, “the United States felt the absence of the Soviet Union like a phantom limb.” Those same forces turned inward, with U.S. citizens attaching themselves with a fury to partisan politics.

is particularly relevant.
 
I just want to take a moment to thank War Room president, @homer Thompson granting my request to have @Super Mikey banned.

The purge continues...
 
It would be, but that's not what "Never Trumper" (note caps) refers to. It's a movement of conservatives who acknowledge the harm he has done to the country and to the conservative movement and have committed to rejecting putting tribalism or partisanship above conservative principles. I note that you do defend him and use the silly memes and stuff, while a lot of your other posting would lead me to think you're more in that camp.

I didn't comment on that in the post you're responding to. I said that I understand destructive and stupid behavior, but I still criticize it. If you want to shift, though, I'd say that I'm open to seeing evidence to support your claim. From what I can see, the 2016 election was generally favorable to Republicans, but Trump fared worse than would be expected (of course, expectations were already--rightly--adjusted downward to account for his unusual shittiness) and underperformed down-ballot Republicans.

You seem to be contradicting yourself if you're defending people reacting to cultural resentments by behaving destructively. If you're broadly claiming that both sides are to blame in culture wars, OK.

Good piece on the issue here:

https://medium.com/s/trustissues/th...mp-didnt-start-with-donald-trump-1e44751116bb

The part that follows this:
is particularly relevant.


That is really good article.

But while Trump himself seems to go out of his way to exacerbate tensions among Americans, it’s important to remember that he is ultimately the symptom of something that has been going on for quite some time. And that implies that with his departure, we will not necessarily be better as a country.




It would be, but that's not what "Never Trumper" (note caps) refers to. It's a movement of conservatives who acknowledge the harm he has done to the country and to the conservative movement and have committed to rejecting putting tribalism or partisanship above conservative principles.

I agree with the article you posted that the problems we see today have been there long before Trump. I don't believe Trump damaged the image of conservatism. The image was already tarnished by evangelicals, libertarians, free-market obsessed Republicans and obnoxious political pundits. Trump is the symptom not the cause.

You seem to be contradicting yourself if you're defending people reacting to cultural resentments by behaving destructively. If you're broadly claiming that both sides are to blame in culture wars, OK.

I think all sides need to take the approach of discipline against resentment. There are a lot of stupid idiots on the Right fueling the flames too.



NYT's columist Ross Douthat predicted a Trump presidency (much to his dismay) back in 2016. Here is an article he wrote that angered a lot of people at the time:

Clinton’s Samantha Bee Problem

At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling of being suffocated by the left’s cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion — which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country’s government.

This spirit of political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump’s act. As James Parker wrote in The Atlantic, he’s occupying “a space in American politics that is uniquely transgressive, volatile, carnivalesque, and (from a certain angle) punk rock.” (The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk rock analogy as well.) Like the Sex Pistols, Parker suggests, Trump is out to “upend the culture” — but in this case it’s the culture of institutionalized political correctness and John Oliver explaining the news to you, forever.

That Nixon-Reagan rightward shift did not repeal the 1960s or push the counterculture back to a beatnik-hippie fringe. But it did leave liberalism in a curious place throughout the 1980s: atop the commanding heights of culture yet often impotent in Washington, D.C.

By nominating a Trump rather than a Nixon or a Reagan, the Republicans may have saved liberalism from repeating that trajectory. But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The policy regarding the amount of flaming allowed in the War Room has varied over the years.
At the moment though, if you make a post which doesn't address the thread topic and consists of nothing but flaming, you can expect infractions (which escalate).
In other words, don't just reply to people's posts with something along the lines of, "Go fuck yourself to death."

You go fu....... Wait, fire hot.
 
Lol at the white belt rule @Lethal (I think it's a good call)

I remember this happening because of the OT however many years ago. Unfortunately, more rules followed and then the OT was deleted. Let's not get the WR deleted this time fellas!
@HomerThompson @Fawlty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top