Not getting banned seems really fucking easy to me, but I probably benefit greatly from the fact that all my posting is gated by the fact I browse almost exclusively on mobile and threads move faster than I can possibly keep up. Posting on a phone just takes too long for me to ever get roped into debates.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Not getting banned seems really fucking easy to me, but I probably benefit greatly from the fact that all my posting is gated by the fact I browse almost exclusively on mobile and threads move faster than I can possibly keep up. Posting on a phone just takes too long for me to ever get roped into debates.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Over three years for me. Best decision I ever made.
I've been around since the 90's and I've never been banned. Anyone here familiar with me can tell you I have strong opinions and can be somewhat brash with my replies. I just know where to draw the line and how to pick my battles.
My news feed is basically a warzone between right/left and baby pictures.
I generally only contribute comments about music and pictures of my cat, because that's what powers the internet.
Even if you're not on a phone it's really really easy not to get banned. Just don't be a dick. There, I just summed up the rules of the forum. I just don't get people that feel the need to call each other names in order to try and win an argument. Use more facts and evidence instead and if that doesn't work (because the other person is either better or ignores all your points) just stop and don't bother.
I just post Onion stories and use it to chat with friends.
Well, also don't post images.
That's one area where the line has never been effectively communicated. Mostly a string of "oh, that's banned now, didn't you know?".
The Librarian
Banned
hey shut up you whiny little prick i'm so tired of you posting in here gonna call you out on twitter too
Yea, I'd like an announcement post up top on the forums every time a new gif gets banned. Can be hard to keep track of sometimes. I still miss ronpaulitshappening.gif, that was really a great one.
:lol
PhoenixDark
Banned
To disagree with this foreign policy is one thing, but it's pretty damn disgusting to see conservatives actively question the motives of the president in this regard. Questioning a president's motives in general is fine, but here they are legitimately questioning his allegiance to the United States, and wondering if he's purposely sending troops to die in order to weaken America. And it's not like this is just some fringe thing, it's being hinted at by elected representatives.
Then there's Donald Rumsfield calling Obama the "so called Commander In Chief." Seriously?
Then there's Donald Rumsfield calling Obama the "so called Commander In Chief." Seriously?
Bill Clinton 2: Delegitimize Harder
The Librarian
Banned
gonna call out cyan too while i'm at it
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80045453&postcount=12671
cyan you're a huge prick!
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80045453&postcount=12671
cyan you're a huge prick!
I don't think that's the insult you think it is.
How come he gets called a huge prick?
The Librarian
Banned
He's a moderator. I have higher expectations for him. You on the other hand...
jamesinclair
Banned
One day I will be moderator.
And then I will ban everyone.
And this forum will be just me.
And CBOAT
#livingthedream
And then I will ban everyone.
And this forum will be just me.
And CBOAT
#livingthedream
The Librarian
Banned
Yea but he didn't just beat you at Twitter
Dude if Cyan was on Twitter I'd call him out there just like I did you!
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I'm screencapping these posts and putting them on my tumblr
? The link is to your post.
Don't ask :lol
That hit rather close to home
I don't have too much of an issue with the way moderation works here. I've been banned quite a few times, but there's only one or two instances where I would complain. For the most part, things are pretty cool. I like that gaf feels like a nice middle ground between the heavily structured style of the SA forums, and the completely chaotic OA. Sometimes it's nice to make a thread or a post that doesn't need to be essay length or anything like that, and just have fun.
Yeah, I was gonna suggest to the higher ups that there should be a sticky thread that has all the currently banned memes. Would save a lot of unnecessary bans, I would think.
Yeah, I was gonna suggest to the higher ups that there should be a sticky thread that has all the currently banned memes. Would save a lot of unnecessary bans, I would think.
The Chosen One
Member
Do we even have a "Coalition of the Willing" for these strikes on Syria?
Even though this supposedly isn't a ground operation, it seems to have far less support than even the Iraq operations.
Even though this supposedly isn't a ground operation, it seems to have far less support than even the Iraq operations.
I imagine that's because we squandered a lot of goodwill on Iraq.
empty vessel
Member
I would add that both of these are basically forms of delayed compensation to the employee. In the pension context, the company isn't really "saving" up money for future payment so much as it is paying its employees less wages now in order to pay them some of their wages later. In the context of a company that matches 401(k) contributions, the contributions should just be considered wages that are restricted to investment with Wall Street and which the employee cannot touch without penalty until later.
So, yeah, Wall Street is the clear beneficiary of the 401(k) system. It's basically a law that incentivizes companies diverting employee wages to Wall Street.
It's a big difference since we're not asking any country to provide ground troops as a part of some invasion and occupation. France is the only significant partner in carrying out actual military action, but we have the backup of Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, and more in terms of our actual aims in carrying out a limited strike. Remember that with Iraq in 2003, France and Germany were actually categorically opposed to US action as opposed to simply not being able to contribute military support.
Personally I think any action should be postponed (which to be fair Obama has done to a significant degree) until there's a clear international consensus on Assad's actions. But even if that doesn't develop, this situation will never be remotely on the same level as the Iraq War, and it's to the severe detriment of any antiwar movement (as well as actual international aims) that this action is being constantly conflated with Bush's colossal failures. I oppose even limited action, but the debate we've had about this has been dominated by conspiracy theories on the right and "Iraq all over again" on the left, which doesn't actually address real criticisms of intervention in this case (not that there hasn't been a handful of people who have made good arguments against intervention). And just because public opinion happens to be on my side for the mean time doesn't mean the public has a healthy take on the situation.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Of course we did. It's only natural after 10 years of pointless wars we start asking for more proof that your next war has a really good point to it. Combine that with the last 4 years of politicians telling us we are absolutely broke and need to make exceedingly hard sacrifices to make up for it.
I mean we just saw across the board cuts to everything from AIDS and cancer clinics and research, to nutrition programs like meals on wheels, to low income housing vouchers, to education programs, to national park services.
We just cut $38.7 million across our nutrition program, while costs of missile strikes could easily become 100 times that amount. We could probably double the budget of those nutrition programs for the cost of this military operation.
So we're extra sensitive to the cost of war and we're extra sensitive to the lack of returns from the Iraq war. It's only fair we demand more convincing than usual.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Looks like there's hope afterall
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/09/05/resolution_to_authorize_strikes_in_syria_falters.html
Black Republican
Member
Obama aint getting congress to pass this, honestly he should just give the go ahead instead of waiting.
Black Republican
Member
Sanky Panky
Banned
I haven't kept up with mainstream news, but is the fact that this attack on Syria is on behalf of Saudi Arabia/Qatar, has been in the plans for years, AND is solely for economic purposes... is that still considered "conspiracy" at this point?
Generally unless you have some actual evidence it's still a conspiracy theory.
Do you have proof of such things?
The Librarian
Banned
What do you mean? Facebook is really superficial. Those who really care about you will make the effort to stay in contact with you. It's not needed.family members/freinds let you down eh?
Pelosi will whip for it, which means if Boehner allows a vote it's a done deal. She'll get the necessary Dems. I hope she doesn't of course, but when she goes after votes she tends to get them. Though given where public support is right now, it might be harder than usual.
Sanky Panky
Banned
There is plenty out there... (the fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have offered to pay for the whole thing according to Kerry is pretty telling).
Zerohedge does a great job at putting everything together. These articles have links within them, for those that want to dig further than the propaganda we hear.
Links on the purpose of this attack
Links on the muddy evidence for the attack
Mackenzie 92
Member
What's the other theory, chemical weapons? The pipeline explanation makes much more sense to me and explains why Russia is so involved.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Looks like Congress is starting to vote No.
Guess it doesn't matter to Obama. Whether they say yes or no, he effectively gets no blame for what happens in Syria.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
There's a lot of bollocks in here.
For a start, they link the MintPress article. That alone should set off some sirens. And then another link showing some jugs and that video of the rebels using the Hell cannon which it says is launching a NERVE GAS CANISTER OMG which is a load of BS.
And then it says the rebels had access to chemical weapons when they mean they had access to locations linked to Syria's CW programme with no evidence they actually have any. They get past that by saying the UN and news outlets disagreeing. The link doesn't work but the former is factually untrue; in fact quite the opposite - the UN themselves said "there is no compelling evidence that these groups possess such weapons or their requisite delivery systems."
I assume the news it's talking about is the story from Turkey, where the authorities denied they had recovered any sarin (and I heard it just turned out to be anti-freeze luls).
Next it refers to the munitions linked to the 21st August attack as a DIY-type rocket which is rubbish. The munitions are huge, produced in bulk, standardised and clearrly professionally manufactured. It simply dismisses this with "The rebels could have made these". Given their unique and distinctive nature, you'd think someone would've taken notice. Alas they are only possessed by the Syrian military and have only ever been seen as remnants or UXO from government bombardments of rebel-held areas. Interestingly, they have also turned up at the sites of previous alleged chemical attacks.
You probably shouldn't put too much stock into what some ecconomics blog that's tryng to get me to buy gold and bitcoins says about things. Or maybe you do if you just want to switch your brain off when you see something that supports your presuppositions. Keep fighting the fight against that dastardly ~mainstream media~.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Obviously the attack would greatly benefit SA, and we already know the US is actively tipping the scale in their favor during this SA/Iran proxy war. Their supreme happiness about all this was pretty evident yesterday when Kerry mentioned they're willing to help finance this, and they've been complaining about Obama's alleged lackadaisical approach to the situation.
That being said, this isn't just some conspiracy for economic reasons. It's about eliminating Iran's last major ally in the region, and the US (well, Obama) saving face.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Looks like Congress is starting to vote No.
Guess it doesn't matter to Obama. Whether they say yes or no, he effectively gets no blame for what happens in Syria.
I honestly thought it would be highly unlikely for congress to vote down the authorization, but I guess you should never underestimat the irrational desire for Republicans to vote against anything Obama wants.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Which is why we need to fire all the janitors, get rid of child labor laws, and put children to work as janitors.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I prefer to think that they've finally decided to not be hypocritical about their no government spending policy by applying it to the military as well.
The Librarian
Banned
Big news today is KFF's study on Obamacare premiums.
While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.
- Status