Example Behavior of Intolerant Liberals

Word is that there was a second spitter hiding behind a wall on a nearby grassy knoll.

 

Could be worse.

Kristi Noem’s story of killing her dog points to class two misdemeanor

 

You start a thread about a spitting incident, generalize the behavior to libs, then lament another being not having much of a life . . . .

 

Poster reminds me of Tina Turner....... "trollin, trollin, trolin down the river". Seems to take a crap source clickbait one-off incident to put the broad brush to work. Very low-level contribution.

 

He's just really really mad at liberals.

 

Example of why Rule #20 does not change the tone of THfSG. Anyone can pay to get a blue check on X.

 

You spoke of your goal to tone down the tenor of the forum (in so many words). How do you think this thread fits in with that?

 

Breaking his own recently made up rule about insulting groups. "intolerant Liberals".

 

https://www.reuters.com/pictures/harrowing-scenes-jan-6-us-capitol-attack-four-years-ago-2025-01-06/

 

https://www.reuters.com/pictures/ha...ars-ago-2025-01-06/5EEPHSX5IZKXZB5VGBWQA6ZOU4

 

What a nasty libbie

 

Leftie women...

 

I’d never read the rules, but that “approved website” list is especially stupid if random blue checks count. Who thinks that makes a lick of sense? I was going to reply in a thread, but the thread got whacked because it linked to Gizmodo!? That was it, “not an approved website”. Bizarre.

I get that some posters like to spam from lousy sources for whatever reason. But maybe just deal with people who start troll threads rather than come up with cockamamie rules. Seems like instead of “approved” sources - have a much shorter list of “banned” sources (or perhaps just ban far left and far right sources, but accept “leans left” and “leans right” if it’s factually good). If anything X should NOT count. Although sometimes stories break and social media is the only thing we’ve got if a “real” written story hasn’t yet come out, so in those real-time situations it makes sense.

 

Who decides if “it’s factually good”?

 

Who decides if someone is here illegally?

 

Not sure what that has to do with the post that I responded to.

 

Her actions were gross and she should be charged with whatever the applicable crime is. But if what she did makes her representative of all liberals, does Martin's praise for Nazis make him representative of all conservatives?

 

Oooo… I’m telling… you used the word that shall not be used to describe…