The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[lfromnj]

If this is going nowhere soon, Israel should probably seize all of the West Bank and Gaza and evict every Arab from there. Then create a highly militarized 50km buffer zone to the neighbouring countries.

Better an end with horror than no end at all.

Moving back to Tender Branson for supporting ethnic cleansing.

[Badger]

If this is going nowhere soon, Israel should probably seize all of the West Bank and Gaza and evict every Arab from there. Then create a highly militarized 50km buffer zone to the neighbouring countries.

Better an end with horror than no end at all.

Moving back to Tender Branson for supporting ethnic cleansing.

How very.....Austrian.

[S019]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

Click thread for context

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

does anyone here think that certain sects of christianity might have to be outlawed for america to survive? Basically AOG, Pentecostals, nondenom, SSPX/Latin catholicism might all need to be banned. The sad thing is that there are a lot of conservative christians who are otherwise nice people. But like where do we draw the line. I kind of think Tushnet is right.

[S019]

2018 was a D+20 or so year in the Senate...despite the R gains. Cruz was +17 more than that standard.

2020 was an R+2 year for the Senate, despite the D gains.   Cornyn was only +7 more than that standard.

[Alben Barkley]

OK, I'm just gonna say it:

While I initially consented to the use of my name in the topic of this thread, that was now over 6 months ago. Shortly before then, I had (while highly intoxicated on the night of a holiday in which I got ESPECIALLY intoxicated even by my standards) made some extremely embarrassing, unwarranted, and unhinged posts attacking a fellow user (who I now like to think I'm on pretty good terms with), thus why I thought I was deserving of being named in the thread title. I could not possibly regret those posts more now. Hell, I couldn't even at the time. BUT I thought it would just be a temporary thing and the name would be replaced eventually, and that it was more than adequate punishment to be publicly humiliated in this way given that I had indeed made a massive fool of myself in front of everybody.

BUT I think the fact that I am STILL named in the title of this thread is frankly just bullying at this point. And in fact, the post that was used to justify the name change initially wasn't even related to the posts I regretted enough to sign off on the name change anyway -- they were in fact posts about sex s--t which it seemed to me most people here actually agreed with and did not think were crazy at all!

So at this point, I think it's unfair and wrong to continue to use my name in the title of this post. I owned it without saying a word in complaint for a solid 6 months plus. But as I am still very much a regular in this forum, I think it's just straight-up mean to still single me out like this in the title of such a massive thread. I'm not sure there's ANYONE else who deserves to be given the title next, actually. Even people who I have butted heads with many times and who I generally believe are "absurd" and/or "ignorant," I don't think they deserve to be put in the stockade and publicly shamed for this long.

So please, can the name finally be changed to something more generic that doesn't single me or any other user out?

[John Dule]

OK, I'm just gonna say it:

While I initially consented to the use of my name in the topic of this thread, that was now over 6 months ago. Shortly before then, I had (while highly intoxicated on the night of a holiday in which I got ESPECIALLY intoxicated even by my standards) made some extremely embarrassing, unwarranted, and unhinged posts attacking a fellow user (who I now like to think I'm on pretty good terms with), thus why I thought I was deserving of being named in the thread title. I could not possibly regret those posts more now. Hell, I couldn't even at the time. BUT I thought it would just be a temporary thing and the name would be replaced eventually, and that it was more than adequate punishment to be publicly humiliated in this way given that I had indeed made a massive fool of myself in front of everybody.

Yeah, as the person towards whom that rant was directed, I found it pretty funny and I don't hold any grudge at all. The thread should be renamed. We have users on this site who believe in Bigfoot and want to ban knives; the fact that this is still named for AB of all people is an insult to our collective intelligence.

[Alben Barkley]

OK, I'm just gonna say it:

While I initially consented to the use of my name in the topic of this thread, that was now over 6 months ago. Shortly before then, I had (while highly intoxicated on the night of a holiday in which I got ESPECIALLY intoxicated even by my standards) made some extremely embarrassing, unwarranted, and unhinged posts attacking a fellow user (who I now like to think I'm on pretty good terms with), thus why I thought I was deserving of being named in the thread title. I could not possibly regret those posts more now. Hell, I couldn't even at the time. BUT I thought it would just be a temporary thing and the name would be replaced eventually, and that it was more than adequate punishment to be publicly humiliated in this way given that I had indeed made a massive fool of myself in front of everybody.

Yeah, as the person towards whom that rant was directed, I found it pretty funny and I don't hold any grudge at all. The thread should be renamed. We have users on this site who believe in Bigfoot and want to ban knives; the fact that this is still named for AB of all people is an insult to our collective intelligence.

Thanks man, I really appreciate the support.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough how much of an idiot I was at that time, and how much I regret going psycho on you that night. Was beyond the pale and absolutely unwarranted.

And every time I read a post of yours since then I think "My god, this man is one of the smartest people here!" which just makes me feel even dumber and dumber for ever having done it.

Again, I was not thinking at all, I sincerely and totally regret it, and I think and hope that I've demonstrated enough since then that I'm not even close to the most "absurd" or "ignorant" person here. I had an extremely unfortunate lapse in judgment that was so horribly embarrassing it still to this day makes me feel a little shame whenever I remember it logging in here. But I really do not think it should define me for all-time, and I'm glad you agree.

[S019]

I do think in a Runoff scenario WARNOCK will lose, he is the only one below 50% Hassan will win, she is at 55% in the last Change poll

51/49 Senators

First off citing Change, and second a total ignorance of GA's inelasticity

[Continential]

I do think in a Runoff scenario WARNOCK will lose, he is the only one below 50% Hassan will win, she is at 55% in the last Change poll

51/49 Senators

First off citing Change, and second a total ignorance of GA's inelasticity

This post is a good post because OC said it.

[Dr. MB]

OK, I'm just gonna say it:

While I initially consented to the use of my name in the topic of this thread, that was now over 6 months ago. Shortly before then, I had (while highly intoxicated on the night of a holiday in which I got ESPECIALLY intoxicated even by my standards) made some extremely embarrassing, unwarranted, and unhinged posts attacking a fellow user (who I now like to think I'm on pretty good terms with), thus why I thought I was deserving of being named in the thread title. I could not possibly regret those posts more now. Hell, I couldn't even at the time. BUT I thought it would just be a temporary thing and the name would be replaced eventually, and that it was more than adequate punishment to be publicly humiliated in this way given that I had indeed made a massive fool of myself in front of everybody.

Yeah, as the person towards whom that rant was directed, I found it pretty funny and I don't hold any grudge at all. The thread should be renamed. We have users on this site who believe in Bigfoot and want to ban knives; the fact that this is still named for AB of all people is an insult to our collective intelligence.

did you ever think you might be the absurd or ignorant one for not believing in bigfoot

[Hammy]

https://twitter.com/PostRoz/status/1395427885775826949

I see no problem with this. Andrew Cuomo is innocent and deserves the strongest defense strategy possible.

[Continential]

He doesn’t even know what he saying, folks. And if he says anything remotely progressive, he’s probably been heavily drugged and told what to say, when he finally comes to, it’s a different story. Also, Biden has no intention to pass anything progressive; he probably knows nothing is going to get passed with that “trifecta”

[S019]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

This was in a thread about Texas putting Confederate apologism into history books.

[Big Abraham]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

This was in a thread about Texas putting Confederate apologism into history books.

The quote in question was regarding the notion that Texas seceded from Mexico on the basis of slavery. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy.

[S019]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

This was in a thread about Texas putting Confederate apologism into history books.

The quote in question was regarding the notion that Texas seceded from Mexico on the basis of slavery. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy.

That doesn't change the substance of the post, and it's clear to anyone with a brain that the Southern slave power strongly desired Texas as a new slave state. In fact Tennessean Andrew Jackson was the one who supported its secession from Mexico, and another Tennessean and one of the worst presidents in history, James K Polk literally lied to start a war with Mexico (see: the Thornton Affair). The Texas Annexation was always about slavery and pretending it wasn't is historical revisionism.

[Big Abraham]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

This was in a thread about Texas putting Confederate apologism into history books.

The quote in question was regarding the notion that Texas seceded from Mexico on the basis of slavery. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy.

That doesn't change the substance of the post, and it's clear to anyone with a brain that the Southern slave power strongly desired Texas as a new slave state. In fact Tennessean Andrew Jackson was the one who supported its secession from Mexico, and another Tennessean and one of the worst presidents in history, James K Polk literally lied to start a war with Mexico (see: the Thornton Affair). The Texas Annexation was always about slavery and pretending it wasn't is historical revisionism.

Yeah, once again, this is about the Texas Revolution, not the Annexation. Want to try again?

[S019]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

This was in a thread about Texas putting Confederate apologism into history books.

The quote in question was regarding the notion that Texas seceded from Mexico on the basis of slavery. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy.

That doesn't change the substance of the post, and it's clear to anyone with a brain that the Southern slave power strongly desired Texas as a new slave state. In fact Tennessean Andrew Jackson was the one who supported its secession from Mexico, and another Tennessean and one of the worst presidents in history, James K Polk literally lied to start a war with Mexico (see: the Thornton Affair). The Texas Annexation was always about slavery and pretending it wasn't is historical revisionism.

Yeah, once again, this is about the Texas Revolution, not the Annexation. Want to try again?

Are you not aware that a bunch of American settlers literally moved into Texas for the purpose of starting a revolution, just to get another slave state? Sam Houston for instance was literally a Tennessee slaveholder, it's very clear what their intentions were. Also your argument would be more convincing if the South didn't have a habit of trying to take over other places and turn them into US states, the most notable of these, of course, being Nicaragua. This is basic history, this isn't hard.

[Big Abraham]

Are you not aware that a bunch of American settlers literally moved into Texas for the purpose of starting a revolution, just to get another slave state?

Are you aware that's literally not what happened? First off, the Texas revolution was one of many uprisings that took place against the Mexican government at this time, most of which white Southerners had nothing to do with. Even in Texas, many whites did not own slaves and native-born Tejanos played a major role in the revolution as well. There was massive resistance on behalf of many groups to the centralist government, which is why even today Mexico is a federation.

Sam Houston for instance was literally a Tennessee slaveholder, it's very clear what their intentions were.

Ok, and Davy Crockett, also from Tennessee and a major figure of the Revolution, did not own slaves and also opposed Jackson's Indian removal policies. What's your point?
(By the way, Houston was a very bad example to use. Although he did own slaves, he also urged the end of importation of slaves into Texas - and also opposed Southern secession. He had actual principled reasons to support Texan independence, which you seem to conveniently ignore)

Anyway, I'll end here. I don't want to debase this thread any further. However it does unfortunately seem you are quite misinformed about the history of my state - which I why I wanted to set the record straight.

[S019]

Zuckerman would be a Great candidate for his seat though, it's VT and let's face it Bernie and Leahy aren't retiring

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Zuckerman would be a Great candidate for his seat though, it's VT and let's face it Bernie and Leahy aren't retiring

[S019]

Zuckerman would be a Great candidate for his seat though, it's VT and let's face it Bernie and Leahy aren't retiring

You just quoted my post? I'm confused here.

[John Dule]

Zuckerman would be a Great candidate for his seat though, it's VT and let's face it Bernie and Leahy aren't retiring

You just quoted my post? I'm confused here.

[WD]

Zuckerman would be a Great candidate for his seat though, it's VT and let's face it Bernie and Leahy aren't retiring

You just quoted my post? I'm confused here.

There are few actions less absurd or ignorant than attempting to insult a post made by MR. KAYNE WEST, or as he’s better known as, God. You should be ashamed.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Abolishment of the nucleur family? That's insanem Now I can see why their support will drop continuosly.

I would agree with them.
If anything, kids from a young age should be sent to a large centralized childcare center where large groups of children are provided for and later educated.

This would reduce inequality of opportunity to near zero, and would allow us to teach every child important values that many are missing today.