no one has sent any alerts from here yet today???

[davidinalameda]

HELLO????

IS THERE ANYONE HOME or are y 'all still asleep!

:hangover:

[Eric J in MN]

1. What do you mean by alerts? (nt)

nt

[davidinalameda]

2. look at the bottom gray area of any post

you'll see ALERT on the far left

if you believe that a post violates the DU posting rules, you would click on alert and another window would pop up and you would send a message to the moderators why you think that post violates the rules

[demsrule4life]

3. New job and nothing to do?

[DoNotRefill]

4. Personally....

I stopped alerting unless it reaches the point of being legally actionable.

If you feel a need to delete posts for rules violations, let me know and I'll be glad to start alerting on simple rules violations again. It seems to me that any post accusing large groups of people including posters here of being "scum" would qualify. There are more than a few of them, mostly from one prolific poster. ;-)

DNR

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1a2b3c]

6. MrBenchley must be gone today. nt

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

9. Ad hominem arguments should be banned but they are not

One individual in particular gets away with it constantly; surely a violation of the spirit of the rules if not the letter.

[MrBenchley]

11. Gee, slack, better check your definitions...

Surely quoting someone's own words, as in...

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"

"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"

"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875

isn't ad hominum...

[slackmaster]

22. It most definitely is ad hominem

You have dishonestly presented statements I have made OUT OF CONTEXT in a lame attempt to portray me as inconsistent. You do this rather than trying to address substantive issues. You seem more interested in personalities than facts.

It's quite obvious that you are trying to de-fuse my positions by discrediting me personally. That is not just intellectually lazy on your part, MrBenchley - It's uncivil and disrespectful, and certainly within any reasonable definition of argumentum ad hominem. You are attacking me the person rather than my ideas. You are very good at tiptoeing around the edge of the rules.

[MrBenchley]

27. Too frigging funny....

"You seem more interested in personalities than facts."
Oh, DO I, slack?

"slackmaster (1000+ posts)
38. Here are some questions just for MrBenchley
1. Did your present hatred for people who own, like, and advocate use of guns arise from a personal bad experience you have had with a gun or a gun owner?
2. How do you really believe your real name and address got on the National Rifle Association's mailing list?
3. Tell us about your father. Did he or does he own guns? Is he or was he a Republican or a member of the NRA?
4. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=23759&mesg_id=23827&page=

"slackmaster (1000+ posts)
69. What kind of "sporting goods" did you buy through the mail?
From whom? What kind of supplier would give information to the NRA?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20403&mesg_id=20585&page=

[slackmaster]

29. Your refusal to answer any of those questions speaks volumes

What are you afraid of, MrBenchley?

BTW #27 is a good example of a Tu Quoque fallacy.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

34. What have I said that you consider stupid or dishonest?

Specifics, please. And include your explanation of WHY what I said is stupid and/or dishonest.

[MrBenchley]

57. "more interested in personalities than facts."

Hahahahahahaha....

[MrBenchley]

10. Too frigging funny...

"If I called a member of this board names, it would get deleted, but if I called everyone who believes in that group racist, that is not against the rules? "
Gee, you mean like if, for example, you showed they were expressing the same philosophy as people like David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce?

Good thing I only point out that every racist or bigot, high or low, that can be found is spouting this gun rights hooey...and that the gun shows are havens for racists and hate-mongers, and the two largest gun owners groups are headed by racists and bigots (with nary a murmur of complaint by gun owners) and that many gun owners forums are larded with openly racist comments (again with nary a murmur of complaint from forum "enthusiasts")...

[Stilgar]

13. That would be first amendment right to say what they like

"Gee, you mean like if, for example, you showed they were expressing the same philosophy as people like David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce?"

I mean calling people RKBA slime. Doing nothing but believing in the 2nd amendment does not grant you the right to call people names.

Guilt by association is a poor reason to call people names. You have no respect for others individual opinion. Everything that goes against your position is wrong or the person is lying.

I really dont care why you are disrespectful, you just are.

We have proof you do it, and you admit you do it, but nothing is done about it.

And mods wonder why no one sends alerts anymore?

[MrBenchley]

14. That's true...

But if you want to say the same thing as just about every racist that can be found, be my guest...

"Guilt by association is a poor reason to call people names."
Gee, if you don't like people pointing out who your playmates are and what they really stand for, perhaps you ought to reconsider YOUR position. Otherwise you find yourself in the absurd dilemna of trying to pretend that John AshKKKroft is acting out of some high and noble principle.

"Everything that goes against your position is wrong"
Then why are you proud of being wrong?

"We have proof you do it"
Who's "we"? The idiotic and dishonest goons at highroadrage.com that sneak on here under names like "leftofstalin" to bloviate about their gun fetish?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=%2ADemocratic+Underground%2A

"you admit you do it"
Hey, I'm proud to point out what scummy racist pieces of shit (Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, David Duke, eyc.etc.) are spouting this "gun rights" rubbish in public...and equally proud I got nothing to do with it.

[Stilgar]

15. that is what the first amendment is for

[iverglas]

16. selective first-amendment-izing, seems to me

Yup, your first amendment protects speech.

It doesn't, however, protect speakers from being called names. (That will be the DU rules, which are quite a different matter.)

Your response was inadvertently à propos: in response to Benchley's characterization of the individuals/groups he chose to characterize, you said: "that is what the first amendment is for".

Absolutely. To guarantee racist scum the ability to spout racist garbage, and to guarantee others the right to call 'em racist scum.

It's that two-way street, double-edged sword, two-sided coin ... .

Speakers of protected speech may not be prosecuted/persecuted for their actions. But they may be scorned, vilified and discredited -- every bit as much as they may be lauded, exalted and touted. Or hell: ignored.

.

[MrBenchley]

18. I haven't said that Nugent, Pratt, et al, can't spout their filth

I haven't even said that the RKBA crowd here can't line up behind them...

All I've done is pointed out what nasty sort of playmates they have....and the sort of things those playmates are up to.

[Liberal Classic]

31. I condemn neo-nazis and ku kluckers along side you

However, you can't logically claim that holding the opinion that the 2nd amendment describes an individual right makes one a racist. The same could also be said about protectionism policies. Blatant racists such as the kluckers and less-so anti-semites such as Pat Buchanan generally support policies which protect domestic workers against foreign competition. Now, many non-racists also hold support such policies, but does that make them racists? No, of course it doesn't. People who believe the 2nd amendment describes an individual right (as do all the amendments in the bill of rights) are no more racists than people who support protectionist policies and higher tariffs. Furthermore, there is the consideration that racists really don't believe in gun rights for racial minorities. Neo-nazis and kluckers really only believe in gun rights for ayrans, not any citizen in good standing. Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the true goals of the racial superiority movement or willingly spreading their propaganda.

Justice/Public Safety would be a better place to read if you dropped the pretense. I'm willing to stand with you in opposition to the so-called Patriot Act if you can tolerate my disagreement with you on the interpretation of the second.

Thanks Mr. Benchley. I now await your reply, and I hope it contains something other than "Yeah suuure" or "What a pantload" or other smart remarks. Heck, you might suprise me and be nice but don't expect an olive branch.

[MrBenchley]

37. Too too funny.....

"you can't logically claim that holding the opinion that the 2nd amendment describes an individual right makes one a racist"
Nor do I....I just point out FACTS, including:
--every racist, high or low, that can be found also spouts this line;
--no racist can be found that does not also spout this line;
--the NRA and the GOA, the two largest groups of gun owners, which are the chief sources of and purveyors of this line, are headed by racists (with nary a discouraging word from gun owners generally);
--just about every group oppposed to racism ended up on the NRA's enemies list; and
--many gun owners' forums devoted to this dubious proposition also are rife with racist sentiment (again, with hardly a word of dissension).

If any of those things were true about the environmental movement, I'd definitely rethink my stand on environmentalism. I sure wouldn't sit around and snivel that someone had pointed them out in public.

"People who believe the 2nd amendment describes an individual right (as do all the amendments in the bill of rights) are no more racists than people who support protectionist policies and higher tariffs."
Too funny...you don't see many folks handing out hate literature and denying the Holocaust existed during anti-WTO rallies...but such specimens are common at gun shows.<sarcasm> "Hey, went to the anti-free trade demonstration and an economist dressed like Himmler spoke.</sarcasm>

"racists really don't believe in gun rights for racial minorities."
Oh no! Someone spouting "gun rights" crap is LYING? Who would have guessed that, especially when looking at what high-minded idealistic people, like Ted Nugent and Tom DeLay, are in the gun rights movement? (Well, pretty much everyone with functioning neurons.)

"Justice/Public Safety would be a better place to read if you dropped the pretense."
Better for whom? The kind of people pretending "there is nno gun show loophole" and "nobody knows what an assault weapon is"? Gee, I'm not the one pretending anything here. I'm pointing out accurately in public what nice playmates the RKBA crowd has.

[Liberal Classic]

39. Racists spout racial superiority

Those are your observations and they may be true from your point of view, but the fact is that gun owners are not racists. Racists themselves, they only believe in gun rights for ayrans so they can lynch all they want without being shot at. Pretty simple really.

I am neither a member of the GOA or NRA and never have been. They don't speak for me and neither does Nugent.

I'm pointing out accurately in public what nice playmates the RKBA crowd has.

What is wrong with this sort of guilt by association is that one could as easily say that the Stalinists supported gun control. The next thing one would say is, gee, you have Stalin for a playmate.

Now, if I were to say that, I would be wrong. Just to be clear and so you may not take my statement out of context I do not believe that you or any support of gun control policies has stalinists for playmates. Nor would I say such a thing of the environmentalist movement, at whose rallies I have seen communist revolutionary literature with what a polite person would call violent content. I do not believe that you, Mr. Benchley, believe in killing the bosses and bankers in a violent overthrow of the government, nor I do not go out of my way to paint people who believe in more restrictions on gun ownership as violent revolutionaries. There are crazies and extremists of every political stripe, and it is best if we just leave them so they can occupy each other so more moderate and rational individuals can get on with business.

[MrBenchley]

42. Are you sure?

In the past you've tried to claim that the salient facts about the Nazis were their opposition to free trade and their anti-smoking crusade.

"the fact is that gun owners are not racists"
And since no-one has said they are, that's a pointless observation. What is under discussion is the "gun rights" philosophy, which IS being touted by racists high and low, and which not all gun owners subscribe to. And I wonder how many of those gun owners that do would if they were made aware by the media of its prominence and the sort of people who trumpet it publicly?

"What is wrong with this sort of guilt by association is that one could as easily say that the Stalinists supported gun control. "
Which IS said routinely on this forum with gobsmacking (thanks, Iverglas) regularity, usually by those who are so ignorant of history that they think the Tsar had allowed unlimited gun ownership...or that there were many guns in the Soviet Union in the first place.

"Nor would I say such a thing of the environmentalist movement, at whose rallies I have seen communist revolutionary literature with what a polite person would call violent content."
<sarcasm>I'll bet. Those Sierra Club radicals won't be happy until there's folk dancing in the cathedrals and every small shopkeeper has had his store confiscated by the state apparatchiks.</sarcasm>

"There are crazies and extremists of every political stripe..."
And they not only head up the gun rights movement...but make up almost it's entire public voice. Too too funny....

[Liberal Classic]

47. Just a moment Mr. Benchley

I wrote: "the fact is that gun owners are not racists"

To which you replied: And since no-one has said they are, that's a pointless observation.

But you have, Benchley. In almost every post you imply that anyone who owns a gun or believes that the second amendment describes an individual right are racists.

Need I remind you of:

The gun nut vote hates blacks, gays, Jews and uppity women as much as they love them guns...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=19938&mesg_id=19989&page=

It is far from a pointless observation, becaue with almost every post you make thinly disguised implications that people like me who are in favor of the individual interpretation are the very image of racism. The gun nut vote hates, hates women, gays, Jews, blacks. The only conclusion one can make is that I myself hate women, gays, Jews, and blacks because I happen to be 2nd amendment supporter. I believe that was a despicable statement you made and I ask you to retract it.

It stinks, Benchley, and it makes Justice/Public Safety all the worse for it. I can politely disagree with CO or iverglas on the 2nd amendment but stand with them on such things as the so-called Patriot Act and prohibition. I'd be happy to do the same with you if you'd put down that nazi brush. You're getting paint everywhere.

[MrBenchley]

53. Hahahahahahaha....

Need I remind you of:
The gun nut vote hates blacks, gays, Jews and uppity women as much as they love them guns...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=19938&mesg_id=19989&page=

Glad you brought that up again....I find it hilarious that you guys want to pretend that the party should pander to anyone who's seriously fretting about Dianne Feinstein "grabbing his gun" (like a cultured and accomplished woman like the Senator would touch them with a ten-foot pole)....or that somebody who thinks that the shortage of assault weapons is the number one issue is not seriously unhinged.

"The gun nut vote hates, hates women, gays, Jews, blacks. "
Gee, with champions such as Trent Lott and Tom DeLay it's hard to escape that conclusion. If there was a lot of commitment to tolerance and diversity expressed anywhere gun nuts gather, you might suspect otherwise...but in fact, we can't find even a speck of it.

"I believe that was a despicable statement you made"
Well, you're welcome to say you believe it, but it doesn't make my statement any less true...

[iverglas]

43. gosh, I see a difference

"What is wrong with this sort of guilt by association is that one could as easily say that the Stalinists supported gun control. The next thing one would say is, gee, you have Stalin for a playmate."

Well, one could indeed say that if one were fond of playing the fallacy of equivocation.

The only way that I, as an advocate of what is commonly called "gun control", could be "associated with" Stalin is if what I support were the same as what he implemented.

Amazingly enough, IT ISN'T. The mere fact that someone might choose to call "Thing X" by the same name that s/he then applies to "Thing Y" does not mean that they are the same thing. I, for instance, am not the River Iverglas, despite our having the same names.

So you see? I am clearly distinguishable from Stalin, and if anyone attempts that little equivocation I am quite willing and able to state the distinctions between what I advocate and what Stalin did. No association, no guilt by association.\

"Now, if I were to say that, I would be wrong."

Yup -- FACTUALLY wrong.

If I DID advocate what Stalin implemented, I'd find myself having a slightly harder time of things, I suspect. It's pretty difficult to dissociate what he did in this particular respect from what he did in most other respects.

Nonetheless, I could of course do it, as you point out. My first step would be to unequivocally renounce any fellow-feeling for Mr. Stalin on my part, and to insist that he be ousted from any organization, party or movement to which I belonged.

I think we're all still waiting for the unequivocal renunciation of the nasty bits in the "RKBA" movement, and the audible calls for those nasty bits to be ousted from that movement.

If I found that the folks standing next to me at the anti-war demo were chanting racist slogans, I'd move away from them and summon the marshalls to get 'em out of there. I would certainly not cite them as resources or authorities to support my positions. And yet I see the NRA (and WorldNetDaily, and Conrad Black's minions, and on and on) cited in certain quarters alla damn time. It's just ... strange.

.

[Liberal Classic]

45. Thank you for the reply, iverglass

That was a very good post, and I am glad to read it.

For the record, I do not draw that comparison at all, and I personally renounce any association with racists or fondness for neo-nazis. I seriously doubt any racists would find me acceptable, as I am a "race traitor" anyway.

[Stilgar]

33. except this is an internet forum, first amendment has no claim here

If Benchley said something to my face in person, sure it would be protected.

However, the same cannot be said of an internet forum.

[slackmaster]

35. That's exactly right

This is Skinner's business, not a venue for unrestricted exercise free speech.

[iverglas]

38. well, um, uh

"except this is an internet forum, first amendment has no claim here"

Perhaps you understand my puzzlement at YOUR dragging that horse in and flogging it mercilessly?

"If Benchley said something to my face in person, sure it would be protected.
However, the same cannot be said of an internet forum."

Eh??

Of course "internet speech" is protected by your first amendment -- you may not be punished for what you say on the internet any more than you may be punished for what you say in real life. Free speech guarantees are about prohibitions and punishments relating to speech, i.e. they preclude such prohibitions and punishments. I don't have a clue what you're on about.

Rules for what speech will be allowed in an internet forum (or in a newspaper, or a church ...), which is essentially private property, have absolutely nothing to do with free speech guarantees. They have to do with property rights.

Your first amendment speaks to whether laws may be made to prohibit speech, and whether an individual may therefore be punished for engaging in speech. It does not speak to the value of any speech.

When no one is attempting to outlaw speech or punish speakers, what earthly point is there in dragging your first amendment into the conversation in the first place??

You made the gobsmackingly obvious point that your first amendment protects the kind of speech that Benchley finds offensive.

Duh. I don't think anyone said, suggested, implied, hinted or otherwise claimed that it didn't.

What it doesn't do is protect anyone from critical comment on what they choose to say.

People normally decide to speak because they have something to say, not because they have a right to say it. And other people normally respond to / comment on what they have said -- and such comment should NEVER be represented as a statement, suggestion, implication, hint or other claim that anyone is not entitled to say anything. And yammering about how someone is entitled to say something is NOT a response to critical comment on what they said.

Benchley's response to what is said by the people whose words he objects to is NOT an expression of support for stifling those people and those words. It is critical comment on the words and the people who say them.

And -- if it needs to be said, which it all too often seems to need to be -- such critical comment is every bit as protected by free speech guarantees as the speech at which it is directed.

So if we do the math for the fractions:

David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce divided by free speech
MrBenchley divided by free speech

... we find that "free speech" can just be cancelled out, leaving us with "David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce" and "MrBenchley", and no need whatsoever to say anything whatsoever about free speech guarantees. Benchley has NEVER criticized anyone for exercising their free speech rights; he has criticized them for engaging in racist speech.

You say: "That would be first amendment right to say what they like", in reference to what is said by "David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce".

You MUST also say: That would be Benchley's amendment right to say what he likes, in reference to what he says ABOUT David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce.

So why the hell bother saying it at all?? YOU were the one who brought it up, and it was completely pointless.

If only that were the end of that ...

.

[MrBenchley]

40. I suspect that

...somebody thinks that some people should be able to spout the same silliness out loud as David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce, etc., but that those of us who want to point out that it IS the same silliness as David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce, etc., are spouting should be in some way prohibited from doing so.

But it is difficult to phrase that sentiment so as not to make it sound as silly as it is.

[Stilgar]

52. You want to call ted, larry, trent and all of that list racists, go for it

I have a problem when you call ALL RKBA people racists.

[MrBenchley]

56. I plan to go on doing so...

"I have a problem when you call ALL RKBA people racists. "
Hell, I have a problem with a bunch that follow openly racist imbeciles but then scream in rage whenever the nature of their leadership is pointed out.

I also have a problem with people who post crap from right wing cesspools like Newsmax and the Washington Times in support of their position, and then scream in rage when it's pointed out that those sources are right wing cesspools.

I guess we all have our cross to bear.

[Stilgar]

60. same goes for VPC and Brady

I have that same problem with those left wing cesspools.

[Stilgar]

50. on a internet forum you have NO right to free speech

Read current law in the USA. You are not protected in a private forum. You have no legal recourse if a mod deletes your thread. Censoring what has been typed is not free speech or press.

Calling names in public is protected. Nothing on a forum is. That is why forums have rules and disclaimers.

Being banned from a forum and not allowed to come back is protected speech how exactly?

That seems to be the flaw in your logic. Your rights to say what you want on this website are granted by the owner and mods. Mr. B seems to be exempt.

Under the bill of rights we are equal, on this forum it does not seem so.

Understand now?

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Calling names

Not necessarily. You can call someone a name in person and they can punch you in the nose. Maryland and I think some other states recognize "fighting words." If you referred to me using the "N" word and I was in a pissed off mood, I might just be tempted to respond physically. If I did it in Maryland, I think I'd be protected. (I used to live there.)

[iverglas]

62. WHAT are you talking about?

YOU ARE THE ONE who raised the issue of free speech.

The issue of free speech IS IRRELEVANT to this entire discussion.

Nonetheless, YOU ARE THE ONE who raised it.

YOU ARE THE ONE who asserted that the racist scum of the world are exercising their free speech, AS IF this were somehow RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.

"Read current law in the USA. You are not protected in a private forum. You have no legal recourse if a mod deletes your thread. Censoring what has been typed is not free speech or press."

Better yet, UNDERSTAND your current law in the US.

What does your first amendment actually SAY? It says that no law shall be made abridging free speech. Laws are things that prohibit behaviour and impose penalties for engaging in prohibited behaviour.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with "legal recourse" for anything. It has to do with the government not being able to PROHIBIT you from engaging in speech, or PUNISH you for engaging in speech.

"Calling names in public is protected. Nothing on a forum is. That is why forums have rules and disclaimers."

YES IT IS. It is PROTECTED because you may not be PROSECUTED and PUNISHED for your speech. The speech is PROTECTED speech. It is PROTECTED by your first amendment, which prohibits your government from prosecuting or punishing you for that speech.

It is of course not "protected" from deletion by the site owner any more than the tree that I might plant in the middle of your lawn is "protected" from bulldozing by you. This is a matter of PROPERTY and property rights, not of SPEECH and speech rights.

"Being banned from a forum and not allowed to come back is protected speech how exactly?"

Being banned from a forum and not allowed to come back is not being CHARGED, TRIED AND PUNISHED by the government, that's how, exactly.

"That seems to be the flaw in your logic. Your rights to say what you want on this website are granted by the owner and mods."

There is, I assure you, no flaw in my logic.

You are the one equivocating on the word "rights". I do not have PROPERTY rights in this website, and so I cannot exercise any control over the manner in which it is operated or used. I have FREE SPEECH rights everywhere and anywhere, and so I may not be prosecuted or punished for what I say on this website.

(I do assume that we are all on the same page in understanding that I am at all times including the implied premise "where what is said is not justifiably prohibited by the government, as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is, and so no one is going to come quibbling back at me with something along the lines of oh no you can't just say anything you want.)

"Under the bill of rights we are equal, on this forum it does not seem so."

That's a matter for the site owners to decide, and on which everyone may of course form and express an opinion ... at this site, if the site owners so decide. (Your bill of rights does not, of course, apply to private property owners.)

"Understand now?"

You're cute, but what you say is no more meaningful than it started out being:

"That would be first amendment right to say what <people like David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, William Pierce> like"

Your first amendment has nothing to do with this discussion. Your first amendment is not justification for those people's choice to say what they say. Your first amendment is not a defence against criticism of what those people say. Your first amendment has nothing to do with this discussion.

So what you should not do is haul it up and fling it out as if it did have something to do with it.

.

[el_gato]

20. a benchley classic here

if this post doesn't take the cake for new lows by benchley then i challenge anyone else who can point to a more vile post by benchley

name calling
guilt by association
zero-sum logic
more name calling
and then another little sprinkle of guilt by assoc.

it's a veritable salad of dishonest discourse

[MrBenchley]

21. Gee, gato, what a shame that it's all true....

and the only dishonest discourse is the RKBA crowd moaning and pissing because their playmates are being identified publicly.

By the way, you never did explain "zero sum" for us....care to give it a try HERE?

[el_gato]

30. it's as simple as

the mentality of "I'm right your wrong, there is no middle ground."

or put another way "my loss is your gain, my gain is your loss"

[iverglas]

19. eh?

"Doing nothing but believing in the 2nd amendment does not grant you the right to call people names."

He has, and you and I have, "the right to call people names" by virtue of our respective constitutions. *Nothing* "grants" that right. It's there, we've all got it. It may be exercised by any of us, at will.

Nobody needs a good reason for calling somebody names, and more than anybody else needs a good reason for exercising freedom of speech to tout a particular firearms policy.

I trust that while you may not agree with what Benchley says, you would defend to the death his right to say it ... even if that wouldn't cut much ice if it were said at DU about a DUer.

"That would be first amendment right to say what they like", you see.

And unless it's said about a DUer at DU, there just ain't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Isn't that just the way you like it?

.

[Stilgar]

36. absolutly right if we were in public

However, on a forum you do not have that right. You see, I try to stay within the rules on DU, if we were really in public I would not hold back on the browbeating that would ensue from one of any number of Benchley's statements.

My point was, the first gives the right of Lott or anyone to say whatever he/she wants.

I do not have to condemn or praise what he says to believe in the RKBA. Calling people names is against the DU rules and that was what I was talking about.

[iverglas]

41. and my point is

"My point was, the first gives the right of Lott or anyone to say whatever he/she wants."

So the fuck what????? That really is my point.

You haven't made a point, you have stated the bleeding obvious.

Your first amendment RECOGNIZES PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO SPEAK.

It does not INSULATE THEM FROM CRITICAL COMMENT ON WHAT THEY SAY, or on what they do, or on what they are.

It is IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

If YOU think it is irrelevant, why did YOU bring it up???

"I do not have to condemn or praise what he says to believe in the RKBA."

Feel entirely free to do neither; freedom to speak includes freedom not to speak. I utter pointless inanities only because I am responding to one, and there is no other way to do so.

Anyone else who so chooses is STILL free to question your choice NOT TO SPEAK, just as s/he is free to comment on anything you do say.

"Calling people names is against the DU rules and that was what I was talking about."

Calling OTHER POSTERS names is against the DU rules, and I am patiently waiting for this whine-fest to culminate in a demonstration that any such thing has happened. THAT would be a "point".

"You see, I try to stay within the rules on DU, if we were really in public I would not hold back on the browbeating that would ensue from one of any number of Benchley's statements."

Big whup. Since we *are* on DU, perhaps you could take a stab at, oh, disproving something he's said.

.

[MrBenchley]

44. You know, speaking of disproving something...

although we are regularly told that there are rootin' tootin' gun ownin' liberals, I've yet to see any evidence of it on gun owners forrums....

You might recall that a few weeks ago I pointed out that racist statements were common on gun owners forums and asked for even one example of a liberal (or even moderate) gun owner speaking out against those racist statements.. I got lots of whining that if I got one, I'd complain there was only one...but I never got one.

Amusingly, I got a lot of huffing from a moderator of a gun owners forum who popped in to deny there was any racism on gun owners forums....but a few minutes search on his site found plenty...all with no audible disagreement from the participants.

Nor can any discernable movement to censure or remove Ted Nugent or any of the other racists from the NRA board be found on-line. Nor any to dislodge Larry Pratt from the GOA. The only complaints from gun owners that can be found are complaints that those groups aren't extremist enough to suit some.

[Stilgar]

46. What?

My point is that unlike the real world, name calling is not allowed here. So I cannot talk back to Benchley the way he gets away with. That is my point.
Why bring it up? Because Lott and Ted can say anything they want and it does not change the RKBA. To bring them up constantly as them saying something racist means Jack Crap to me. I still believe in the RKBA. The problem is when someone calls everyone that believes it, racist on this board. Benchley wants everyone to condemn Lott for everything he says wrong. Why? Lott can talk as much as he wants and I dont care. Benchley can spout anti lott as much as he wants, I dont care. Benchley calling me racist, I do care.

"It does not INSULATE THEM FROM CRITICAL COMMENT ON WHAT THEY SAY, or on what they do, or on what they are."

This forum does. Thus the difference in conversation in forum and in public that I have with Benchleys comments and my replies to them. If I were free of DU rules like Benchley is, I would not have brought up the First Amendment vs this forum.


"Calling OTHER POSTERS names is against the DU rules, and I am patiently waiting for this whine-fest to culminate in a demonstration that any such thing has happened. THAT would be a "point"."

They have been deleted by mods. Kind of hard to post them. Just ask the people that have hit the alert key.. oh wait they already said he calls people names.

[MrBenchley]

49. Gee, stil....

"Because Lott and Ted can say anything they want and it does not change the RKBA."
Hell, that IS what the gun rights crap (or RKBA crap, if you prefer) pretty much amounts to in the bigger world. That's why you find pretty much every racist piece of shit that can be found spouting it..That's also why pretty much everyone and everything opposed to racism ended up on the NRA's blacklist..

"To bring them up constantly as them saying something racist means Jack Crap to me."
That would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't spent so much time bitching about it here.

"Benchley wants everyone to condemn Lott for everything he says wrong. Why? "
Uh, because he's dishonest right wing scum? That's not enough reason for you?

[Stilgar]

58. If that is what you call the bigger world, yours is much smaller than mine

RKBA was here before any of them were born/founded. They did not invent the idea. The NRA's blacklist has nothing to do with my believing in the RKBA. I could not even name more than 5 groups on the blacklist, I care that much about it.

"Benchley wants everyone to condemn Lott for everything he says wrong. Why? "
"Uh, because he's dishonest right wing scum? That's not enough reason for you?"

Enough reason to derail every RKBA topic that comes up, nope it is not. If you want to call him scum in his Fox article thread, go right ahead. Like I said, I dont care that you call certain public people names, it is when you lump us all together with racists in some twisted logic that I complain.

[MrBenchley]

61. Too too funny!

"Like I said, I dont care that you call certain public people names"
Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight.
Which "certain public people " would those be? Why, the ones peddling this gun rights rubbish in public.

And what "names" do I call them? Racist and corrupt...which fits them to a "T".

"it is when you lump us all together with racists in some twisted logic"
I don't make anybody spout the exact same rhetoric that John AshKKKroft, Trent Lott, David Duke, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, et al. spout. I don't make anybody post crap from the scummiest right wing websites, or spend post after post trying to distort what I said.

[davidinalameda]

12. attacking a group is currently not a violation

If the mods cant figure out that calling a group of people names is really calling each person in that group a name is not violating rules, and doing it almost everyday is not a problem, you need better mods.

read the rules--it's the same with calling all Dean supporters kooks or Lieberman supporters Repuke-lite

I don't like the rule and I've made that known.

Anyway, if you want a rule changed, post something in the Ask the Administrators

and if you have a problem with the way this forum is being moderated, send a PM to either one of the moderators.

[Stilgar]

17. Technically no it is not

But context is everything.

I will post a question in the admin area.

[MrBenchley]

24. Too too funny....

"context is everything"
Ah, so true...it was just last week when a gun "enthusiast" leaped in from another forum (which he grandly called "the land of reason") to indignantly complain there was no substance to the claim that the racist statements were common on gun owners forums with nary a hint of protest from the otheer "enthusiasts."

However, this is a sampling of the content from the "land of reason" which kind of punched a hole in his indignant cries of outrage.

"sig454 Posted: Nov 7 2003, 11:45 PM
Well, Negros kill more Americans every uear than the Total of Americans killed by Muslim in the last 10 years.
Every day PRO-DEATH libers kill more American babies than all ther Americans every killed by Muslims.
So, WTF, why the big deal about some towel heads ??? "

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=941&hl=racist

"sig454 Posted: Nov 7 2003, 11:58 PM
Wisconsin is the safest state in America because it has the lowest population of negros in America.
period.
no big mystery "

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=862&hl=negros

"Volponi Posted: Nov 9 2003, 02:04 AM
"Word up, dat guy sho do be havin one damn fine looking booty. I be wundrin if he be OK wit havin me pump muh ma fuckin junk all da way up in his manhole. Brace yourself foo', nahh dime sane? Be undastandin dis negroid-american languag, foo' "

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=968&hl=blacks

" EBONICS
B Coyote Posted: Nov 6 2003, 02:53 PM
Moderator
I hear this "language" every day.
It's so stupid it's funny."

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=860&hl=ebonics

Ah, yes, context is everything.....

[davidinalameda]

48. thank you

I believe it should be a violation and until it is, I'm not going to pull posts that attack groups

[slackmaster]

23. MrBenchley goes way beyond attacking a group

He attacks a group, real or imagined, then through innuendo suggests that other contributors are members of that group and therefore are not credible, not good people, not "real" Democrats, etc. The pattern of his deceit is quite clear to anyone willing to see it IMO.

[MrBenchley]

25. Too too funny...

"not credible, not good people"
You mean like the kind of credible, good person who would scream "Liar! Liar!" and then deny they had done any such thing?

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"

"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"

"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875

"The pattern of his deceit is quite clear"
Is that why you think hate-filled loonies are justified in trolling here, slack?

[slackmaster]

26. Not once have I accused any individual here of lying

Is that why you think hate-filled loonies are justified in trolling here, slack?

If I didn't think hate-filled loonies were justified in trolling here I'd probably...

No, I can't say it.

[MrBenchley]

28. Gee, slack, next ask me if I care

about YOUR accusations.....

"If I didn't think hate-filled loonies were justified in trolling here I'd probably"
Not have tried to justify them trolling here.

[davidinalameda]

51. one other thing--don't attack the moderators publically

okay?

those posts will be deleted

thanks

[1a2b3c]

55. Kiss my ass

:-) Just kiddin.

[davidinalameda]

59. okay kids--locking up

take this outside

have a good evening