Why did Georgie get banned THIS time?

Why did Georgie get banned THIS time?

Created by Che Reagan Christ on Apr 18, 2013

13 votes

Click on an option to vote

Racial invective

Religious bigotry

Too many fake profiles

Suggesting the lynching of a SCOTUS justice

Vile name calling

General principles

For his own good

First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Wait what

Columbus, OH

#328 Apr 19, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
No I wasn't surmising you are the same people, I was pondering whether there seemed to be a reason that some regulars had returned at the same time. George seems to think that the bombings in Boston have spiked interest. Probably correct.
Reader thinks I'm the same person as George.
No worries, mate. Back in the day, I was accused of being RS - among others.
Wait what

Columbus, OH

#329 Apr 19, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the problem is that an overwhelming majority of the population supports universal registration.
The Repubs who are up in 2014 are going to have to figure out how to tap dance around immigration reform as well.
And if they want to make inroads into the black vote they are going to have to do better than workshops like "What to Do about Being Called a Racist When You Know You Aren't One."
Sounds about right to me. Did I mention the friend married to a black man who was called a...RACIST? Stop the presses, she's married to a black man and didn't vote for Obama. Besides which, your side's white privilege conferences are positively bizarre. Not every white is born into privilege.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#330 Apr 20, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Pro-lifers do not believe in keeping abortion legal. You do.
Simply out of practicality. It's legal. There is a huge divide over it, and I think we have more serious fish to fry in this nation. I have, and will continue to support, any measures to limit abortions such as definitions of personhood. If you've read any of my responses to people like DayStar, I've said repeatedly I don't like it, I would NEVER even counsel someone to have one, etc. I have never actively supported it, just have said "keep it legal" in the sense do not outright ban it because doing so is too dangerous politically right now in my view. I'd prefer right now we address our serious fiscal issues. It seems every time we have other serious issues to focus on in this nation, the left pulls out the abortion card or some related issue (remember the brouhaha about birth control last fall with Obama care) to divert attention or play the victim card.

In all likelihood, because of Roe v. Wade, I don't see abortion being outlawed anytime soon. Attack that issue one bite at a time, because you can't consume an entire elephant in one sitting. The personhood issue and continuous education will finally "consume the elephant" IMHO to reduce abortion at least.

My reasoning is far from supportive of abortion. I don't think in soundbites.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#331 Apr 20, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds about right to me. Did I mention the friend married to a black man who was called a...RACIST? Stop the presses, she's married to a black man and didn't vote for Obama. Besides which, your side's white privilege conferences are positively bizarre. Not every white is born into privilege.
Yes and no. There are all kinds of privilege, including the ability to merge easily with an influential class (or walk home unarmed without being suspected of being "up to no good"). Appalachian whites are sometimes regarded as a hidden minority because they may lack the social capital of the prevailing class but look no different.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#332 Apr 20, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply out of practicality. It's legal. There is a huge divide over it, and I think we have more serious fish to fry in this nation. I have, and will continue to support, any measures to limit abortions such as definitions of personhood. If you've read any of my responses to people like DayStar, I've said repeatedly I don't like it, I would NEVER even counsel someone to have one, etc. I have never actively supported it, just have said "keep it legal" in the sense do not outright ban it because doing so is too dangerous politically right now in my view. I'd prefer right now we address our serious fiscal issues. It seems every time we have other serious issues to focus on in this nation, the left pulls out the abortion card or some related issue (remember the brouhaha about birth control last fall with Obama care) to divert attention or play the victim card.
In all likelihood, because of Roe v. Wade, I don't see abortion being outlawed anytime soon. Attack that issue one bite at a time, because you can't consume an entire elephant in one sitting. The personhood issue and continuous education will finally "consume the elephant" IMHO to reduce abortion at least.
My reasoning is far from supportive of abortion. I don't think in soundbites.
I believe it is the right that has for decades used "moral" issues (abortion, homosexuality, sex education, etc) to call out a sympathetic electorate. Current legislation and proposals bear out a continued reliance,

There problem is that fewer people are responding to the dog whistles.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#333 Apr 20, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it is the right that has for decades used "moral" issues (abortion, homosexuality, sex education, etc) to call out a sympathetic electorate. Current legislation and proposals bear out a continued reliance,
There problem is that fewer people are responding to the dog whistles.
View it as you wish. Just look at the Sandra Fluke brouhaha real hard, taking off your rose colored lenses.

There was NO mention of eliminating or outlawing birth control or abortion regarding the Catholic Church. A simple statement that said "the Church does not believe it should support something against its teachings." That idea ripped the left, to the point of bashing the church and bringing out ridiculous examples of how birth control is required medically for women. Even you refused to listen to reason--that removing birth control coverage from health care policies provided through the Catholic Church for a small pool of employees--and that birth control was a quite MINOR expense--angered you and the left even further. It kept bringing on lamer examples and made Sandra Fluke a hero becuase even though she was attending a prestigious university (hence, afforded it somehow), she could NOT afford to pay for her birth control privately (at a cost of something between $10-$35 or so a month)?

Wow. Moral bashing? By whining someone is FORCING morals on you for refusing to pay for birth control? STUPID. I saw it more like mob bashing the church... Many Catholics believe it or not can separate their religious life from civil life. But conversely, they also feel it is wrong to enforce such things like birth control or gay marriage on them.(And yes, I do see that in my "crystal ball" -- someone crying discrimination in the future when any church whose teachings condemn gay marriage refuses to marry a gay couple.)

I guess the separation of church and state only goes one way? The church can't intervene in government affairs, but the government has the right to dictate how a church conducts its business?

Pot, meet kettle.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#334 Apr 20, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
View it as you wish. Just look at the Sandra Fluke brouhaha real hard, taking off your rose colored lenses.
There was NO mention of eliminating or outlawing birth control or abortion regarding the Catholic Church. A simple statement that said "the Church does not believe it should support something against its teachings." That idea ripped the left, to the point of bashing the church and bringing out ridiculous examples of how birth control is required medically for women. Even you refused to listen to reason--that removing birth control coverage from health care policies provided through the Catholic Church for a small pool of employees--and that birth control was a quite MINOR expense--angered you and the left even further. It kept bringing on lamer examples and made Sandra Fluke a hero becuase even though she was attending a prestigious university (hence, afforded it somehow), she could NOT afford to pay for her birth control privately (at a cost of something between $10-$35 or so a month)?
Wow. Moral bashing? By whining someone is FORCING morals on you for refusing to pay for birth control? STUPID. I saw it more like mob bashing the church... Many Catholics believe it or not can separate their religious life from civil life. But conversely, they also feel it is wrong to enforce such things like birth control or gay marriage on them.(And yes, I do see that in my "crystal ball" -- someone crying discrimination in the future when any church whose teachings condemn gay marriage refuses to marry a gay couple.)
I guess the separation of church and state only goes one way? The church can't intervene in government affairs, but the government has the right to dictate how a church conducts its business?
Pot, meet kettle.
The institution has no respect in society, Obama exploited that, and it worked.

We have to restore the respect of society, otherwise the left will have a tool over and over again.

Odds are that Sandra Fluke never has any kids, the USSR lasted from 1922-1991, but it no longer does. The left won't last any longer here. The future belongs to those who show up-Mark Steyn

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#335 Apr 20, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it is the right that has for decades used "moral" issues (abortion, homosexuality, sex education, etc) to call out a sympathetic electorate. Current legislation and proposals bear out a continued reliance,
There problem is that fewer people are responding to the dog whistles.
All issues are moral issues in some degree.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#336 Apr 20, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
The institution has no respect in society, Obama exploited that, and it worked.
We have to restore the respect of society, otherwise the left will have a tool over and over again.
Odds are that Sandra Fluke never has any kids, the USSR lasted from 1922-1991, but it no longer does. The left won't last any longer here. The future belongs to those who show up-Mark Steyn
I'm not sure the institution lost all of its respect in society. The Catholic population, at least those who self-identify as Catholic, in the US is fairly substantial. Pew has some interesting statistics, here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/02/25/u-s-cat...

I don't disagree that the Church took a tarnishing with the priest/sex abuse issues. And there are divisive issues amongst the faithful themselves over things such as birth control and whether women can and ought to become part of their clergy. But, the education the Catholic schools provides is outstanding. You won't find many -- at any level, primary, secondary, or university -- that will rival the education provided. I think the church will slowly evolve, it is a huge institution, international, and I think the new pope Francis was a wise decision.

But to the idea of the lack of respect in society I wholeheartedly agree with. It's gone. There is no such thing as even civility any longer.

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#337 Apr 20, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure the institution lost all of its respect in society. The Catholic population, at least those who self-identify as Catholic, in the US is fairly substantial. Pew has some interesting statistics, here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/02/25/u-s-cat...
I don't disagree that the Church took a tarnishing with the priest/sex abuse issues. And there are divisive issues amongst the faithful themselves over things such as birth control and whether women can and ought to become part of their clergy. But, the education the Catholic schools provides is outstanding. You won't find many -- at any level, primary, secondary, or university -- that will rival the education provided. I think the church will slowly evolve, it is a huge institution, international, and I think the new pope Francis was a wise decision.
But to the idea of the lack of respect in society I wholeheartedly agree with. It's gone. There is no such thing as even civility any longer.
Yep. And the left killed it. They started in 1987 at the Bork confirmation hearings. By the mid '90s the discovered Alinsky and after losing in 2000, the realized they had no legitimate weapons, positions or beliefs so they went full Alinsky on decent society.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#338 Apr 20, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure the institution lost all of its respect in society. The Catholic population, at least those who self-identify as Catholic, in the US is fairly substantial. Pew has some interesting statistics, here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/02/25/u-s-cat...
I don't disagree that the Church took a tarnishing with the priest/sex abuse issues. And there are divisive issues amongst the faithful themselves over things such as birth control and whether women can and ought to become part of their clergy. But, the education the Catholic schools provides is outstanding. You won't find many -- at any level, primary, secondary, or university -- that will rival the education provided. I think the church will slowly evolve, it is a huge institution, international, and I think the new pope Francis was a wise decision.
But to the idea of the lack of respect in society I wholeheartedly agree with. It's gone. There is no such thing as even civility any longer.
The damage was substantial. I like the job Francis is doing, but it may take decades if not centuries to fix. Revival is a long way off.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#339 Apr 20, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. And the left killed it. They started in 1987 at the Bork confirmation hearings. By the mid '90s the discovered Alinsky and after losing in 2000, the realized they had no legitimate weapons, positions or beliefs so they went full Alinsky on decent society.
If they get amnesty, they won't have to even campaign. Just like in the cities they dominate. Fudge never campaigns, because she doesn't have to.

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#340 Apr 20, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
If they get amnesty, they won't have to even campaign. Just like in the cities they dominate. Fudge never campaigns, because she doesn't have to.
CWII will be along to relieve us of that nightmare before it gets too entrenched.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#341 Apr 20, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
The damage was substantial. I like the job Francis is doing, but it may take decades if not centuries to fix. Revival is a long way off.
Oh, I agree. But we need to understand that like any other institution, such as a Wall Street bank, a government organization, a mom and pop grocery store, a union, a Fortune 500 industry etc., it is composed of human beings. Humans, by our nature, are fallible. It's not the errors or sins we need to obsess on, but the good nature of the teachings, IMHO.

I have no crystal ball to know how long it will take to fix the institution.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#342 Apr 20, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>CWII will be along to relieve us of that nightmare before it gets too entrenched.
Sad isn't it. Millions could die because the left might not give us self-determination.

And to think self-determination was a leftist idea...
Anonymous

Bucyrus, OH

#343 Apr 20, 2013
The Passenger wrote:
<quoted text>
Two fairly recent and fully nothing but male bovine excrement.
"I'm writing in Herman Cain"
Next, "Romney's gonna win big"
I could go through the litany but their all a matter of record on here.
Seriously, let it go, will ya? You don't like what he says, move on.
kosmik

Columbus, OH

#344 Apr 22, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a Conservative Party in the UK, it likes gun bans, massive spending, green energy subsidies and multiculti.
Arguably to the left of some Democrats.
How is it conservative?
Conservatism is an ideology currently prominent in the GOP, I'm what is generally called a national/traditionalist conservative.
There are also the neoconservatives (not really conservative IMO), the paleoconservatives (Pat Buchanan), the classical liberals, the libertarians (which you claim to be), the modern liberals (Like John McCain), and the "Christian Democrats" even though that term isn't used on this continent (Mike Huckabee is this, and George Bush campaigned as one in 2000)
There is no conservatism in the Democrat Party, or in the Libertarian Party. There once actually was a conservative D party wing, as there was a liberal R party wing.
Libertarianism is a fundamentally different idea that conservatism, it has no focus on the concepts of identity that are crucial to the basis of society, and draws from the basest of social norms.
Nice deflection there. Here, where this conversation is focused on we have 2 major parties and several 3rd parties. For each and every one of you that claim to be conservative, vote for Republicans that don't have a conservative bone in their body. With that in mind, these people are delusional and they are Rebublicans to the core.

While many of you claim I'm not what I consistenly vote for, you have no clue what a Libertarian is. It's not the imaginary conservative you wish it was. Simply it's fiscally conservative, socially liberal and doesn't believe in getting involved in other nations wars. That fits me to a tee.
kosmik

Columbus, OH

#345 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad to see you back Kosmic!
Thanks. I've missed your wise words.
They cannot kill a Spook

Toledo, OH

#346 Apr 22, 2013
kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice deflection there. Here, where this conversation is focused on we have 2 major parties and several 3rd parties. For each and every one of you that claim to be conservative, vote for Republicans that don't have a conservative bone in their body. With that in mind, these people are delusional and they are Rebublicans to the core.
While many of you claim I'm not what I consistenly vote for, you have no clue what a Libertarian is. It's not the imaginary conservative you wish it was. Simply it's fiscally conservative, socially liberal and doesn't believe in getting involved in other nations wars. That fits me to a tee.
A sniveling little socialist is what you are. You proved that before your last break down with your sycophant support of Obama Clinton Carter, along with your support of high taxes, massive regulations and hatred of gun owners. Calling yourself a libertarian, Hell you might as well say you are a 15 meters tall alien from Venus with 12 vaginias and 24 penises.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wow 4 min Leftist handjob 2
President Trump won’t attend Barbara Bush's fu... 7 min Smart1 13
The Comey Interview 8 min Leftist handjob 150
Sean Hannity 49 min Pope Che Reagan C... 55
Shhh Trump Busy Mar A Lago Shred Mueller Papers 1 hr Reality Speaks 8
Syracuse University Whitey Racists Gone Wild 2 hr Orange Trump Whit... 6
Hi im Holly Hylton Your Local Racist Starbucks ... 2 hr White Cop 63

Columbus Jobs

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages