Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on October 18, 2009 By Draginol In Politics

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/10/court-upholds-.html

I’d say this is a good call by the court even if I think the law itself to be foolish for California (talk about incenting people to leave).


Comments (Page 5)
on Oct 26, 2009

I vehemently disagree that you never get banned

So you believe I will be banned? (double negative)

I know of one person to get permanently (loudly and publicly) get banned, she pushed it IMO, but I would say she had plenty of opportunity to move on. Would you invite someone into your home after they crapped on the living room floor twice in as many days? I somehow believe not, unless you and your cup are short one girl.

on Oct 26, 2009

So you believe I will be banned? (double negative)

Plural you, not singular. As in people/generally, not you personally.

on Oct 27, 2009

Yes, you will. Disagree with Brad and you risk getting banned (I can vaguely recall reading him saying something about the forum rules being you don't piss him off, and obviously if you disagree with him you're more likely to piss him off). He does tend to give you the courtesy of a warning first though.

Ok, I'll bite.

Give me five names of people who got banned because of difference of opinion with Brad.

 

on Oct 27, 2009

Although you still have no answered whether you consider all non democrats to be creationists and KKK members.

Yes, that's a weird thing.

The association game leads to strange results. It has happened to me several times. I write something about Israel or the Hebrew Bible and suddenly people are "surprised" that I read Dawkins. Many liberals make such snap judgements.

Now, can we address the real issue? _I_ need convincing that not all Democrats are KKK members. Any takers?

 

on Oct 27, 2009

Give me five names of people who got banned because of difference of opinion with Brad.

No. All I need is 1, and that's fairly easy - Little Whip had a big bust up with Brad a while ago, although I can't provide much evidence since all her posts were removed (Brad gave a post saying what he'd done and why though if you're sceptical - feel free to have a dig around for it if you want). Talt already gave another example from further back. Then you also have people who were warned to stop x or they'd be banned, and people who were banned without it being as public as the first two I mentioned.

Now you give me 100 people who had repeated differences of opinion with Brad and weren't banned or threatened with being banned.

on Oct 27, 2009

why don't we start with you aeortar. You are on a thread he himself has created (and thus is probably reading the comments of) and you are blasting him for silencing difference of opinion. And yet you weren't banned.

You are like those people who argue 9-11 was an inside job... the biggest proof it wasn't is that they are still alive.

on Oct 27, 2009

why don't we start with you aeortar. You are on a thread he himself has created (and thus is probably reading the comments of) and you are blasting him for silencing difference of opinion. And yet you weren't banned.

He hasn't posted for quite some time on this thread, so it is quite an assumption to make that he is both reading comments on it on a daily basis, and also has as poor a reading comprehension as you appear to.

on Oct 27, 2009

I comprehended what you asked for.

And you actually consider my example to be over "disagreeing with him"? that wasn't about a difference of opinion; if you can't tell that, then you have problems.

on Oct 27, 2009

and also has as poor a reading comprehension as you appear to.

Geez! A personal attack? The man does run a business. I seriously doubt reading blogs take priority. Quite the cheap shot I must say, dragging Brad into your argument. Go over to the Huffington Post and blast Arianna, see how long you last.

on Oct 28, 2009

No. All I need is 1, and that's fairly easy - Little Whip had a big bust up with Brad a while ago, although I can't provide much evidence since all her posts were removed

Oh, please. She attacked him personally. That was not a "difference of opinion" she was exiled for.

I know Little-Whip, I was one of her friends.

 

on Oct 28, 2009

Go over to the Huffington Post and blast Arianna, see how long you last.

Now there is an easily-done experiment to see who's right.

 

on Oct 28, 2009

I comprehended what you asked for.

Then you are deliberately seeking to misstate what I have said.

Geez! A personal attack? The man does run a business. I seriously doubt reading blogs take priority. Quite the cheap shot I must say, dragging Brad into your argument

Another idiot who can't read (that's you I'm talking about, not Brad - I'd better make that clear given the abysmal level of reading comprehension being displayed here)

on Oct 28, 2009

Another idiot who can't read (that's you I'm talking about, not Brad - I'd better make that clear given the abysmal level of reading comprehension being displayed here)

You've certainly highlighted your mental mightiness. Here's your quote I responded to:

He hasn't posted for quite some time on this thread, so it is quite an assumption to make that he is both reading comments on it on a daily basis, and also has as poor a reading comprehension as you appear to.

Sure sounds like you were referring to me, since any reasonable person can see I posted on the 24th  26th  (your comment above was on the 27th) and called you out on the 27th. Why don't you try being a man for once in your life, and admit you're full of shit or don't know what the hell you're writing about. Which is it?

on Oct 28, 2009

Sure sounds like you were referring to me, since any reasonable person can see I posted on the 24th  26th  (your comment above was on the 27th) and called you out on the 27th. Why don't you try being a man for once in your life, and admit you're full of shit or don't know what the hell you're writing about. Which is it?

Let's see:

Geez! A personal attack? The man does run a business. I seriously doubt reading blogs take priority. Quite the cheap shot I must say, dragging Brad into your argument

Make up your mind over who you think I was referring to because at the moment you're ending up arguing against yourself!

 

Anyway because you seem clearly incapable of understanding simple English I'll spell it out for you.

also has as poor a reading comprehension as you appear to.
- reply 67

This was directed at taltamir, which would be fairly obvious to most people seeing as I quoted him directly above where I made this comment. In case you're still scratching your head at what I was referring to, it was the comment by taltamir " you are blasting him [Brad] for silencing difference of opinion", which was a clear attempt to put false words into my mouth since I have not once "blasted" Brad here (afterall, I don't want to be banned ). I have not expressed an opinion over the possibility of people being banned for disagreements, merely that they have happened.

Then you are deliberately seeking to misstate what I have said.
-reply 72

Again directed at taltamir - guess what, I quoted him just before my response to him! Since he has had the chance to re-read what he said (and what I said) and confirms he understood it, it means the likely outcome is that he deliberately sought to put false words in my mouth rather than it being accidental, hence why I said what I did.

Another idiot who can't read (that's you I'm talking about, not Brad
-reply 72

I quote you, and then I respond to you. I even take the time to let you know it's you I'm talking to! My comment here was because you for some bizarre reason seemed to be implying I was saying Brad had a poor reading comprehension with your " The man does run a business. I seriously doubt reading blogs take priority. Quite the cheap shot I must say, dragging Brad into your argument" comment (if you're still struggling to understand how I wasn't saying that, if someone says it would be quite an assumption to make that x is the case, it usually means they don't think that x is the case, and certainly doesn't mean that they're saying x is the case. On second thoughts maybe I shouldn't introduce algebra here, it will probably make things even harder for you). As for 'dragging Brad into the argument', again look back to see who mentions Brad first - that's right, scroll up the page, read a post by someone called taltamir, around number 56.

Yet, somehow, you seem to think that I am attacking Brad here...until you change your mind and think I'm attacking you (at least your change of heart indicates you read my comment that I was talking to you). Maybe you'll change your mind again and think these posts are all attacking Mumble...

Says a lot about you (plural this time) that you kick up this much fuss over a simple factual statement. Small wonder more subjective ideas+discussions have no chance here.

on Oct 28, 2009

Small wonder more subjective ideas+discussions have no chance here.

 

Sure with rabid, self-important liberals such as yourself throwing around insults.