I missed the deleted thread.
1) This isn't a bar.
2) If you disagree, state why. If you resort to censorship and name calling I'm going to call it what it is. Many of you all disagree but have no actual thoughts on topics that are truly your own, which is why you resort to name calling and censorship. That makes you angry. I guess I'm okay with that. Think about it, form your own ideas. Discuss them. Anytime you insert your "rules" into that process or try to limit the conversation "open and honest" is a lie. I am literally challenging you to have open and honest discussion. I in return expect to be disappointed. I dare you!
3) Conspiracy theory is 100% a term used to silence and stop conversation (censorship). It was first used after the Kennedy assassination which after nearly 60 years is still highly suspicious. Did you know there is a 2nd video, as an example? If you want to state your beliefs, do it. If you use the term conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist, I know for a fact you have no thoughts on the matter of your own, and you are in fact afraid to discuss the topic. You can insist you aren't afraid, fine. I'm not buying it. You can continue to prove that if you like, but I will never believe that tactic. If you think conspiracy theory / theorist is a valid point, I challenge you to back it up.
If you don't like my point of view, it's America state why. If you can't and resort to ad hominem attacks etc (against the forum rules), why is my response required to be "nice?" Why do the forum rules apply to one side of certain issues and not others? In that case, they aren't valid rules. Zero apologies or actions have ever been taken against posters that have called me names up to telling me to die in a fire (breaking forum rules). Should I respond kindly to that? I'm no saint.
A bartender at a bar? I don't care. I was a sailor, and I already said I'm not a saint. You ever see sailors in a bar? I invite all of you to the Horse and Cow! Try these tactics in a submariner bar. I will bring popcorn!
And to date zero people have offered a counter definition to inflation or censorship. If you can't define something, good luck convincing me I'm not right about it. That's the current tactic in all debates, start the argument in the middle, assume it's too complex to be understood and use a whole lot of words incorrectly. That will not work on me, but you can keep trying if you like. This is the current style of all debates and it is in fact stupid, and also obfuscation of reality, and I think it is done on purpose.
Many of you should read the Federalist papers. Disagreeing is a good thing. A one world view leads to a totalitarian nightmare. If you can't see that, you better start paying attention. History provides plenty of examples and warnings. This forum has a largely one world view. I do not think that is a good thing or leads to a good world for anyone's children. This is largely why I disagree at all. It sure isn't for me. Life for me is easier if I get along with everyone. I do this for my kids and their kids and your kids. Everyone's kids deserve to know the truth. The world isn't being run for their benefit but it should be. The number one goal should be to leave the world a better place like the Boy Scouts do a campsite, only on a way bigger scale. Trust me I'd love to get along nicely, but that's not possible in this world.
Honest discussions about simple things like inflation and high gasoline prices aren't even possible. If you try to broach anything more difficult it rapidly descends into the same crap on talk shows.
Clearly many of you expect better from me. Well I expect better from you in return and rarely get it.
I referred someone to actual legal testimony. They said they wouldn't look at it, and claimed I'd accuse them of witchcraft in reply. That's rubbish. You want me to be nice? It's a two way street. I'm no saint and I'm not ever going to qualify for sainthood. You all might, not me. Give me a silly reply like the above, I can guarantee my response will likely not be what you want or expect.
So do you really expect me to be nice because I disagreed with you? I'd say that very behavior has led to many of societies problems today. Im not going to be nice when people take up bad position they don't have the fortitude to defend. You can call me any array of names you like. You can cry for censorship. You can plead to my sense of niceness. You can scream conspiracy until you lose your voice. If you can't explain it, define the fancy words, and take a position on it, I am not required to accept it.
That said you don't have to accept what I say. I would strongly prefer you look into it yourself and form your own ideas. If you can't do that, I'm not going to spoon feed you all the information. A lot of times it's just a simple question that sets some of you off. I ask questions because I don't have all the answers. If you respond to that with an ad hominem outburst, I'm probably not going to respond in a way you expect or like. If after 300 pages, you ask the same question, I will always wonder why you weren't nice and didn't consider it 300 pages ago. It's a two way street.
I am 100% capable of being nice. I am also 100% honest and analytical.
And for the record, again, since some still don't get it. I think and feel that taking another human life is wrong on moral grounds. I do not care when it's done, how it is done it or why it is done. Taking human life is a bad thing. That said there are individual circumstances and situations specific to certain people that are horrific. Those decisions are left to those people and their families, etc. There are choices and decisions that I hope no one ever has to make, and those cannot be accounted for in broad discussions. I also thing it is wrong to declare what is right for all based on such isolated instances. A lot of things in life are situational and require context. Those instances are not a valid guidepost to decide what is right and wrong for everyone.
