I thought bandodgers didnt get these threads. Or was that suiciders?Capitan_KidThat policy is intended to prevent multiple "(Fill in the blank) has been banned" threads for the same person. As in, someone gets banned, gets their ban thread, and then comes back and establishes a new identity before being discovered and banned again. To my knowledge, this is the first time Jedi has been banned and, thus, he's allowed a ban thread.
nocoolnamejim's forum posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="horgen123"]Ban-dodging isn't allowed yet. horgen123TBH....I'm surprised there are any standards left here. Why disallow ban dodging when most ban dodgers were reinstated? So we could ban them again? Honestly no idea. Bah. Where's your sense of fun? Not having troublemakers around would be like being a superhero without any villains to use your super powers on. Imagine if Superman never had Lex Luther. He'd basically just have to sit around in the Fortress of Solitude and masturbate all day or work at his sh1t job. Or, on more serious note, different bosses at the top have different ideas on what the acceptable standards for the community should be. Granted, it has made us look vaguely bipolar in recent years but it is what it is.
I am truly sorry for not accepting your trade request in our fantasy football league. I pray that no more accounts are sacrificed. [spoiler] Seriously, though. I really like having Doug Martin on my team. [/spoiler] HE'S MINE THOUGH! You STOLE him from me. He is from Boise State and was meant to be on my team. He's MINE I say. MY. PRECIOUS.
[QUOTE="PirateHanSolo"]yep, he is gone. he had a C.M. Punk avi and a Los Angeles Clippers sig. will he be missed? seems he sent a death threat to someone though i heard his account got hacked. he was a pretty nice guy though his temper did get the est of him.UltraZero
wonder what his account password wasProbably not the wisest thing to be joking about at the present time Ultra.
I don't think those two things are necessarily mutually exclusive.
You can't be nice and have a temper.
You know a lot of nice people with tempers that are prominent enough in their behavior that you have to mention it?Just me baby. Just me.
[QUOTE="PirateHanSolo"]yep, he is gone. he had a C.M. Punk avi and a Los Angeles Clippers sig. will he be missed? seems he sent a death threat to someone though i heard his account got hacked. he was a pretty nice guy though his temper did get the est of him.GummiRaccoon
You can't be nice and have a temper.I don't think those two things are necessarily mutually exclusive.
jim, uniform liability is my goal, and when you do harm to an area in perpetuity forever, you are liable. sadly some, maybe you, idunno, would call for you and i to pay for the political decisions of those elected. i wish for those elected to be held accountable for their actions be it at home of in foreign lands. i see the lack of liability as the ultimate cause of all of the ills of the world on any meaningful scale. what i mean is that politicians have zero liability for their actions. you cant know the harm until action and at that point people tend to blame the next guy or something else. surrealnumber5An issue we won't resolve tonight and one that likely needs the following things to happen: 1. Elimination of gerrymandered safe districts that create disincentives for compromise or effective governing 2. Elimination or severe reduction of the amount of money in politics through effective campaign finance reform that the Supreme Court doesn't toss out etc. Anyway, I got to run. Packing for a trip tomorrow. Nice talking with you again.
Real people dieing in benghazi= fake scandal lmao
You do yourself and your cause absolutely no favors, you are one of the reasons why many of the people here are liberals.
On topic: After reading the politico article it sounds like you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.Me right. Its all my fault. Tell me how real people dieing was a fake scandal? I dont even consider it THAT big a deal, but what bothered me was the completely obvious lieing the week after that it was "spontaneous" demonstrations or whatever. Why couldnt they just admit it was a terror attack sooner? Or not admit ANYTHING, till they had all the facts, but they were telling everyone the next day it wasnt a terror attack the next day It's a dangerous world. People die. Basically, **** happens. For this to be a scandal you need to show some form of negligence and/or coverup.
Something like getting a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" from one of your intelligence directors and telling him that "you've covered your ass" and dismissing him only to have the worst terror attack in U.S. history happen a month later. What you have here is a flare up in an unstable part of the world where the facts on the ground were a little murky and...that's it.
Did you know that US consulates were attacked thirteen times during the Bush years? Never heard of it? Maybe because Democrats didn't try and turn a tragedy into a scandal when there wasn't one.