Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Enterpriser Permabanned!?!?!

T'Bonz said:
He broke his probation by trolling.
Click to expand...

1- why was he on probation in the first place?

2 - who and how did he troll? people troll all the time and recieve warnings. he must have done something pretty big to get banned.

answers, now! or I shall bring this debate to tbbs and open up a big can of worms...
 
VKD said:
1- why was he on probation in the first place?
Click to expand...

Had been perma-ed once before. Let back under condition of best behavior.

2 - who and how did he troll? people troll all the time and recieve warnings. he must have done something pretty big to get banned.
Click to expand...

Someone in the TT, female. Name escapes me atm.

Didn't have to be something big to break probation. Was told to keep within rules, with this he was over the line, bang, finished.

answers, now! or I shall bring this debate to tbbs and open up a big can of worms...
Click to expand...

'K, I answered. Now go fetch me a cup of coffee, I need caffeine. :P
 
^Actually, I figured out the problem. My cookies were cleared somehow, which logged me off.

Basically the same thing she said here. I don't see that as backing down.
 
udumbass.jpg
 
he posted a bad thing in a think tank thread about a week ago, it was totally inappropriate.

I'm not sayin more, thats up to mods if they wish for people to know.

I'm one of the lucky people who got to read what he posted before he edited it out.
 
JonathonWally said:
he posted a bad thing in a think tank thread about a week ago, it was totally inappropriate.

I'm not sayin more, thats up to mods if they wish for people to know.

I'm one of the lucky people who got to read what he posted before he edited it out.
Click to expand...


er...this ain't tbbs, you can tell us what he said, you know - and you won't be punished for it!
 
Wacky said:
She said he broke the terms of his probation...didn't say HOW he did so, though. He's been a model poster for the last few months. Almost like a new person! Wait a minute...
Click to expand...

T'Bonz said:
Had been perma-ed once before. Let back under condition of best behavior.



Someone in the TT, female. Name escapes me atm.

Didn't have to be something big to break probation. Was told to keep within rules, with this he was over the line, bang, finished.



'K, I answered. Now go fetch me a cup of coffee, I need caffeine. :P
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait-- Enterpriser is TMM3K?!
 
Okay, here are some of Enterpriser's last posts:
WMD Article in the NY Times

05/11/15 11:25 PM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the New York Times cannot even remember that Al-Zarqawi was and has been Al Qaeda's man in Iraq since before the Iraq war, how can we trust anything else in that editorial piece?

See: The New York Times' own biography of Al-Zarqawi.
--------------------
[<snip sig>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/15 11:29 PM)
Click to expand...


05/11/15 11:31 PM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Marc:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by PowderedToastMan:
in 2001 Tennent told Congress Iraq was no threat...it was only until the 'cheney cabal' got to him that IRaq suddenly became a 'threat'. Sounds to me like someone wanted to keep his job and blew with the wind. It is total bullshit to imply that Tennent was the one behind all this...they went to him and said 'find us the ammo we need' and he dutifully did. (and for his loyalty he got the Medal of Freedom from Bushie) And interestingly on issues where he wouldnt go that far they found another agency to do so.

It is complete bullshit for the GOP to suddenly act like the intel community is responsible for this...they were used just like the Congress was used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given what Bush did the CIA budget maybe he was blackmailing Tenet.

There is still the question of why almost all the CIA employees involved with the failures leading up to 9/11 are no longer employed by the Agency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you permit folks who screwed up certain intelligence so badly to remain?

Right before the war, the President asked George Tenet whether the CIA was certain that there were WMD's in Iraq. What did Tenet say?

"It's a slam-dunk, Mr. President."

As President, how would you react?

See:

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2004c/091004/091004u.php

--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/15 11:33 PM)
Click to expand...
 
In the thread What's Grounds for Impeachment?

05/11/15 06:16 AM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Alpha Romeo:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Trek Boy:
I'd be interested to hear from both sides what is a high enough crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT has never been defined by the courts or by congress. Although the Clinton impeachment seems to set the bar at something like commiting perjury or something along those lines.

However, since the President was not convicted it seems that the bar must be much higher. Had president nixon been impeached and convicted that would probably have satisfied and defined the standard.

For now, its vague and unsettled law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without reading the link, it appears to me that if a President intentionally causes severe harm to the nation, then that would be a fairly unimpeachable (so to speak) basis for both impeachment and conviction. So that's one end of the "what is impeachable" spectrum.

The other end is probably anything that has ever been done before by a President in the name of the national interest, or that can be said to be, for that matter. This would include any controversial act that others have questioned and yet that the President has claimed to have committed in good faith.

But what of starting wars? Historically, the Vietnam war was escalated by a Democratic President during a time when the nation was largely controlled by Democrats, who set the national agenda. Thus, despite the fact that more Americans were killed in a few months in the worst days of that war than has been the case during the entirety of the Afghanistan-Iraq conflict, and despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed during the course of our involvement in Southeast Asia, the fact is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans spoke of impeaching Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The Democrats talk a good game about holding the President liable for his so-called "lies". Some of the Democrats of the left today speak of plunging this nation into another national nightmare, and there are those in that group who rub their hands in glee at the chance of tarring another Republican President.

For some of those who see the national interest and understand that partisan politics skewers the judgment even more than it blinds the intellect, the dance of national fear indulged in by the "impeach Bush" faction of the Democratic left brings nary a tear to the eye, so much as a laugh of irony, that the only modern party ever to have had its leader impeached desires to exact its pound of flesh againat a nation seeking leadership.

The quality of mercy drips not from the party that champions abortion rights and euthanasia. Or perhaps, euthanasiac mercy, it is indeed.
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/15 10:22 AM)
Click to expand...


05/11/15 02:38 PM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lordsuhn:
Nice try Enterpriser, but I for one am not buying. It is not only Democrats who think that impeachment should be considered.

Your attempts to compare Johnson's escalation of the war in Vietnam with the Bush administrations deciept to start a war strains credability. At no time was Johnson accused of selective intelligence gathering.

More to the point, we are not talking about Johnson, but Bush.

We must answer the question, did the President and his administration purposefully select intelligence that would support their desire to go to war with Iraq? Did they knowingly mislead the American people AND Congress? Did members of his administration betray a CIA agent? If so, when did Bush learn of it? No matter how noble their ultimate goal, if they did any of those things, impeachment is in order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Pelosi, for one, said for certain before the invasion that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

And a National Intelligence Estimate said in definitive terms virtually the same thing.

Various reports, including a bipartisan investigatory report issued by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee found that Amb. James Wilson's findings did not support his conclusions that there was no attempt to acquire yellowcake uranium. Amb. Wilson appears to have acted as a hack and a shill.

The British continue to stand by their report that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger.

In fact, no government inquiry in the United States has ever suggested that anyone in the Administration deliberately cooked the books in regard to intelligence. The only folks who accuse the President of doing this are people who support the goals of ANSR, the radical left-wing anti-war organization, Cindy Sheehan and her supporters, MoveOn.org, and believers in conspiracy theories.

Analyses of various developments by the likes of a certain "peace and justice" professor on the Left Coast based on the Scooter Libby indictments do one or more of two things: (1) Selectively choose from among contradictory CIA reports; and/or (2) Cite anti-U.S. foreign policy articles relative to the Middle East. These folks, it seems to me, are as selective about their sources as they argue (without much evidence) that the Administration was in regard to Iraq.

Finally, think about this: Was Secretary Powell part of the "cabal" that promoted war? Were the Congressional and Senate Democrats? And yet a prominent anti-war writer now blames the Democrats equally, along with the President, for promoting the cause of invading Iraq. This is how radical some of these anti-war, and by implication, pro-impeachment, protestors are.

Anyone who thinks that this President may be impeached, therefore, ought to take a reality check. It is as likely that the CIA, under Clinton appointee George Tenet, acted to cover its own mistakes during the various times relevant to the war as the Republican and Democratic Parties jointly conspired to act to invade Iraq. In fact, would the former not be more likely?
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/15 02:42 PM)
Click to expand...
05/11/15 02:44 PM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Alanday98:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lordsuhn:We must answer the question, did the President and his administration purposefully select intelligence that would support their desire to go to war with Iraq? Did they knowingly mislead the American people AND Congress? Did members of his administration betray a CIA agent? If so, when did Bush learn of it? No matter how noble their ultimate goal, if they did any of those things, impeachment is in order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the facts show that the answer to all these questions is no. There were other reasons for war besides WMD. The middle east will be better off once Iraq is up and running on its own.
Maybe instead Bush should have sent Colin Powell to Iraq to get his picture taken with Saddam like Clinton did with Albright in North Korea?

I also think that the impeachbush website loses all credibility when they include a quote from Barbra Streisand as the leading quote. I mean, come on!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, in accord, I think that if Ms. Streisand were to engage in debate with actual scholars, or even the non-entertainment press, concerning Iraq policy, I would respect her opinions on this matter a great deal more. But as far as I know, she has never done any such thing.

Regarding the grounds for impeachment: Not only were there various writings on this matter during the time of the Clinton matter, but such writings often referred to historical sources, one of them being the impeachment and near-conviction of Andrew Johnson.

Pres. Andrew Johnson avoided conviction by merely one vote. The person who cast the deciding vote in the Senate (the body that tries Presidents in cases of impeachment) said that he could not justify removing a President and inviting the wrath of history.

Pres. Clinton avoided conviction by a wider margin.
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/15 02:48 PM)
Click to expand...

05/11/15 02:53 PM Edit Reply Quote
It is further worth considering that the Senate, when acting in judgment of the President, acts as a court of law, not as a representative of the people.

And I found the following quote interesting from Sen. Lyon Trumbull, who voted in the Andrew impeachment trial against his conviction:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes, as several of those now alleged against the President were decided to be by the House of Representatives only a few months since, and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important, particularly if of a political character. Blinded by partisan zeal, with such an example before them, they will not scruple to remove out of the way any obstacle to the accomplishment of their purposes, and what then becomes of the checks and balances of the constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone. In view of the consequences likely to flow from the day's proceedings, should they result in conviction on what my judgment tells me are insufficient charges and proofs, I tremble for the future of my country. I cannot be an instrument to produce such a result; and at the hazard of the ties even of friendship and affection and affection, till calmer times shall do justice to my motives, no alternative is left me but the inflexible discharge of duty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, e.g., source as follows:

Link 1.

General associated website (sample reference):

Link 2.
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Click to expand...

05/11/15 03:27 PM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Alpha Romeo:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ST-One:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Alpha Romeo:
The clinton impeachment was for perjury which is a felony. That would be classified as a high crime and misdemeanor. The fact that the president was MISTAKEN regarding the intelligence is not a high crime. Get your facts straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Clinton lied about SUCH an important issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you fail to understand that under our system of justice a lie under oath is not a di minimus standard. It can be a lie of the smallest caliber or importance. It will STILL be a felony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your argument cuts both ways, however. Under stare decisis, the fact that Clinton was not convicted becomes precedent for the proposition that perjury as a felony is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

(Also, please let it be noted, as a point of order, that if I do not respond to earlier comments directed to me, it may be because I believe that the discussion has taken a turn that moots the previous point -- and that my comment directed to a subsequent message may, as appropriate, be taken as affirmation of supportive positions as well as disconfirmation or disagreement with positions directed to me which are contrary to my own. Those who are unsure of this depending on the context are welcome to reasonably reassert their points, as mistakes are known to occur, and further, time is not an unlimited resource.)
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/15 03:29 PM)
Click to expand...

05/11/15 03:37 PM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Malcom:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Anachronus:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Malcom:
Incompetency is not grounds for impeachment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was all of the presidents in the 1970's would have been.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's when the subject originally came up.

Damn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, calls for Pres. Nixon's impeachment, if that's what you were referring to, did not arise from competency, as I recall.

Now-Sen. Hillary Clinton was a staffer on the Congressional committee examining the impeachment issue at the time, and it was that that committee approved actual articles of impeachment. I do not recall that such offenses included incompetence or incompetency.

The overall tenor of the times in relation to impeachment was created, in part, by affirmative actions to cover up the crimes at Watergate against the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee -- a crime actually committed by the likes of G. Gordon Liddy allegedly at the behest of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (unfortunately also known as "CREEP"), but without known direct ties to the President himself. Moreover, Pres. Nixon was widely accused at the time of subverting the Constitutional order by, among other things, dithering over whether to turn over Presidential tapes and engaging in the "Saturday Night Massacre" (mass firing of special prosecutors). In fact, during the crisis between the Congress and the President over the turnover of the tapes, determined by Judge Sirica with the affirmation of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Burger, there was loose talk that the President might call upon the armed forces in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief to physically protect himself and the White House from attempts to seize the tapes, notwithstanding that the President's assertion of Presidential privilege was found unavailing.

Pres. Nixon ultimately turned over the tapes, and it is worth noting that a man of his character knew that the public interest was far more important than the fate of any one President.

[Edit: Certain details corrected upon consultation with Wikipedia.com.]
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/15 03:47 PM)
Click to expand...

05/11/15 08:07 PM Edit Reply Quote
^^Interesting questions. I would say that the whole issue is a bit vague and ambiguous. The fact is that regular misdemeanors as the term is meant at law probably doesn't apply.

Regarding Clinton, I'd have to check, but it seems important whether the Senate found him actually culpable of perjury before deciding not to convict him. I'll also have to check to see if Clinton was actually found guilty of perjury by the time of the trial.

The significance of this is that felonies are obviously more serious than regular misdemeanors at ordinary criminal law.
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Click to expand...
 
And in the thread Republicans/U.S Courts & Gitmo detainees.
05/11/16 12:22 AM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Marc:
One has to wonder if Republican Senators are scared that Bush's actions with the military tribunals and the manner of the detention of those held in Guantanmo could lead the U.S courts throwing the whole lot out.

They passed a motion through the U.S senate to deny detainees any access to U.S courts.

At this time the U.S Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by another detainee over the legality of the military tribunals. These changes by the senate could quash that appeal even though it is already before the court.

It really does sound like they are scared the whole thing is gonna crash down around BushCo's ears. They could of done everything by the book and had it all nice and legal.

But not they had to do an end run around the rules and that's made the whole thing worse.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks is to be denied access to the US court system under contentious amendments just passed by the US Senate.

Hicks's military commission has been suspended pending a Supreme Court ruling on the commission's legality.

US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has put a stay on the Hicks commission until the Supreme Court considers an appeal by another Guantanamo Bay detainee.

But changes now passed by the US Senate could quash that appeal, possibly within the next few weeks.

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has led the charge to deny the detainees the right to challenge their detention in US courts.

"The people at Guantanamo Bay are the last that we should confer that status on," he said.

The Senate has also agreed to allow detainees found guilty by a military commission to appeal to the US Federal Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the usual course of action throughout history has been to deny prisoners of war recourse to U.S. federal courts. This is nothing new.

I do think that there should be a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, however, in this regard. Citizens of the U.S. should indeed have access to U.S. courts, prisoner of war or not.
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Click to expand...
 
The thread IS Racism the worst ever crime?

05/11/16 12:18 AM Edit Reply Quote
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by dervish:
In another board I post on (Red Cafe) there have been a spate of bannings for racist posts. The general consensus there from the moderators is thst racism and racist comments are really the the worst thing in the world and s people have been banned outright.

What is interesting is that on the same board (a football BB) there are frequent posts of great verbal abuse towards people, advocations of violence towards other people, very sexist jokes, comments about murder etc YET all these posts are allowed to stand unedited.

What I am pondering is whether our modern 21st century society actually sees racism as the real social evil of modeern times, as opposed to the rise in violence in most western countries. Someone posted that being racially abused was the 'worst thing that could happen to you'. Do we as a scoaiety now think being racially abused is worse than being raped, attacked etc?

Or is it people playing safe knowing twhat the current PC minded authorities are like? Are we afeared of discussing racial issues regardless of how tolerant we are when discussing things like immigration? Is it even 'fashionable' to be all racially conscious and tolerant?

It has always baffled me that TV and films can show extraordinary violence and hatred towards other people yet always stays clear of making any comment about race. Is it too dangerous a topic?

Food for thought...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really, being racist isn't a crime as much as it is an abomination and a stupidity. So, for the same reason that we don't show folks actually going to the bathroom on normal broadcast TV, we don't like to show folks being racist: Decency.

(Yes, I know that some people think that elimination of bodily waste is not technically abominable, but it's a close enough word for the purposes of this message.)
--------------------
[<sig snipped>]
Edited by Enterpriser (05/11/16 12:19 AM)
Click to expand...
 
As you can see, most of his more recent threads were edits, and I haven't read them much yet but I think he explains the edit only once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top