Censoring is Ridiculous on Blueridgenow

[bannination]

That would be r.j.'s MO, posting wingnuttery, then saying he did it for fun, to get the liberals riled.
His chit post is still intact, though buried on page 3.

A bit of profanity is no big deal. Obviously, however, damn is enough to get you banned over at BRN, but lies and lack of accountability are inconsequential. The 3 Little Sexist Pigs are immune from censure, much less censorship. Its quite alright to impugn sexually active women, even if they're married. Calling mthomemama a spoiled brat doesn't fit their definition of "disparaging" comments.

And Fogle, who thinks of himself as a humorist, is the biggest impugner of them all.

"Foolgle" is enough to get you banned.

You have been banned from this board until Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:57 am.

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

Reason given for ban: Foolgle can't figure out if he believes the media or not. Hilarious...defamatory

A ban has been issued on your username.

[Bungalow Bill]

It is sometimes fun to read the nutter's posts and know that you are unable
to reply to them and don't have to anymore. Too much stupid. That study that
found that the easier it is to have access to birth control the less likely it is that
these women will get pregnant and thus some will have abortions must have had
the wingnuts' heads spinning, like the animal placed halfway between two bowls of
food.

Foolgle, what a trip. I was wondering why he wasted space writing a column about the
congressional race. The legislature has already handed it to Meadows. He could go on
a round the world trip, come back on November 5 and still win. I think it was so he could
get his favorite fantasy villains into the piece--tort lawyers and union thugs. Yeah, they
keep me awake at night.

[bannination]

Re: "Its the Economy, Stupid!...."
by supsalemgr » Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 am

Ron is correct of course. However, the purpose of the GM and Chrysler bailouts was not for the benefit of "suppliers. It was nothing but a payoff for the unions. What the administration did to GM bondholders was criminal.
supsalemgr

Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: God's Country

supsalemgr now thinks Bush is paying off unions..... I guess he forgot that was Bush's baby.

[Stinger]

Re: "Its the Economy, Stupid!...."
by supsalemgr » Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 am

Ron is correct of course. However, the purpose of the GM and Chrysler bailouts was not for the benefit of "suppliers. It was nothing but a payoff for the unions. What the administration did to GM bondholders was criminal.
supsalemgr

Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: God's Country

supsalemgr now thinks Bush is paying off unions..... I guess he forgot that was Bush's baby.

That’s a pretty skewed version of the truth. As Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automotive Research reminds me, the unions had by 2009 already made major concessions in order to help the companies restructure: Among other things, they agreed to a two-tier pay scale, changes to retiree health benefits, and changing work rules that had protected union jobs. Those changes helped the automakers reduce their hourly labor costs by nearly a third.

Then, during the bankruptcy, the unions agreed to further concessions still, on pay, vacations, job security, health benefits, and work rules. As a result, traditional Chrysler and GM hourly employees have seen no annual raises since 2003 and will see no raises until at least 2015, when they bargain the next contract.

The concessions on retiree health benefits concession were particularly significant. With health costs crippling the companies, the unions had agreed in 2007 to let the auto companies hand responsibility for benefits off to a union-managed trust fund. The idea was that the companies would put money into them – albeit at a discount of less than 70 cents on the dollar (in other words, about two-thirds or less of what the auto companies would have owed to retirees otherwise). The unions, in turn, would shoulder the risk of increasing health care costs, investment returns and benefit portfolios.

But by 2009, Chrysler and GM had no money to put into the trust funds. The only way to make the trust funds whole was to deposit company stock instead. That’s why the union trust funds ended up with so many shares in the two companies. And while Romney may consider that a perk, the workers were, and still are, taking a risk: If the companies don’t perform well, the stock won’t be worth much and the funds will have to pare back health benefits even more than they already have.

You can argue that the concessions were necessary, given what the competition was paying their workers. You can argue that the union should have structured the concessions differently. But to call the rescue a “sweetheart deal” or example of “crony capitalism” is way off the mark.

The other part of Romneys’ argument, that the unions made out better than creditors, is debatable: My recollection is that creditors got about as much money, relative to their investment, as those health care trusts got relative to their promised contributions. (The issue of salaried workers is more complicated.) But leave that aside and suppose the unions did get a somewhat better deal. So what? Another way to say that the unions got a better deal is to say that the unions got a better deal for their workers.

Prioritizing workers over investors may seem strange to the co-founder of Bain Capital. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

[k9nanny]

I posted a link to a 2008 NYT story over there.
Not that it will penetrate the hard-shelled nuts.

[Bungalow Bill]

The nut people are certainly having a very hard time with that 7.8% number. Look at
UE-6, it's been manipulated by Obama, etc. When presented with a cold hard fact,
they go all loony and will swallow the most outlandish theories out there. What a
freak show. Of course it it had gone up to 8.4%, you wouldn't have heard a peep about
a conspiracy. Hilarious

[Leo L]

The moron would be Leo L., who posted it over on the BRN forum under the thread title
Who Am I? He used the old nutter switcheroo: when someone pointed out that it was
full of historical errors, it all of a sudden became a joke posted for "entertainment" purposes.
Got it. The same messed up email was posted by someone a fairly long time ago. The nutters
can't even come up with new loony tunes, they just keep repeating the same old ones.

It's good to re-post old email loony tunes, especially the Obama ones, because it's funny to watch the moronic
loony tunes like yourself get your asses all in a twist over and over and over and over again.
Kinda like watching a dog chase it's tail; you think you're impressing someone with your cuteness.

[Bungalow Bill]

What's funny is watching nitwits like yourself post some nonsense that you are too ignorant
to realize is riddled with errors, watch some of the other nutjobs who don't know any better
chime in, and then when it is pointed out that your stuff is nonsense, pretending it was meant
as a joke and that anyone is in a twist because of your own foolishness. Don't think so. If you
want to repeatedly celebrate your own ignorance, go for it. Laughing at you, not with you.

[bannination]

I seen two comments disappear from that thread that pointed out that it wasn't factual.

Sounds like the new mod is as nutty as it's posters.

[Leo L]

I seen two comments disappear from that thread that pointed out that it wasn't factual.

Sounds like the new mod is as nutty as it's posters.

DooHickeys thread "Is that a woman?" went bye-bye.

What's funny is watching nitwits like yourself post some nonsense that you are too ignorant to realize is riddled with errors, watch some of the other nutjobs who don't know any better chime in, and then when it is pointed out that your stuff is nonsense, pretending it was meant as a joke and that anyone is in a twist because of your own foolishness. Don't think so. If you want to repeatedly celebrate your own ignorance, go for it. Laughing at you, not with you.

You mean like this nitwit and his other nutjobs celebrating his ignorance and foolishness and pretending his
debating performance was a joke? (oh wait...it was a joke, wasn't it?)

"LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama opened a two-day fundraising swing through California on Sunday with a "30 Days to Victory Concert" starring George Clooney, Jon Bon Jovi, Earth Wind and Fire, Stevie Wonder, Katy Perry, and Jennifer Hudson. He also seemed to poke fun at his own listless debate performance last week against Mitt Romney."

[Leo L]

You mean like this nitwit and his other nutjobs celebrating his ignorance and foolishness and pretending his debating performance was a joke? (oh wait...it was a joke, wasn't it?)

Didn't watch, but have read about it. I've wondered, could it have been a deliberately subdued performance in order to "come back" by blowing Mitten away in the subsequent debates. Haven't read that suggestion anywhere but the campaign has been run so well otherwise the Machiavellian in me wouldn't put it past them.

Some things can't be faked. Good call though.

[Colonel Taylor]

You mean like this nitwit and his other nutjobs celebrating his ignorance and foolishness and pretending his debating performance was a joke? (oh wait...it was a joke, wasn't it?)

Didn't watch, but have read about it. I've wondered, could it have been a deliberately subdued performance in order to "come back" by blowing Mitten away in the subsequent debates. Haven't read that suggestion anywhere but the campaign has been run so well otherwise the Machiavellian in me wouldn't put it past them.

http://www.obamakoolaid.com/
No it was the High Altitude didn't ya hear.

[Leo L]

http://www.obamakoolaid.com/
No it was the High Altitude didn't ya hear.

"Obama Kool-Aid......?" Damn, you been sucked into Stinger's web.

[Guest]

The moron would be Leo L., who posted it over on the BRN forum under the thread title
Who Am I? He used the old nutter switcheroo: when someone pointed out that it was
full of historical errors, it all of a sudden became a joke posted for "entertainment" purposes.
Got it. The same messed up email was posted by someone a fairly long time ago. The nutters
can't even come up with new loony tunes, they just keep repeating the same old ones.

It's good to re-post old email loony tunes, especially the Obama ones, because it's funny to watch the moronic
loony tunes like yourself get your asses all in a twist over and over and over and over again.
Kinda like watching a dog chase it's tail; you think you're impressing someone with your cuteness.

Thanks for the admission that you are nothing but a troll.

[Bungalow Bill]

Good idea to divert the discussion to the first debate. The I'll keep posting nonsense to show
how much of a dumbass I really am wasn't working too well.

I just went over to BRN and it says this board has no forums. Hmmmm. I didn't bother with
the old unplug/plug in trick to see if my IP address was in the way of accessing the forum.

[DooHickey]

I seen two comments disappear from that thread that pointed out that it wasn't factual.

Sounds like the new mod is as nutty as it's posters.

DooHickeys thread "Is that a woman?" went bye-bye.

Dang it. My Danny DeVito rendition disapp......oh well, now the whole damn forum's gone.

[k9nanny]

Thanks for the admission that you are nothing but a troll.

Says the big, brave anonymous Guest.
Quite frankly, it would suit me if Banni set it up so only registered people could post.
OK- it's usually no huge feat to figure out which nitwit is hiding behind mommy's skirts.

[perspctv]

Thanks for the admission that you are nothing but a troll.

Says the big, brave anonymous Guest.
Quite frankly, it would suit me if Banni set it up so only registered people could post.
OK- it's usually no huge feat to figure out which nitwit is hiding behind mommy's skirts.

Sorry, 'twas me.

I swung by quickly earlier and forgot to sign in. Not that posting under 'perspctv' makes me any braver than I was the first time around. Whether 'guest' or 'perspctv' still anonymous.

Nonetheless I stand by the remarks aimed at Leo.

What is your definition of troll if not that admitted to by Leo (if you disagree)?

[k9nanny]

Thanks for the admission that you are nothing but a troll.

Says the big, brave anonymous Guest.
Quite frankly, it would suit me if Banni set it up so only registered people could post.
OK- it's usually no huge feat to figure out which nitwit is hiding behind mommy's skirts.

Sorry, 'twas me.

I swung by quickly earlier and forgot to sign in. Not that posting under 'perspctv' makes me any braver than I was the first time around. Whether 'guest' or 'perspctv' still anonymous.

Nonetheless I stand by the remarks aimed at Leo.

What is your definition of troll if not that admitted to by Leo (if you disagree)?

Opps- I thought it was a response to vox, er, Bungalow Bill. Had you signed in I would have known better.

[Tertius]

Board warning issued

Sent: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:03 am
From: BRNModerator
To: Bannination
The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

Additional comments questioning the authority of forum staff will result in further actions.

I didn't even question any authority. I'm really starting to believe that's nascarfan.

You need to watch what you say.