• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Dog

Members
  • Content count

    22,764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dog

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

11,479 profile views
  1. Hands down...Michelangelo's David... stopped me dead in my tracks (I didn't post a picture because of all the juveniles here).
  2. Romney's right, Trump needs to apologize. Failure to do so indicates one of two things in my mind: Either he meant it the way it sounded, which is unacceptable, or he misspoke but is too small a man to admit to fucking up, which is unacceptable.
  3. I understand the sentiment but they should have left it. What a treasure that would be today.
  4. Somewhere very visible, maybe in front of the White House.
  5. 136
  6. Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact.
  7. Yes they do.
  8. They have plenty monuments erected to honor the people who participated in that persecution. It's part of their history and they don't sweep it under the rug.
  9. I understand the argument that the monuments stand for racism, I think that's a reason to keep them. The Coliseum stands for religious persecution. Monuments do not have to remind us only of noble things. As to whether one fought on the side of preserving slavery I am reminded of Lincoln's Gettysburg address. He honored all the brave men, blue and grey, who "gave the last full measure of devotion". The Civil War was a great human tragedy and people were swept up in it, Lincoln understood that.
  10. Next up, the Washington and Jefferson memorials? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBSLY9iSIhU
  11. I'm beginning to think removal of the monuments may be necessary if only to preserve them from assholes. Have you ever been to Rome? It's the epicenter of Catholicism but one of its most cherished edifices is the Coliseum. The Coliseum is where Romans publicly killed Christians for their own amusement. If they had the same mindset we see here today they would knock the thing down. Europe is filled with monuments to rogues and tyrants and it's richer for it. Years from now I think people will look back and wonder WTF?
  12. Apparently no one is safe... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/
  13. The Amish again?
  14. I agreed with Raz because he was right in that speech that is intended to incite riot and panic can be regulated, . I was also correct in what I said about speech that is protected, that is speech meant to express a viewpoint. And I did not write "hurtful" I wrote "hateful". Do you fucking get it yet?
  15. I did not replace speech meant to "incite, riots, panic" I agreed with Raz that they were regulatable. I added that it is the expression of viewpoints that is protected and I did not mention "hurtful" speech at all. If you can't comprehend maybe you should refrain from commenting.