TakeYouToTasker
-
Posts
19,668 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TakeYouToTasker
-
-
34 minutes ago, shoshin said:
Substantively, this misses the point that the Q thread has never been moderated, as SDS stated, and nor have many others. SDS is a human with an opinion, which he shared and he did that to show how little moderation he does here, not as a precursor to banning DR. DR (and others on the LEFT in the Billstime mode) got themselves banned for their behavior, not their politics.
It also does not answer my question.
You advocated that people should "Make this hurt for [SDS]" and made this about him "personally."
That's pretty sick and you should probably take your own advice and quit here if you can.
He’s the owner of the site, and the sole individual responsible for policies and decisions which have targeted conservatives and their view points. He is the sole proprietor. Of course it’s about him personally. He personally made the decisions.Conservatives should let people know exactly how Scott runs his business.
-
31 minutes ago, shoshin said:
I think we can all see you for who you are: A guy who tries to rally his buddies to "make it hurt" for SDS, personally.
This is a message board on the internet. You're anonymous. He's not. And you made a threat, knowing what crap like this can do on the Internet.
If you were drunk and regret doing that, now is the time to say it.
No one disputes that this is private property, and Scott can do as he sees fit. Scott’s stated goal was to facilitate a community for Bills fans. His site encompasses all manner of things, because Bills fans have a wide variety of other passions and interests. There is very little which cannot be talked about here by Bills fans.However Scott drew a line in the sand. He singled out a certain type of discussion which he does not wish to foster. He used the phrases “4chan for Bills fans” and “The Donald for Bills Fans” in a derogatory manner, implying that is what PPP is. This aligns very neatly with the dopey rhetoric from some of you (the Royal “you”), that this is an alt-right subforum, and that those of us who post here are racist, white-supremacist, etc.
The messaging, and the pattern of moderation, and suspensions is clear. Conservative, libertarian, Republican etc. ideas are not particularly welcome here.
Scott, and his moderation team, have made the choice to alienate people who hold those ideas, and to hold them to a very different standard.
As such, those individuals being alienated should take strong note. They should tell other Bills fans about how this place is moderated. They should talk about it in conservative circles. If Scott, and his moderators, have decided this is what they want, then they should be forced to own it.
Two Bills Drive is not a place for conservatives, and that should be public.
That’s the hurt I’m speaking of.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
I was trying to provide info about another member, but your point is probably correct
No, you provided disinformation.I provided a correction.
You were dishonest, and continue to be.
The thread is still there. I can provide receipts.
In that thread, I described the usage of the term by explaining that he was lawyering for pedophiles, and described the coining of the term.
I went on to say that I was certain that he himself was not a pedophile, and that there was exactly zero reason for anyone to believe he had those proclivities; and that accusing anyone of such a thing with no evidence is vile.
You’re simply biased, and were either willing to mischaracterize what I said to suit your biases, or allowed your biases to torture the English language to pervert my intent.
You should be ashamed of yourself, certainly for the suspension as I just honestly accounted, but more so for your attempt to defame me publicly.
But you won’t be, and that’s telling.
-
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Take You to Tasker has no current restrictions against him.
He posted a good-bye of his own volition and whether he means it or not is between him and his ears:
That was after he posted this. I personally find this reprehensible and demonstrating a lack of personal responsibility and respect for another man's property to suggest "making it hurt for them" after they take an action it is fully within their rights to take with their own property, but he was neither banned nor restricted for this.
Oh, and also entirely missing the distinction between viewpoints being unwelcome (seriously?) and behavior being unwelcome, but that's beside the point here.
TYTT was banned by me for a week back in August for repeatedly defaming another member (as in, could take @SDS and this board to court if he chose level defamation). Not OK, not going to be excused on a hair-splitting grammarism - with all the world of insults available to ya, it can't be that hard to pick some that aren't actually defamatory! If he came back and repeated the same behavior, he'd get a longer ban; third time, probably a perma-ban as it would be clear he couldn't or wouldn't listen and really, how much of one's time should the mods be expected to give to one guy?
Threats, defamation, and behavior considered extreme or over the top have never been OK, even in PPP; no rule change has occurred. We don't have and can't provide a list of such behavior because frankly, folks come up with novel stuff we'd never thought of or considered, but honestly, given how few instances there have been, I think it's pretty clear that people have got to really work at it to get the perma-ban.
Scott has a well-deserved reputation as a "measure twice cut once" patient man, which he has IMO earned, over and over again.
Hope this helps
I’ll return to address this, because you’re defaming me, which I was alerted to because you quoted my content. That’s a total mischaracterization of what I said, and the actions you took.
Another poster, who claims to be a lawyer, was making a defense of a pedophile. Lawyering for pedophiles.
The way lawyers are described in the English language are predicate.
Constitutional lawyer. Corporate lawyer. Family lawyer. Divorce lawyer. Immigration lawyer. Personal injury lawyer. Bankruptcy lawyer. Estate planning lawyer. Criminal lawyer.
Pedophile lawyer.
I made it quite clear in that thread that I was not naming him a pedophile, stating so directly, including directly to him, many times; even going so far as to defend him from people who actually called him a pedophile.
The English language and clear context of that thread are evidence of this.
The assertion that this somehow jeopardized SDS, and this site, legally is absurd.You acted on bias, ignored context and language, didn’t give me the opportunity to address any of it, and then ham handedly threatened me with a perma-ban, saying I was on a short leash.
Let’s stick to facts, shall we?
As to me saying decisions like the ones being made should hurt?They should. This board is Scott’s property, but he’s choosing to alienate a large portion of the community he claims to want to foster. Those people should remember this, and treat him accordingly.
-
1
-
-
My understanding is that this decision was made by @SDS personally.
He has made a decision that certain viewpoints are unwelcome on his board.
Make this hurt for him.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said:
It could change if there was a determined effort to stop voting for incumbents and support challengers. One may not be entirely comfortable with many of the challengers, but the greater good is voting the entrenched cabal OUT.
I don’t understand how anyone can look at our government, which has steadily grown in size and scope since day one, power becoming more centralized and more absolute; realize that it has become this way through a democratic republican system; and think that it can be solved at the ballot box.Government doesn’t shrink, and you can’t solve problems created by government with more government.
-
1
-
-
-
21 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:
They weren't auditing them and I've said it a couple times, Americans don't need tax returns to search for fraud, they need it to see where income comes from and conflict of interest. We still hear how did the Clinton's get all that money? Well you can look at their return and see their royalty income from speaking and writing. It doesn't show if they fudged deductions or are hiding illegal money from the Clinton Foundation, but we can at least see where the income is from per their word.
They took the information gained under a microscope, and conducted a broad based criminal investigation into them, which turned up tax fraud committed by Trump’s former lawyer. -
Just now, Backintheday544 said:
No one has seen the filings so to say conclusively is a stretch. It's not like he would disclose under Other Income - Bribe from Putin. Which is why I said filings won't show anything bad until the SDNY investigation.
The Mueller investigation already had full access to them.-
2
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Now there's a stretch. @Backintheday, would you expect to see that level of granularity in these filings?
This was reported by the NYT, though they buried it. -
1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:
Trump can be like, loom NYT you're fake news. Here's my taxes. It shuts down that point so fast.
Taxes show a ton of things. I for one would love to see the foreign disclosures. It doesn't show what the left wants them to show tho.
Here’s the thing though, most people, nearly all in fact, don’t understand the complexities of tax filings far less complex than the President’s.Heck, most people don’t understand a document as simple and straightforward as a 1099R.
They literally have no ability to comprehend them, and so their understanding becomes whatever a hostile press tells them their understanding is. In this case they buried the fact that his tax filings conclusively reveal no troublesome financial dealings with Russia, but pushed the false notion that the President doesn’t pay taxes.There is no political upside to releasing them, since the media won’t cover them honestly anyhow.
-
2
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:
It's not. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham just complained about a Democrat he's running against for not showing his taxes. It's important to show where people have income from and possible conflicts of interest.
The President did exactly this with his election filing, as he mentioned.The taxes bit is about “showing” people who are ignorant of real estate and corporate accounting practices that the “President only paid $750 in taxes, while you paid thousands, and he’s a billionaire!!! How outrageous!!! He’s a tax avoiders!!!”
Which is exactly why Democratic talking points uniformly lined up that way.
-
1
-
-
Just now, The Frankish Reich said:
And that may be the case. Look, if he's under audit he (his attorneys and accountants) have no doubt already presented their theories of tax liability. There's no reason not to release the taxes with those explanations. Is it Trump being stubborn, or still hoping to hide something (probably the follow-up questions)? All I know is right now this strategy is unlikely to help him.
So, here’s the thing about the President’s taxes. The whole purpose of presenting them was for folks like Bernie Sanders to get on a pulpit and grumble about “Merbilgerbilgerbil-millionaires brable-and bribilliones!!!” so they could call The President a “tax avoider” on the Sunday circuit, trying to equate that with tax evasion, in order to cast the President as a criminal.
The President has been under audit for a decade. This means that the Obama IRS, which had been weaponised against his political enemies, had been investigating the President for financial crimes and tax fraud for 6 years. This information was within the purview of the Mueller investigation, whom we know was actively searching for criminality in the President's taxes because Michael Cohen was taken down due to tax fraud related to taxi medallions as part of the probe.
After having a 10 year audit conducted by a hostile IRS, and a special council shoved up your ass with the intention of finding even a hint of wrong doing; and both come away with nothing?
There’s nothing there to find.
-
5
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
He did deny paying $750 in 2016 and 2017, but he said he'd be releasing them "when they're ready." Which seems to mean "never."
He’s been under audit since 2010, which was one of the biggest takeaways from the NYT article.Another of the biggest takeaways was that Trump made large tax payments based on estimates which were later to be partially refunded due to overpayment. He elected to let the Treasury keep that money in prepayment of future tax bills due. The $750 due in 2017 reflects his tax bill, not his tax liability, most of which he had already paid in prior years.
-
3
-
1
-
-
-
There are rumors circulating that the Biden camp is appealing to the moderators about appearing “virtually” tonight.
Rumors only, unconfirmed, so please take with a grain of salt.
-
1
-
-
“Cole is a shifty little sucker.”
-
7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
That's right where I am.
That INT call on the Tyler Kroft reception was bar none, the WORST officiating call I have ever seen.
It was comparably bad to Jim Joyce’s blown call that cost Armando Gallaraga a perfect game.-
4
-
-
***** Josh Allen.
-
1
-
-
YAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!
-
-
Addison down.
-
Great read by Johnson.
-
That’s a hell of a punt.
Banned usernames
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I’m dangling here only because a moderator of this site chose to mischaracterize me publicly, in order to defame me.
@Hapless Bills Fan
No responses?