(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

I just hope some deranged leftist doesn't use this information to gun down a couple of these people with his assault rifle.

Legal or not, it does put people at risk.

It is not just that he put names out. Didn't he also accuse them of fueling a campaign of hate against Hispanics?

Do you not see a difference between:

(a)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and gave $50 to Jane Austen

and,

(b)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and is fueling racism against Hispanics.

If you stretch real hard to preserve the double standard, you can say you see no difference.

Don't forget, he also gave employers. So if a deranged leftist goes into a workplace to kill a donor and ends up killing ten people, no harm?

You and the Castro bros better keep your fingers crossed.

(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

Got it. Tell that to the CEO of Mozilla who was hounded out of his company.

Sorry, the entire reason for the law is to make sure that politicians are clean and accountable. Not for some fing pissant local pol to toss their name to the newspapers on 'who gave to the anti-fag election'.

I take it you think Castro's actions are fantastic then. Good for you. I find them to be right in line with some asshat who wants to enforce a 'thought crime regime' type argument.

**** Castro, and **** what he did. Leave it to the progs to stand up for that action as 'good and moral'. Like you just ostensibly did in your defense Two Bit Castro and his actions.

how do you like the fact that two of them have already started to receive harrassing calls? Does that make your little prog body quiver with joy? And dont tell me that that the fing two bit shyster that did this didnt expect that.

I guess in lad world, given that point of view, we should all wear whom we voted for on or lapels? Would be more effective wouldnt it?

(08-09-2019 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

I just hope some deranged leftist doesn't use this information to gun down a couple of these people with his assault rifle.

Legal or not, it does put people at risk.

It is not just that he put names out. Didn't he also accuse them of fueling a campaign of hate against Hispanics?

Do you not see a difference between:

(a)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and gave $50 to Jane Austen

and,

(b)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and is fueling racism against Hispanics.

If you stretch real hard to preserve the double standard, you can say you see no difference.

Don't forget, he also gave employers. So if a deranged leftist goes into a workplace to kill a donor and ends up killing ten people, no harm?

You and the Castro bros better keep your fingers crossed.

He provided addresses?

(08-09-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

I just hope some deranged leftist doesn't use this information to gun down a couple of these people with his assault rifle.

Legal or not, it does put people at risk.

It is not just that he put names out. Didn't he also accuse them of fueling a campaign of hate against Hispanics?

Do you not see a difference between:

(a)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and gave $50 to Jane Austen

and,

(b)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and is fueling racism against Hispanics.

If you stretch real hard to preserve the double standard, you can say you see no difference.

Don't forget, he also gave employers. So if a deranged leftist goes into a workplace to kill a donor and ends up killing ten people, no harm?

You and the Castro bros better keep your fingers crossed.

He provided addresses?

He gave names. Databases provide the rest. Especially the ones he culled the info from. Life in the perfect all knowing progressive heaven.

He gave enough where people feel the overriding urge to harass them. Thats enough, right?

(08-09-2019 06:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

Got it. Tell that to the CEO of Mozilla who was hounded out of his company.

Sorry, the entire reason for the law is to make sure that politicians are clean and accountable. Not for some fing pissant local pol to toss their name to the newspapers on 'who gave to the anti-fag election'.

I take it you think Castro's actions are fantastic then. Good for you. I find them to be right in line with some asshat who wants to enforce a 'thought crime regime' type argument.

**** Castro, and **** what he did. Leave it to the progs to stand up for that action as 'good and moral'. Like you just ostensibly did in your defense Two Bit Castro and his actions.

how do you like the fact that two of them have already started to receive harrassing calls? Does that make your little prog body quiver with joy? And dont tell me that that the fing two bit shyster that did this didnt expect that.

I guess in lad world, given that point of view, we should all wear whom we voted for on or lapels? Would be more effective wouldnt it?

I have zero problem with publicly available information being made public. I have zero problem with political donations being made public as well.

If you don’t want people to know what political campaign you donated to, don’t donate.

(08-09-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

I just hope some deranged leftist doesn't use this information to gun down a couple of these people with his assault rifle.

Legal or not, it does put people at risk.

It is not just that he put names out. Didn't he also accuse them of fueling a campaign of hate against Hispanics?

Do you not see a difference between:

(a)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and gave $50 to Jane Austen

and,

(b)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and is fueling racism against Hispanics.

If you stretch real hard to preserve the double standard, you can say you see no difference.

Don't forget, he also gave employers. So if a deranged leftist goes into a workplace to kill a donor and ends up killing ten people, no harm?

You and the Castro bros better keep your fingers crossed.

He provided addresses?

He gave names. Databases provide the rest. Especially the ones he culled the info from. Life in the perfect all knowing progressive heaven.

So he didn’t provide addresses, just information that is already in a publicly available database. So what did he do exactly? Are you mad at people who tweet the location of a Pizza Hut?

(08-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

Got it. Tell that to the CEO of Mozilla who was hounded out of his company.

Sorry, the entire reason for the law is to make sure that politicians are clean and accountable. Not for some fing pissant local pol to toss their name to the newspapers on 'who gave to the anti-fag election'.

I take it you think Castro's actions are fantastic then. Good for you. I find them to be right in line with some asshat who wants to enforce a 'thought crime regime' type argument.

**** Castro, and **** what he did. Leave it to the progs to stand up for that action as 'good and moral'. Like you just ostensibly did in your defense Two Bit Castro and his actions.

how do you like the fact that two of them have already started to receive harrassing calls? Does that make your little prog body quiver with joy? And dont tell me that that the fing two bit shyster that did this didnt expect that.

I guess in lad world, given that point of view, we should all wear whom we voted for on or lapels? Would be more effective wouldnt it?

I have zero problem with publicly available information being made public. I have zero problem with political donations being made public as well.

If you don’t want people to know what political campaign you donated to, don’t donate.

What Castro did was fing sick. Im not surprised you have zero issue with it, to be honest.

(08-09-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.

I just hope some deranged leftist doesn't use this information to gun down a couple of these people with his assault rifle.

Legal or not, it does put people at risk.

It is not just that he put names out. Didn't he also accuse them of fueling a campaign of hate against Hispanics?

Do you not see a difference between:

(a)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and gave $50 to Jane Austen

and,

(b)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and is fueling racism against Hispanics.

If you stretch real hard to preserve the double standard, you can say you see no difference.

Don't forget, he also gave employers. So if a deranged leftist goes into a workplace to kill a donor and ends up killing ten people, no harm?

You and the Castro bros better keep your fingers crossed.

He provided addresses?

He gave names. Databases provide the rest. Especially the ones he culled the info from. Life in the perfect all knowing progressive heaven.

So he didn’t provide addresses, just information that is already in a publicly available database. So what did he do exactly? Are you mad at people who tweet the location of a Pizza Hut?

Your name is publicly available. Something tells me you would be pissed as **** if it were typed here. That is the reason I dont type it, nor would I ever disclose it (since we have traded that information). But I guess that is apparently the difference between you and me then.

(08-09-2019 06:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just hope some deranged leftist doesn't use this information to gun down a couple of these people with his assault rifle.

Legal or not, it does put people at risk.

It is not just that he put names out. Didn't he also accuse them of fueling a campaign of hate against Hispanics?

Do you not see a difference between:

(a)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and gave $50 to Jane Austen

and,

(b)RiceLad lives at 1234 Liberal Way and is fueling racism against Hispanics.

If you stretch real hard to preserve the double standard, you can say you see no difference.

Don't forget, he also gave employers. So if a deranged leftist goes into a workplace to kill a donor and ends up killing ten people, no harm?

You and the Castro bros better keep your fingers crossed.

He provided addresses?

He gave names. Databases provide the rest. Especially the ones he culled the info from. Life in the perfect all knowing progressive heaven.

So he didn’t provide addresses, just information that is already in a publicly available database. So what did he do exactly? Are you mad at people who tweet the location of a Pizza Hut?

Your name is publicly available. Something tells me you would be pissed as **** if it were typed here.

That’s because I expect a certain level of anonymity on the message board.

There is no expectation of privacy when making political donations. That information is made public by law...

Edit: and to be clear, I wouldn’t be that pissed. I have no problem standing behind everything I’ve typed on this message board, publicly. I’d probably only be embarrassed because people would know how much time I’ve spent on this board.

(08-09-2019 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  He provided addresses?

He gave names. Databases provide the rest. Especially the ones he culled the info from. Life in the perfect all knowing progressive heaven.

So he didn’t provide addresses, just information that is already in a publicly available database. So what did he do exactly? Are you mad at people who tweet the location of a Pizza Hut?

Your name is publicly available. Something tells me you would be pissed as **** if it were typed here.

That’s because I expect a certain level of anonymity on the message board.

There is no expectation of privacy when making political donations. That information is made public by law...

What a fing cop out. Lolz.

You have zero expectation of anything you hand out lad. I like all these fun, invisible, and wandering standards you set. You must get awfully dizzy trying to traverse them.

Again lad "That is the reason I dont type it, nor would I ever disclose it (since we have traded that information). But I guess that is apparently the difference between you and me then."

(08-09-2019 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  He gave names. Databases provide the rest. Especially the ones he culled the info from. Life in the perfect all knowing progressive heaven.

So he didn’t provide addresses, just information that is already in a publicly available database. So what did he do exactly? Are you mad at people who tweet the location of a Pizza Hut?

Your name is publicly available. Something tells me you would be pissed as **** if it were typed here.

That’s because I expect a certain level of anonymity on the message board.

There is no expectation of privacy when making political donations. That information is made public by law...

What a fing cop out. Lolz.

You have zero expectation of anything you hand out lad. I like all these fun, invisible, and wandering standards you set. You must get awfully dizzy trying to traverse them.

Maybe that’s a generational thing, but I don’t. I have zero expectation that any of my social media or online presence will stay private. Zero expectation that even information like my credit card info or social security number will stay private.

I’m not setting any fun, wandering standards - I’m just telling you how I would feel if the hypothetical you described happened. The only standard I touch on is a law that makes campaign contributions public - something that is far from a fun, invisible, or wandering standard.

(08-09-2019 06:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So he didn’t provide addresses, just information that is already in a publicly available database. So what did he do exactly? Are you mad at people who tweet the location of a Pizza Hut?

Your name is publicly available. Something tells me you would be pissed as **** if it were typed here.

That’s because I expect a certain level of anonymity on the message board.

There is no expectation of privacy when making political donations. That information is made public by law...

What a fing cop out. Lolz.

You have zero expectation of anything you hand out lad. I like all these fun, invisible, and wandering standards you set. You must get awfully dizzy trying to traverse them.

Maybe that’s a generational thing, but I don’t. I have zero expectation that any of my social media or online presence will stay private. Zero expectation that even information like my credit card info or social security number will stay private.

I’m not setting any fun, wandering standards - I’m just telling you how I would feel if the hypothetical you described happened. The only standard I touch on is a law that makes campaign contributions public - something that is far from a fun, invisible, or wandering standard.

And you apparently are for putting normal everyday people out in the *national* spotlight, to castigate them in their own communities for that.

You would have a load of fun in Salem in the mid 1600's I would say.

I can say I am not that much of a moralistic preening asshat.

Do you support what Castro did? Good? Bad? Dont care? Deplorable dumbshits had it coming to them?

It’s one thing when you pick on somebody your own size. It’s one thing when you pick on somebody who has a platform to defend themselves. It’s one thing when you pick on an elected official who chose to get into the fray. It is quite another when you pick on individual citizens who do not have that option. And I see it from the left all the time. And the left here seems to defend that type of bullying.

When you when you try to bully people into thinking and acting different and especially coming from an elected official this is extremely worrying. But apparently good sport for the left.

Nothing but raw intimidation. Extraordinarily grotesque. Yet defended vociferously here. Surprise, surprise, surprise......

(08-09-2019 06:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your name is publicly available. Something tells me you would be pissed as **** if it were typed here.

That’s because I expect a certain level of anonymity on the message board.

There is no expectation of privacy when making political donations. That information is made public by law...

What a fing cop out. Lolz.

You have zero expectation of anything you hand out lad. I like all these fun, invisible, and wandering standards you set. You must get awfully dizzy trying to traverse them.

Maybe that’s a generational thing, but I don’t. I have zero expectation that any of my social media or online presence will stay private. Zero expectation that even information like my credit card info or social security number will stay private.

I’m not setting any fun, wandering standards - I’m just telling you how I would feel if the hypothetical you described happened. The only standard I touch on is a law that makes campaign contributions public - something that is far from a fun, invisible, or wandering standard.

And you apparently are for putting normal everyday people out in the *national* spotlight, to castigate them in their own communities for that.

You would have a load of fun in Salem in the mid 1600's I would say.

I can say I am not that much of a moralistic preening asshat.

Do you support what Castro did? Good? Bad? Dont care? Deplorable dumbshits had it coming to them?

Don’t care.

If they didn’t want that info becoming public, shouldn’t have donated, which is what caused that info to be put into the public record.

(08-09-2019 06:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It’s one thing when you pick on somebody your own size. It’s one thing when you pick on somebody who has a platform to defend themselves. It’s one thing when you pick on an elected official who chose to get into the fray. It is quite another when you pick on individual citizens who do not have that option. And I see it from the left all the time. And the left here seems to defend that type of bullying.

When you when you try to bully people into thinking and acting different and especially coming from an elected official this is extremely worrying. But apparently good sport for the left.

Nothing but raw intimidation. Extraordinarily grotesque. Yet defended vociferously here. Surprise, surprise, surprise......

I agree with the bully pulpit angle - that is a completely different issue than suggesting what he did was doxxing. It wasn’t doxxing.

(08-09-2019 06:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That’s because I expect a certain level of anonymity on the message board.

There is no expectation of privacy when making political donations. That information is made public by law...

What a fing cop out. Lolz.

You have zero expectation of anything you hand out lad. I like all these fun, invisible, and wandering standards you set. You must get awfully dizzy trying to traverse them.

Maybe that’s a generational thing, but I don’t. I have zero expectation that any of my social media or online presence will stay private. Zero expectation that even information like my credit card info or social security number will stay private.

I’m not setting any fun, wandering standards - I’m just telling you how I would feel if the hypothetical you described happened. The only standard I touch on is a law that makes campaign contributions public - something that is far from a fun, invisible, or wandering standard.

And you apparently are for putting normal everyday people out in the *national* spotlight, to castigate them in their own communities for that.

You would have a load of fun in Salem in the mid 1600's I would say.

I can say I am not that much of a moralistic preening asshat.

Do you support what Castro did? Good? Bad? Dont care? Deplorable dumbshits had it coming to them?

Don’t care.

If they didn’t want that info becoming public, shouldn’t have donated, which is what caused that info to be put into the public record.

And you have zero issue with an elected official making them a national figure? I thought you were an anti-bully type.

I guess not when your side is doing the bullying.

(08-09-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It’s one thing when you pick on somebody your own size. It’s one thing when you pick on somebody who has a platform to defend themselves. It’s one thing when you pick on an elected official who chose to get into the fray. It is quite another when you pick on individual citizens who do not have that option. And I see it from the left all the time. And the left here seems to defend that type of bullying.

When you when you try to bully people into thinking and acting different and especially coming from an elected official this is extremely worrying. But apparently good sport for the left.

Nothing but raw intimidation. Extraordinarily grotesque. Yet defended vociferously here. Surprise, surprise, surprise......

I agree with the bully pulpit angle - that is a completely different issue than suggesting what he did was doxxing. It wasn’t doxxing.

Making a local donor into a national figure sure as **** is.

(08-09-2019 06:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That’s because I expect a certain level of anonymity on the message board.

There is no expectation of privacy when making political donations. That information is made public by law...

What a fing cop out. Lolz.

You have zero expectation of anything you hand out lad. I like all these fun, invisible, and wandering standards you set. You must get awfully dizzy trying to traverse them.

Maybe that’s a generational thing, but I don’t. I have zero expectation that any of my social media or online presence will stay private. Zero expectation that even information like my credit card info or social security number will stay private.

I’m not setting any fun, wandering standards - I’m just telling you how I would feel if the hypothetical you described happened. The only standard I touch on is a law that makes campaign contributions public - something that is far from a fun, invisible, or wandering standard.

And you apparently are for putting normal everyday people out in the *national* spotlight, to castigate them in their own communities for that.

You would have a load of fun in Salem in the mid 1600's I would say.

I can say I am not that much of a moralistic preening asshat.

Do you support what Castro did? Good? Bad? Dont care? Deplorable dumbshits had it coming to them?

Don’t care.

If they didn’t want that info becoming public, shouldn’t have donated, which is what caused that info to be put into the public record.

Agree that it's not doxxing, but what Castro did sets a horrible precedent for an elected official.

And, criminally stupid messaging.

And, next time Castro's dialing for dollars among big donors in Alamo Heights . . . good luck with that.

One thing we have all agreed with at one time or another is that just because something is legal that doesn’t mean it is right.

I would condemn any Republican who did this to Democratic donors. I guess that means my standards are different from Lad’s. Hmmm. Two standards. How novel.

More interesting to me is that not one - no person at all - has stepped forward to condemn protesters calling for the death or injury of McConnell. I bet if a right winger called for the death of a Democrat - or even to just send her back - the outcry against that would be enormous. Must be another case of two standards.

Frankly, a bit surprised Lad would talk himself into this corner. A.E., I could readily believe.