This is a list of Soap Box Extremists who seem to live in their own fantasy land with the most whack views on politics and world events. Please feell free to help me out.

salisburyboy- Radical left-winger who thinks the world is just one big conspiracy.

TreeTwista10- Reactionary neo-con bush fan #1. Will argue till 5am on any issue that deviates from the Bush/Republican agenda.

392 - Extreme Libertarian borderline anarchist who believes we can all live in harmony with business and consumers all holding hands in the perfect fantasy land w/o any kind of government regulation or directive.



[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 11:52 AM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 11:50:59 AM

[feel]

[thinks]

/grammar nazi

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 11:51 AM. Reason : a]

10/5/2007 11:51:33 AM

392, I have concluded, is a wacko. Bit of a hippie maybe?

10/5/2007 11:57:31 AM

Nahh hippies usually advocated for world peace and everyone living together sharing and shit. Most of the hippies i know support health care and other various socialist programs. If the government is taking care of you then you do not need as much money and have more time to sit around smoking pot all day, attending grateful dead shows, and spreading peace messages around the US.

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 12:03 PM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 12:03:10 PM

this will not end well.

10/5/2007 12:04:15 PM

TreeTwista10 is more of a Hannity-type... you know, the kind of person that feels the need to stamp out liberal bias regardless of whether their arguments make any sense

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM. Reason : a]

10/5/2007 12:09:23 PM

you'd think after I've posted on here for like 5 years that maybe one of you would have a clue as to what I'm about, but no...its either dirty hippie liberal or neocon bush lover...nothing in between

oh btw

IBTL

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2007 1:20:22 PM

You didn't start posting in TSB until the last 1-2 years.

Prior to that, your post criteria was pot, nba, hip hop, pot, nba, pot, ncsu, panthers, pot.

And I honestly think you can't put him in the neocon group, you could put him in the extreme troll group of politics, but thats probably it.

10/5/2007 2:18:06 PM

salisburyboy... who?

10/5/2007 2:21:52 PM

id say salisburyboy is more of a faaaaar right extremist, ya know like facist

10/5/2007 2:30:22 PM

hooksaw doesn't make this list? I'm surprised

10/5/2007 2:39:29 PM

Chance how do you know I've only been posting in TSB for 1-2 years? You've barely been a registered user on this site for 100 days.

10/5/2007 2:56:27 PM

hooksaw isn't so extreme in his central views-- he is a pretty standard line toeing republican-- it's the childish name calling that makes him look like salisburyboy incarnate.

moonbat motherfucker this, fucking stupid, bedwetting bla bla bla bla....

10/5/2007 3:07:36 PM

Quote :

"Extreme Libertarian borderline anarchist who believes we can all live in harmony with business and consumers all holding hands in the perfect fantasy land w/o any kind of government regulation or directive"

pretty close, actually

more of a small "l" libertarian; we do need some government

you know, to enforce laws that are just (murder, rape, assault, theft, vandalism, arson, littering, polluting, etc.)

not to mention it's necessary to enforce non-fraudulent and non-coercive contracts among consenting adults

so as long as they don't violate anyone else's person, property, or liberty

and otherwise regardless of their social or political impact

I do believe that it is immoral to achieve or attempt to achieve a social or political end through the initiation of force

Quote :

"live in harmony"

sure, except harmony isn't this 100% peaceful, egalitarian hugfest it's made out to be

life has ups and downs, we are all mortal, some must die so that others may live, we all have responsibilities, etc.

Quote :

"Bit of a hippie maybe?"

ha, I get that a lot (as a matter of fact, I do have long hair, lol)

Quote :

"hippies usually advocated for world peace and everyone living together sharing and shit"

world peace? not possible without the destruction of the individual, religion, and evolution

world justice is far more important a goal, and realistic, too

Quote :

"sharing and shit"

oh noes, I'm all for that! bartering, forming non-traditional social groups, private sector self-determination, etc.

Quote :

"Most of the hippies i know support health care and other various socialist programs"

taking all those bonghits really make "a chicken in every pot" sound oh too irresistible to hippies, I guess

btw, I don't troll, but I have been know to play the devil's advocate occasionally (see if you can guess when)



anyways

I think extreme moderates are in just as much, if not more, of "their own fantasy land with....whack views"

compromise doesn't always make sense, you see, and can be rather ugly

like GrumpyGOP's "legalize pot? sure, but only if heroin and crack users get the death penalty"

also, even though they're somewhat common, religious nuts like mathman are in "their own fantasy land"

10/5/2007 4:51:10 PM

ScHpEnXeL - resident extreme grammar nazi

10/5/2007 5:02:39 PM

Quote :

"Chance how do you know I've only been posting in TSB for 1-2 years? You've barely been a registered user on this site for 100 days."

Because this balding troll thinks he knows everybody.

10/5/2007 6:53:59 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10 is more of a Hannity-type... you know, the kind of person that feels the need to stamp out liberal bias regardless of whether their arguments make any sense"

yeah

10/5/2007 7:56:50 PM

well the majority of posters are liberal and have liberal bias, im just balancing things out like the rest of the country

10/5/2007 7:58:17 PM

Hardly anybody here qualifies as an extremist in any real sense of the word. 392 might be sufficiently close to the anarchist end of the spectrum to qualify, but ever since our resident "green anarchist" (DirtyGreek), communist (Kris), nazi (steve9194), and moonbat (salisburyboy) left, they've been relatively thin on the ground.

10/5/2007 8:44:23 PM

Quote :

"you know, to enforce laws that are just (murder, rape, assault, theft, vandalism, arson, littering, polluting, etc.)"

Last I checked, pollution control was not a libertarian issue. They're all about letting the market clean it up.

10/5/2007 9:44:16 PM

Quote :

""green anarchist" (DirtyGreek), communist (Kris), nazi (steve9194)"

Seriously, what ever happened to these guys? Salisbury still sporadically, I'm sure, but these three have dropped off the face of the Soap Box (possibly tww entirely, I haven't looked at their post histories recently).

10/5/2007 10:17:22 PM

i'd say Wlfpk4Life is pretty much an extremist nutjob.

and i've always thought that aaronburro and 1337 b4k4 are a little out there, though they are probably less "extremist" than they are just "zealously ill-informed"...







[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2007 10:45:02 PM

Salisburyboy, we pray, is gone for good after the suspension.

I've very, very rarely seen Kris post in the past few months, and DirtyGreek as well (although possibly under a different name, I don't remember).

Steve9194 I actually talked to on AIM last week. As he puts it, he just had a hard time posting on a college debate board after he got out of college, and just kind of gave up on the thing.

He's still a nazi sympathizer and I hope the day comes when he gets a blindfold and a cigarette, but in the interests of fairness I'll say that he struck me as being slightly less unspeakably evil than he did in his heyday.

10/5/2007 11:18:04 PM

steve9194 was the only person i've ever known on TWW, who made me have homicidal fantasies.

nothing extravagant, just simply hunting down and killing that fucker. Nobody since him has ever come close. Not even Salisburyboy... not by a long shot.

maybe its just cause that was back in '02 or '03, and i was a TDub n00b. My skin's prolly gotten a lot thicker since then.

It might have also been because not only was he a rabid Nazi, but also intelligent. S-Boy, OTOH, was just a racist buffoon and garden-variety conspiracy theorist.







[Edited on October 6, 2007 at 1:48 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 6, 2007 at 1:50 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2007 1:40:34 AM

George (DirtyGreek) isn't as extremists as you guys make him out to be. If you met him in real life you'd realize that. FYI he's married and living in W-S last time I talked to him.

Also can't remember that guys name, but ncsref or whatever it was, he was pretty far out there.

10/6/2007 4:03:20 PM

I'm a little disappointed I didn't make this list, I am the only supporter of Theocracy in TSB, that ought to earn me something.

10/6/2007 10:42:58 PM

Quote :

"also, even though they're somewhat common, religious nuts like mathman are in "their own fantasy land""

10/6/2007 10:57:26 PM

^thank you I completely missed that, it would worry me greatly if TSB counted me as normal.

10/6/2007 11:09:13 PM

Quote :

"I am the only supporter of Theocracy in TSB"

why do you hate America?

why don't you move to Iran with all your terrorist buddies?

10/7/2007 1:55:39 AM

Quote :

"As he puts it, he just had a hard time posting on a college debate board after he got out of college, and just kind of gave up on the thing."

Sad that he may have more common sense than me in that regard ...

What keeps this forum going anyway? I mean, damn, it's like a ghost ship on the internet or something ...

10/7/2007 2:04:31 AM

Quote :

"Sad that he may have more common sense than me in that regard ..."

and, yeah

10/7/2007 3:38:49 AM

I'm the resident 2nd amendment nut


more like, lack of second amendment cause of you damn commies!!!!

10/7/2007 4:36:31 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw doesn't make this list? I'm surprised"

Lavim

If you took the time to really read my posts, you wouldn't be.

Quote :

"hooksaw isn't so extreme in his central views-- he is a pretty standard line toeing republican-- it's the childish name calling that makes him look like salisburyboy incarnate. moonbat motherfucker this, fucking stupid, bedwetting bla bla bla bla...."

jocristian

Thank you for recognizing that I am, in fact, not an "extremist" to anyone who has the eyes to see it. But I am also not a Republican and I am certainly not salisburyboy, you moonbat.

JK with the moonbat part.

BTW, there are a number of left-wing extremists in TSB that have not been posted here. Extremism isn't just reserved for the far right--some of you here obviously think that it is.

10/7/2007 6:23:18 AM

^ but yet...

you still can't distinguish the difference between "looks like" and "is"

i thought you were in CHASS?

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf: I'm the resident 2nd amendment nut"

sorry. supporting the Bill of Rights doesn't make one an "extremist". keep up the good work though







[Edited on October 7, 2007 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2007 12:10:19 PM

10/7/2007 1:52:16 PM

Quote :

"supporting the Bill of Rights doesn't make one an "extremist"."

if one thinks the 2nd amendment allows individuals citizens to buy and sell aircraft carriers, then it does....

10/7/2007 4:13:36 PM

Quote :

" why do you hate America? why don't you move to Iran with all your terrorist buddies? "

I said I believed in a Theocracy, note the "T" meant to refer to the one true God, not Allah.

nice try though. If I hated America I'd just vote democrat, its a lot easier and it might get me some free stuff later on.

10/7/2007 6:19:09 PM

I am glad you support a theocracy in which everyone would live in a society obeying the arbitrary rules of your skewed version of religion. Are you really a math major??

10/7/2007 6:36:23 PM

Quote :

"I said I believed in a Theocracy, note the "T" meant to refer to the one true God, not Allah."

But Allah is the one true God. It says so right there in the Qu'ran.

10/7/2007 10:09:27 PM

Quote :

"I said I believed in a Theocracy, note the "T" meant to refer to the one true God, not Allah."

wtf? this is so convoluted, i don't know how to respond. but I'll try anyhow:

(1) The very concept of a "Theocracy" (captial-T or otherwise) is quite possibly THE MOST UN-AMERICAN thing one can conceive of. Hell's bells, a theocratic system of government is more unconstitutional and contrary to the vision of our country's "founding fathers" than a communist system.

(2) certainly you're well aware that Muslims are monotheists. Christianity and Islam both have their origins in Judaism. Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh are, quite simply, different names for the same entity, the "God of Abraham".

10/7/2007 11:27:24 PM

nobody feels compelled, I guess, to point out that changing the capitalization of the term does not actually change the meaning of "theocracy," which is independent in either case from any particular religion.

[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 1:56 AM. Reason : ]

10/8/2007 1:56:02 AM

I sort of did (indirectly) when i said "capital-T or otherwise" ... though you are absolutely right and, as usual, concisely well-spoken.

it's definitely a big part of what made absolutely no sense with mathman's original comment

basically, the entire comment taken as a whole is really one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. For some reason, I thought with him being a grad student in mathematics that he was a somewhat rational person.

I mean I read a lot of stupid things in this forum on a regular basis (and i expect it from certain people), but this time I'm actually stunned.






[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 3:22 AM. Reason : ]

10/8/2007 2:57:41 AM

Quote :

"Last I checked, pollution control was not a libertarian issue. They're all about letting the market clean it up."

which is the MAIN reason why I'm a small "l" libertarian

I mean, sure, let the market do it's magic as it's able, but before that can fully happen

the inevitable harms associated with pollution should be blamed on those committing the harms by polluting

the libertarian principle is that one can do anything that one wants,

so as long as no one else's liberty, property, or person is harmed or denied

damage to the environment, in general, as well as specific ecosystem damage violates all three

pollution harms peoples' physical health, no differently than if you directly put poison in their Cheerios

it harms the environment, which is physically harmful to individuals, as well as animals,

not to mention it denies one's liberty to live in nature as we always have, and would like for our grandchildren to

and, since all of nature is connected, it harms people's property both indirectly and often directly

as for things that are (or should be) owned by everyone (air, water, biological diversity, etc.,) pollution harms them all

so violators should be prosecuted by the state since no one entity or finite group of entities are the ones harmed

(crime against nature, or something)




another important point that big "L" Libertarians miss (that really pisses me off)

is that some things are more important, long term, than current instances of individual liberty

for example, biological diversity, animal well-being, ecological health, etc.

iow, if the "pure market solution" is even slightly inadequate, (for whatever reason,) PERMANENT DAMAGE occurs

PERMANENT.

FOREVER IS A FUCKING LONG TIME.

so even if you don't buy the "shared ownership of nature" model

you should at least recognize that pollution that causes extinction of animals or destruction of ecosystems

CANNOT BE FIXED, EVER and therefore requires socialist, yes socialist, measures, albeit temporarily,

to prevent it from happening




one of the last times I "hung out" with big "L" Libertarians in the LPNC,

they laughed amongst themselves at people who want to save endangered manatees

saying that laws banning recreational boating aimed at the protection of these beautiful mammals

are completely unjust and wrong because they deny the so-called liberty to invade another animals home

and the so-called liberty of killing the animals, in their homes, by hitting them with the boats

iow, any "libertarian" that puts human liberty above the well-being of animals and nature

is completely fucked in the head, and WILL NEVER ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING GOOD

[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 8:18 AM. Reason : .]

10/8/2007 7:51:53 AM

Quote :

"I said I believed in a Theocracy, note the "T" meant to refer to the one true God, not Allah."

This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

10/8/2007 9:29:18 AM

Hay Seuss

10/8/2007 10:48:04 AM

someone sent this to me today and it creeped me out:

10/8/2007 12:42:34 PM

well, that has never been done before










thank you for a stunningly linear and concrete, if not bold and multi-colored, analysis of an exceedingly complex issue.

I for one appreciate when nuance is countered with a 16-lb sledgehammer and 84-point font.























[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2007 3:56:46 PM

Quote :

"HUR I am glad you support a theocracy in which everyone would live in a society obeying the arbitrary rules of your skewed version of religion. Are you really a math major??"

Theocracy is defined as (from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theocracy

"government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided"

I should mention that what I have in mind is actually the first part, "immediate divine guidance". In other words God himself directly governs.

Obviously this is not a government which you or I can implement, although I believe there will be such a government in the future.

Most of you probably had another sort of "Theocracy" in mind.

Quote :

"JerryGarcia But Allah is the one true God. It says so right there in the Qu'ran."

I was joking, I know that Allah is in principle the same God as the God in the Bible. Sorry I should have made it more clear I was joking.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP nobody feels compelled, I guess, to point out that changing the capitalization of the term does not actually change the meaning of "theocracy," which is independent in either case from any particular religion."

Yeah, in the context of discussion on TWW this is true, but from the perspective of a person who actually believes that there is one true God my post has meaning, but again since I know you guys do not entertain that viewpoint in argument my main goal was to evoke disgust and/or shock. That is, it was a joke in my twisted sense of humor.

Quote :

"joe_schmoe basically, the entire comment taken as a whole is really one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. For some reason, I thought with him being a grad student in mathematics that he was a somewhat rational person. I mean I read a lot of stupid things in this forum on a regular basis (and i expect it from certain people), but this time I'm actually stunned."

again, it was a joke, I wanted to say something that was as ridiculous as your post,

Quote :

"why do you hate America? why don't you move to Iran with all your terrorist buddies?"

In fact I also think that the church and the government should be distinct. But, I also think that God belongs in many of our daily activities like education. So when we abstractly remove God from the schools for the sake of a principle it leaves me at an impasse. Two options immediately occur to me. One, ask for a slight violation of this sacred principle of secularism, at least on the local level for teachers who decide of their own volition to share their faith with the kids, or two abandon public schools and more generally limit the size of government as to enlarge the part of living in which God is freely included w/o fear of some inane ACLU lawsuit.

Of course largely TWW either thinks there is no God, or God is irrelevant to History, Politics etc... Or perhaps that it is wrong to teach as if there is an objective truth, or well there are as many objections to thinking as I do as there are folks on this board I suspect. I have discussed these ideas at length with friends who religiously advocate the secular viewpoint, eventually it comes back to the point that one side or the other wants to gain influence of the children, that is of the mindset of the future. What I find most absurd is those of you who claim to be Christians yet don't see the intellectual battle being waged for the minds of children, those of you who think that there is a way to educate without bias, that the conflict is just one invented by politicians and partisan hacks. It is not the case, there is a reason that God has been systematically removed from public schools and now courthouses.

10/8/2007 10:02:30 PM

Quote :

"I should mention that what I have in mind is actually the first part, "immediate divine guidance". In other words God himself directly governs. Obviously this is not a government which you or I can implement, although I believe there will be such a government in the future. Most of you probably had another sort of "Theocracy" in mind. "

Well then who can implement it?

Your belief, taken by itself, is not outlandish. It's reasonable for a presumably otherwise good person who believes in a God to want that god to run things. But the reality is that religion in the context of society is as corrupt as any other political organization.

You can say that no man can implement this, but the fact is that some power hunger hypocritical douchebag is going to capitalize on the good people who think like you do in order to push their own agenda in the name of your "one true God." Your belief in isolation is benign, but when groups of people believe like you do, it creates conditions ripe for abuse.

This is what has happened in the middle-east. And it seems recently that the US is starting to take this turn as well.

A theocracy without the actual divine intervention of God (which wouldn't happen because that's not how God works) is doomed to failure, and you really, really shouldn't support such a structure on any level. As a religious person, to prevent the good name of religion from being tarnished (or tarnished further...) your best position is to try and keep gov and religion as far from each other as possible, and to keep religious hierarchies as close to the local churches as possible.

10/8/2007 10:11:45 PM

^ yes, I tend to agree with your general sentiments, I don't want to have a Pat Roberts type political leader who would "hear" God speaking.

I am actually supporting the literal governing of the world by God. No worries, I don't support watered down versions of this, I mean that God Himself rules the mundane details of earthly existence essentially directly.

Who are you to say that's not how God works? Maybe not today. But, I for one would not exclude the possibility and I think there is scripture that suggests this scenario will play out later after Christ returns.

10/8/2007 11:15:08 PM