• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Time to ban Lectro from this site

I have a couple conservative friends that are a delight to talk politics with. I come away informed, and with a better understanding of why they believe____ is the right thing to do.

That is not the case with Lectro.
 
The vitriol stirred up by Lectro and some other posters actively drives people away from these boards, and is a detriment to the quality of any discussion.

Again, this is correct.
 
Again, this is correct.

Which, I suspect, is why he's here. Since he's obviously not interested in serious conversations, it stands to reason that he's here to distract, annoy, and anger liberals, which seems to be the main driving force behind Trumpism anyway. If some liberal posters get sick of it and leave the boards, so much the better - that's fewer posters for lectro and other right-wingers to have to deal with.
 
Last edited:
It also drives away more moderate conservatives who don’t want to be lumped into the same crowd.
 
It also drives away more moderate conservatives who don’t want to be lumped into the same crowd.

Also true. Are you a moderate conservative? Would love to hear your thoughts on your he state of American conservatism if so. #bringbackthemoderates
 
Only way I’m cool with banning Lectro is if we get risc back in the trade
 
It also drives away more moderate conservatives who don’t want to be lumped into the same crowd.

Actually, it is the reverse. The mob mentality for which progs are famous is alive and well out here. You bully and attempt to intimidate opinions that don’t jibe. You run the conservatives and opposition voices away. I see it in my in box..people uncomfortable voicing opinions because they don’t want your ridicule.

Fact is, I came and lived through a REAL period of racial upheaval — as I was raised in inner-city Atlanta in the 1970’s as my dad headed the regional office of Health Education and Welfare. You children don’t have any idea..I was far left through most of my twenties and it wasn’t until after I’d lived in France that I began to see the deleterious effect of Big Brother and the Nanny State.

No, to be sure..as Orwell had it “the fascists of today will be the anti-fascists of tomorrow”

YOURS is the ideology of Fascism. You are the Facists.
 
p sure cav is referring to himself as a moderate conservative
 
as Orwell had it “the fascists of today will be the anti-fascists of tomorrow”.

Orwell never said this. Nor did Churchill. Just good ol' Greg Abbott.

I'm curious if you just make things up as a practice or you find this stuff on the internet.
 
Orwell never said this. Nor did Churchill. Just good ol' Greg Abbott.

I'm curious if you just make things up as a practice or you find this stuff on the internet.

Learn something..

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21337504


“Picture of George Orwell, and cover of Nineteen Eighty-Four
A decade of political chaos shaped George Orwell's vision of a totalitarian future, writes David Aaronovitch.
I was brought up in a house full of books, none of them by George Orwell.
Simone de Beauvoir was there, as was Sartre and Aldous Huxley and even Lenin. The last is actually a clue as to the absence of the first.
My parents were Communists. To them Orwell was on the other side of politics - someone whose principal writings were hostile to them and what they wanted to achieve.
This suspicious animosity had lasted beyond the death of Orwell and the demise of Stalin, and into the period when British Communists, by and large, now held the same view of the Soviet Union under Uncle Joe that Orwell had held and that had motivated him to write both Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Their problem was, I now think, made acute by the way in which these two great books - and Nineteen Eighty-Four in particular - had become major weapons in the ideological war between left and right.
This use of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and its contradiction to Orwell's own long-stated support for some kind of socialism, needed explaining.
How had it come about that the targets in Nineteen Eighty-Four were English socialists and their nightmare totalitarian state? After all, Orwell was in charge of naming his own inventions and could have easily decided on names and characteristics that were friendlier to the political tendencies that he claimed to favour.
For years the question of Orwell's intentions in Nineteen Eighty-Four has caused great debate.
With a few exceptions on the far left, every political tendency has wanted to claim him. So there has been a well-established and heartfelt desire on the more moderate left to claim that Orwell was indeed a genuine socialist whose warning was aimed at totalitarianism in general, not at the left per se.


The right, of course, have had the easier task of suggesting that Orwell was writing about what he appeared to be writing about. It seems to me that the right probably has the better argument.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949, but Orwell was first set on the road to it at least 12 years earlier when he was fighting Franco's insurgents in Spain as a member of a left-wing, but non-Stalinist militia, the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM).
Orwell had gone to Spain to fight Francoist fascism, but found himself face-to-face with another form of totalitarianism. The pro-Stalin communist forces in Spain turned on the POUM, branding them Trotskyist traitors.
Back home no one wanted to know about his experiences. Even non-communist left-wingers, including the publisher Victor Gollancz and the New Statesman editor Kingsley Martin, were reluctant to publish his accounts of what had happened, for fear of harming the overall cause of anti-fascism.
 
Interesting article. But nowhere does it suggest that Orwell actually said the quotation that you attributed to him.

For some reason, perhaps because you feel your ideas aren't convincing enough to stand on their own, you insist on embellishing any number of trivial points. Like why lie about Dershowitz being dean of Harvard Law? If you want people to take you and your ideas seriously you should stop playing fast and loose.
 
Either that or you're copying and pasting stuff you've seen on websites where all the content is under-researched or simply made up
 
Either that or you're copying and pasting stuff you've seen on websites where all the content is under-researched or simply made up

It is clear you have problems with reading comprehension.

Oh, and this is rich since the news sources you use are filled with bias, innuendo and unnamed sources.

Under researched.. gtfo
 
Interesting article. But nowhere does it suggest that Orwell actually said the quotation that you attributed to him.

For some reason, perhaps because you feel your ideas aren't convincing enough to stand on their own, you insist on embellishing any number of trivial points. Like why lie about Dershowitz being dean of Harvard Law? If you want people to take you and your ideas seriously you should stop playing fast and loose.

They rail against the liberal Ivy elite. Then they lie about Dershowitz being Dean of Harvard Law to give him credibility. The GOP is counting on their rube base to not recognize the cognitive dissonance.
 
Back
Top