Hal 9000

How is weighing in an opinion automatically make one a troll? Are those people here who support Hillary considered Canadian trolls. And Isn't Canada, and Great Britain (among others) undermining the US election when their leaders speak up against Trump?

Dude, this is just a difference of opinion on how we like to enjoy a rock concert, nothing to really argue or fight about - sheesh, get a life!

Yes, I know! Everybody with an IQ over 56 knows that. However, I'd prefer to not have a concert stop for 20 minutes to listen to some performer rant/preach about the cause d'jour. The politics is in the music - just leave it at that.

I'm sure Repubs would like to see the black turnout be less than 100%, so to talk about suppression and fraud is really not an answer to my thought.

I've never seen them live either, I just don't need to be preached politics at a rock concert (I won't see U2 either), but I do love The Hip. Americans just never "got" them - their loss, I suppose. It's already a sad day, but when the inevitable happens, it'll be a national loss.

This is shameful, no child should fetch less than a cow.

One does have to wonder why the black community consistently vote democrat. I can understand Latinos somewhat...but not African americans. It makes no sense whatsoever, beyond the obvious unhealthy co-dependant relationship that the black community just can't shake.

Sure, It's easy to say ; I'd take (or save) an animal over Pickton or a Matador...or Charles Manson, Casey Anthony or Al Sharpton for that matter. But given that I doubt you're able to set your car to make a decision based on the person's name, profession or political belief system. If you could set your car to swerve the ducklings and hit the protesting liberals, fair enough, but what happens if there is someone in that crowd who is not actually a liberal? No, I think the car would have to be programmed that all people are more valuable than animals.

Well, first off, I don't like the idea whether it be Obama, Bush, Trump or anybody else. You seem to want to think this is about the who, not the what. Secondly, the media pretty much forces the gov't and military personnel to do this, and if they don't, they're ridiculed.

It wasn't a derail - until just now. I'm still speaking to the foolish idea of letting the enemy know your tactics. P.S - I haven't seen the movie.

You'd think the Americans would've learned from the British tactics in the american revolution. British: "We will announce our arrival, we will wear bright red jackets and march in a straight line". Patriots: "Oh OK, I guess we'll just have people wear their normal dingy coloured clothes and hide then in the bushes and trees and wait for you".

We know progressives dislike white men, the question posed is about the unusual and seemingly hypocritical love and defence of Islam that progressives constantly display.

I'm not more knowledgeable militarily per se, but from a common sense perspective - maybe.

This is a phenomenon that has always intrigued me. Why would you tell your enemies what you are willing or not willing to do? Why would you tell them your plan? It makes no sense whatsoever! I'm sure it comforts the enemy to know when and where you'll strike, how many troops you'll use and even what forces - not to mention telling them that you refuse to use certain tactics or weapons - but is that the best course of action for fighting a war? Does any other country do this? Most countries prefer to let the enemy think the'll do more or go further than they actually might. Also, on the other side of the ledger, people are so used to this backwards mentality that they instantly start insulting a person like Trump because he prefers to keep silent about possible tactics, he refuses to take nukes off the table and main stream media starts fear mongering that Trump wants a nuclear war - forget that every indication is that he wants nothing to do with involvement in the middle east (other than ISIS).

I know people who are so afraid of discriminating, that they can't...or won't make the simplest decisions.

If you believe that calling someone a racist basically means "there is no argument against what was said" then you obviously agree that it's a troll post. Why would you allow it? And, by allowing it, you must know things will never change. Sure, Ignore and move on - I get it, but would't it make more sense to put the onus on the troll rather than the recipient? If A person has no other argument (as you agree) than to lash out and call someone a racist, it is them who should be accountable. Instead of telling us to "just move along", how about telling them that if all they got is shouting racist - don't bother posting? Wouldn't it make more sense to stop the action that is causing the problems? You still seem to want to allow the agitator to roam free, while you punish the retaliation. Must be a Brad Marchand fan. Seems pretty simple to me; Call, imply, suggest, infer that a poster is racist (even thinly veiled racist insults that MH seems to approve of) and you get an infraction.

What would really weaken the republic is if countries like Russia, China, PRK and Iran had dirt on Hillary - such as compromising emails.

So, is your position that women in Islamic countries are better off than western countries?

You mean like this, right? "So, in agreeing with Trump, are you comfortable being painted with the same brush - that of being a bigot and an Islamaphobe?"

Really? I hope this isn't too subtle for a moderator to spot. Dialamah - "So, in agreeing with Trump, are you comfortable being painted with the same brush - that of being a bigot and an Islamaphobe?"

OK, I stand corrected! DoP doesn't mind being called racist - fair enough. I guess the big thing I've learned from reading that interaction is how you thinly veiled calling him a racist with no repercussions. I guess its just all in the delivery...or maybe who the players are.

I agree with the prestige aspect and I also think that there are way too many medals to be had in swimming, but c'mon Phelps has an average of 7 medals (mostly gold) in each of the last 4 Olympiads - that's complete domination of a sport.

Whatever dude, you're the boss! I'm just trying to figure out whether you're OK with people shouting down everything they disagree with by hurling these insults or whether you really don't see it. I've told Michael that I don't think he actually understands how or when a troll post happens, but maybe there's something else going on here.

I hardly think it's "outing" somebody if they're already out... or OK with the racist label. Whatever...maybe i'll just ask; Who here is Ok with being called "racist"? Regardless, to allow people to throw out racist (or misogynyst, or homophobe) just because you assume there is a poster who is OK with being called such, is simply irresponsible and asking for problems.