White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD

[Faun]

What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).

Censorship and state oppression is not a liberal ideal. Stop perverting words, call yourself something else.

Grow a brain. Network Solutions is not a state.

 

[EverCurious]

We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].

How would you do that since you dont own any pathways? You would need to connect via some medium.

The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.) However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server. Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:

TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.

Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)

So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.


More in depth:

The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.

The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.

It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)

If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)

​

In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.] When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]

Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)

For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.

Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.] Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet).

Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium? What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.

That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership. The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.

How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related

You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid? Funny.

A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.) No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.

To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.] If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it. If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."

In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.

----

See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums

"A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.

Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.

But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.

“There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”

----

See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How

On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:

104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org

As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):

104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org

---

The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number) Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.

 

[EverCurious]

Additional reading (wouldn't let me add it to the above heh)

Physical bits (cables, routers, servers, etc.) - How Internet Infrastructure Works

And the non-physical "software" bits - (encompassing DNS stuff) - How Domain Name Servers Work


See also, the dark web/under web/deep web (TOR is a prime example of "software" accessing "internet 2.0" using existing "pathways") - How the Deep Web Works

 

[Crixus]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline

aug 26 2017 Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.

The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.

“Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”

Mm
Think of it like the cake guys. If the owner of the server don't want them on here it then fine. If anyone wants stormfront then they can now have them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended) Idiocy, plain idiocy.

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism. Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront. Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.

Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.

So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok? Sounds like approval of BLM.

You object to BLM but fail to explain why.

My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully. No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life. I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.

I have not said anything about how I feel about the BLM.

Mea culpa, I misunderstood the comment, "Sounds like approval of BLM"; I agree with your message, the movement is not inherently evil, it is the few - as in most protests - who give legitimate outrage a bad name.

 

[Asclepias]

We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].

How would you do that since you dont own any pathways? You would need to connect via some medium.

The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.) However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server. Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:

TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.

Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)

So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.


More in depth:

The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.

The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.

It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)

If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)

​

In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.] When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]

Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)

For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.

Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.] Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet).

Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium? What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.

That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership. The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.

How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related

You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid? Funny.

A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.) No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.

To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.] If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it. If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."

In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.

----

See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums

"A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.

Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.

But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.

“There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”

----

See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How

On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:

104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org

As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):

104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org

---

The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number) Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.

Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.

 

[Asclepias]

Additional reading (wouldn't let me add it to the above heh)

Physical bits (cables, routers, servers, etc.) - How Internet Infrastructure Works

And the non-physical "software" bits - (encompassing DNS stuff) - How Domain Name Servers Work


See also, the dark web/under web/deep web (TOR is a prime example of "software" accessing "internet 2.0" using existing "pathways") - How the Deep Web Works

I dont need to read all of that. I work with it daily. I do think someone needs to explain it to you so you dont make a further fool of yourself. Let me know if you want me to explain it to you in detail. Unless you own the entire infrastructure you cant have an internet without someone giving you permission/access. You have no way of reaching anyone outside the network you may own. Hell. All someone would have to do is get on a router and create an access-list that dumps all traffic for stormfront in the bit bucket.

 

[Humorme]

Your atrocious reading skills negate any and all arguments you've made. It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.

The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal. You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made. You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.

The only weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract. NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an adhesion contract. Go ahead an ignore the point. You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.

It's all good. You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.

My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out "adhesion contracts can become an unconscionable contract."

Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.

To score, you have to first prove the contract was unconscionable.

Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.

Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.

Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.

No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.

Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.

YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the philosophical argument that private businesses cannot discriminate. OMG. Here we go again.

And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.

Network Solutions did not discriminate.

You're being an idiot. What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?

 

[Humorme]

it's called reality you smug fuck.

LOL

As if your delusions are real.

You should give it up. The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.

What are you really getting out of this? The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel. We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.

That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance. I'm not deluded into believing anything. If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment. You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.

It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs. Reality check: You're not God and you don't understand the difference between power and authority.

And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.

What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).

You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.

 

[Humorme]

You should give it up. The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.

What are you really getting out of this? The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel. We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).

I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

The points have been made - asked and answered. Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side. If your argument fails, it fails. And it failed. Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case. There is nothing more to be said.

Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.

Try citing some case law instead of yourself.

You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.

I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.

You may as well keep your word. I've proven your position to be wrong.

 

[Humorme]

Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling. It is factual.

WTF??? All of this has been covered umpteen times. You've cited your mickey mouse laws. I moved beyond that. I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts. And I won't. Don't like it? Sin Loi Victor Charlie.

YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional. There has been no ruling to that effect.

And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.

And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed. He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking. There are at least a dozen options.

Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.

Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.

What you advocate is treason, sir.

 

[Humorme]

Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended) Idiocy, plain idiocy.

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism. Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront. Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.

Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.

So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok? Sounds like approval of BLM.

You object to BLM but fail to explain why.

My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully. No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life. I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.

I have not said anything about how I feel about the BLM.

You sound like a member.

 

[Asclepias]

WTF??? All of this has been covered umpteen times. You've cited your mickey mouse laws. I moved beyond that. I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts. And I won't. Don't like it? Sin Loi Victor Charlie.

YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional. There has been no ruling to that effect.

And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.

And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed. He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking. There are at least a dozen options.

Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.

Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.

What you advocate is treason, sir.

I think he was referring to you with this part....

"A nation can survive its fools ..."

 

[Humorme]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.

Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended) Idiocy, plain idiocy.

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism. Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront. Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.

Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.

So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok? Sounds like approval of BLM.

The people being screwed with over the color of their skin today is the white people.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

 

[Humorme]

YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional. There has been no ruling to that effect.

And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.

And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed. He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking. There are at least a dozen options.

Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.

Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.

What you advocate is treason, sir.

I think he was referring to you with this part....

"A nation can survive its fools ..."

I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "legal."

 

[Asclepias]

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism. Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront. Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.

Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.

So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok? Sounds like approval of BLM.

You object to BLM but fail to explain why.

My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully. No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life. I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.

I have not said anything about how I feel about the BLM.

You sound like a member.

That would be a semi good thing if he was a member.

 

[Asclepias]

All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.

 

[Humorme]

Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.

Nut jobs??? You talk trash like that in public? If you did in this neighborhood, the nice men in white suits would help you into the van.

No, they wouldn't.

I've dealt with people like you all my life. You realize that you're wrong. That is why you're on the Internet, under a board name, and not talking that trash in public venues where you would be held accountable for such outrageous statements.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.

Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended) Idiocy, plain idiocy.

Are they bashing white people? Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement? Those are two very different things.

You support the repeal of Marbury v. Madison and the Common Law? You're even dumber than ...


I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism. Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront. Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.

Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.

So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok? Sounds like approval of BLM.

The people being screwed with over the color of their skin today is the white people.

They is?

All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.

So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".

Do you support the repeal of Marbury V. Madison?