73 Reds

Nah, and this is the problem. It makes no difference what I agree with - civil and polite tones are what matter and show me a post that is personally insulting to another poster. It is easy to make assumptions about people on an online board where all you know about someone is the snippets they write. From my perspective, Cubs is usually responding to the endless posts here complaining about what Trump did, said or believes.

Sorry, I've never seen anything he's posted that is personally offensive. But like Cubs said, you're the boss and its your rules. And yet again, you just can't leave Trump out of any post.

Sanjeev, why does my question about a ban bring you right back to Trump? This is what some of us mean by DTS.

LOL

John, it is often better (and easy) simply to disengage in an online conversation when emotion takes over. That is actually the best part about investing - no emotion in it whatsoever for me.

OK, thanks. Any discussion on a Politics thread is bound to get heated sometimes. I've never seen @cubsfan post anything that was not civil and polite. And even if a discussion becomes heated, it is never anything personal (I don't know any one of you personally).

Yeah. If it was something he posted on this thread, I thought the whole point of this thread was free and open dialogue and anyone who doesn't care to participate can simply ignore the thread altogether. I'd like to know what he did/posted so that we know what line not to cross.

@cubsfan got banned? As in permanently? I don't recall any offensive posts.

Sure, but undoubtedly some people were also punished for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Compare these pardons to Biden's preemptive pardons of some of the Russian hoax wrongdoers or even the pardon of his own son (or even auto-pen) and you see why the "privilege" of Presidential pardons is often so ripe for criticism.

Agreed. The Presidential pardon is abused equally by both parties.

The majority of Americans see Jan. 6 for what it was: A group of right-wing crazies acting without any moral compass and largely getting the punishment they deserved. Yet the MSM and all-too-many TDSers treat this incident as the worst thing that ever happened in this Country. They clearly lack context and allow ideology to get in the way of objectivity.

Viking, I think that quote can be re-phrased as "Don't take unnecessary risks". Doesn't mean to take no risks at all but only those worth taking.

@Sweet your last post made more sense than thousands of posts worth of dribble on this thread. Just like trying to negotiate with terrorists. You just don't.

I always liked Joe Manchin and was sorry to see him leave the Senate. Read some of his comments about Biden and Trump. I believe he is simply telling it like it is.

True, and the issue is, would shareholders prefer a Fairfax without the insurance element and without leverage? Personally, I wouldn't own the stock if that was the case.

Like Berkshire, Fairfax itself is highly diversified. it is not like owning one company that does one thing in a single sector.

Many of these things fall into the "pick your battle" category. You can literally pick a fight over everything Trump says or does. The problem is, the Left actually does. They can't accept any decision, comment or action. It doesn't serve them well.

Precisely, John. Whether you own 1 stock or 100, the only thing that matters is that you have an informed opinion of what you own and why. If so, the only people who should be telling you what to do with your portfolio are qualified investment professionals if you choose to pay for such advice.

I stand corrected. Yet back then there was no social media where everyone has a soap box. That, more than anything is responsible for today's divisiveness.

Hillary Clinton created the "Russian Hoax" that dwarfs Watergate and what happened? To date, nothing. The temperature during the time of "All in the Family" (1971-1979) was nowhere near as heated as today. You are correct that much of this has to do with anti-Trump groupthink. Has nothing to do with what I believe or have been overcome by; it's simply the way it is. A more appropriate question is "why"?

Sanjeev, Viet Nam was ending; Presidents' lives were not being threatened; inflation was an issue but that was hardly divisive because it affected everyone; Nixon was impeached for activity that today would be punishable by a slap on the wrist, if at all. Get some perspective.

Right, and the shift in values is based on both ignorance and emotion - two powerful concepts that when combined together cause havoc, which we are now experiencing.

Yep. Back then we had just gotten through the senseless assassinations of MLK and RFK and the Country was in the process of slow healing. The trajectory of common desire for freedom, equality and prosperity was on the rise and political opponents could be civil and even work together on important issues. Today the trajectory is one of increasing divisiveness and sheer ignorance by a materially large segment of our society with respect to US history, economics, and the values which have enabled the US to be the World's primary peace keeper. I have no idea where Sanjeev is coming from and believe that such thinking fosters an "us vs. them" attitude which causes even further divisiveness and fear - even among friends and allies. It looks like it comes down to TDS which seems to be a larger problem than some of us (including me) would care to admit.

Sorry, not even close.

No, that is a sad take on things.