RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:I think a hatred of the establishment is playing large in this as well. We say it here with Brexit, trump is benefitting from those who feel left behind.

FWIW, I'm with you on the issue of inequality, although I suspect we differ on what that means and how to treat it, but that is probably a separate thread.

Indeed, fiend. Such is the nature of informed discourse. Unfortunately, over here it's "they want to take your guns!". You should see some of the campaign adds in different states. Kansas has a pearler that has a black and white factual rendering of a poor attractive white woman being disturbed by a commotion downstairs at four in the morning. If you vote for the democrat candidate, that woman gets violated because the gummint has taken away your rocket launcher. Cruz had some beauties in the south that were based on the book of revelation.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I think a hatred of the establishment is playing large in this as well. We say it here with Brexit, trump is benefitting from those who feel left behind.

FWIW, I'm with you on the issue of inequality, although I suspect we differ on what that means and how to treat it, but that is probably a separate thread.

Indeed, fiend. Such is the nature of informed discourse. Unfortunately, over here it's "they want to take your guns!". You should see some of the campaign adds in different states. Kansas has a pearler that has a black and white factual rendering of a poor attractive white woman being disturbed by a commotion downstairs at four in the morning. If you vote for the democrat candidate, that woman gets violated because the gummint has taken away your rocket launcher. Cruz had some beauties in the south that were based on the book of revelation.

I think we may be starting to catch up. Much of qth debate over here now seems to be impossible without significant amounts of abuse and hyperbole.

I remember some of th political adds from my last few visits to the states. You do have some genuinely funny ones, but most are pretty cringeworthy if not downright concerning.

Jeez, when will this total mess ever end??

Around 55 people were killed in Iraq in attacks on Saturday that targeted a Shi'ite Muslim gathering, a police check-point and the family of a Sunni paramilitary leader opposed to Islamic State, according to security and medical sources.

The escalation comes as Iraqi forces are getting ready to launch an offensive to take back Mosul, the last Iraqi city still under control of Islamic State, in northern Iraq.

The heaviest toll was caused by a suicide bomber who detonated an explosive vest in the middle of a Shi'ite gathering in Baghdad, killing at least 41 people and wounding 33.

The explosion went off inside a tent filled with people taking part in Shi'ite Ashura rituals, which mourn the killing of Prophet Mohammad's grandson Hussein in the 7th century.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea ... SKBN12F06W

Just keep talking about Trump everybody:

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton.

Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wiki ... z4NKZzm0BH

Meanwhile: Bernie was paid off: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wikil ... t-hillary/

& the Trump scandals are coming apart at the seams: http://people.com/celebrity/donald-trum ... s-article/

http://truthfeed.com/busted-fake-trump- ... lie/29309/

http://truthfeed.com/busted-fake-trump- ... nds/29355/

What's really scary is that many people who know full well that Clinton is a war criminal are going to vote for her regardless - because they actually just don't care:

"Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must "get out of the way," backed by secret CIA operations."

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/aler ... inton.html

What the Trump charade is designed to distract you from:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/ ... all-along/

They are cutting off damaging data. Paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Classy.

The big issue here is, what is a bloke that is confined to a single building supposed to wanch to if they cut his interwebs off?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37680411

There's a Paxman documentary about Clinton v Trump on bbc1 tonight. Should be interesting,....even if he is a tired old reactionary, establishment flunky.

kk67 wrote:There's a Paxman documentary about Clinton v Trump on bbc1 tonight. Should be interesting,....even if he is a tired old reactionary, establishment flunky.

No, no. Hillary is an actual woman.

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:There's a Paxman documentary about Clinton v Trump on bbc1 tonight. Should be interesting,....even if he is a tired old reactionary, establishment flunky.

No, no. Hillary is an actual woman.

lol,......no signs of early onset dementia here.

Nobody is actually stupid enough to have been duped by this ridiculous charade. They believe it because they want to believe it. Those who appear to have been duped are actually fully aware of Clinton's war crimes, including arming terrorists, but they really don't care; that's the bottom line; and thus prefer to talk about allegations of sexual harrassment against an obvious actor, regardless how tenuous, because they are simply more comfortable with this.

It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furore over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/ ... all-along/

rowan wrote:Nobody is actually stupid enough to have been duped by this ridiculous charade. They believe it because they want to believe it. Those who appear to have been duped are actually fully aware of Clinton's war crimes, including arming terrorists, but they really don't care; that's the bottom line; and thus prefer to talk about allegations of sexual harrassment against an obvious actor, regardless how tenuous, because they are simply more comfortable with this.

It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furore over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/ ... all-along/

Forgive me if is is off the mark, but aren't you the same cat that shits on about presidents being puppets and having no power whatsoever.

Surely, this all means fuck all then?

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:Nobody is actually stupid enough to have been duped by this ridiculous charade. They believe it because they want to believe it. Those who appear to have been duped are actually fully aware of Clinton's war crimes, including arming terrorists, but they really don't care; that's the bottom line; and thus prefer to talk about allegations of sexual harrassment against an obvious actor, regardless how tenuous, because they are simply more comfortable with this.

It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furore over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/ ... all-along/

Forgive me if is is off the mark, but aren't you the same cat that shits on about presidents being puppets and having no power whatsoever.

Surely, this all means fuck all then?

The idea of the president being a puppet is hardly my own, Ed. It's been expounded by some of the most respected political analysts in the world. Noam Chomsky was particularly adamant George W Bush was never involved in policy-making during his two terms in office, for example. But did that stop Chomsky (and countless other political analysts) from blasting GW as a war criminal? Of course not. He was part of the process, even if he wasn't calling the shots. & Hillary Clinton is certainly much more involved in the sordid business of war crimes than Bush ever was. Presidents are more spokespersons than politicians, that's for sure, and Obama was pretty much 100% the former. George Bush Senior, on the other hand, was probably about 50/50. It varies from one president to the next, obviously. So it's a generalization that you have eagerly seized upon in your attempt to whitewash Clinton's well-documented war-crimes, which include complicity in the bombing of Libya and murder of its leader, her support for a coup and brutal dictatorship in Honduras which recently claimed the life of native feminist activist Berta Caceres, her support for the genocidal invasion of Iraq, her support for South Sudan against the north in spite of the use of child soldiers, her blind support for Israel - of course, and her involvement in selling arms to Saudi Arabia, some of which have been used to carry out war crimes in Yemen and elsewhere, and some of which have ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorists. & now, of course, she is talking about a no-fly zone in Syria and removing Assad, which could easily lead to WWIII with Russia. She has done all of this in accordance with the wishes of her masters on Wall Street, of course, and she will continue to serve their needs when she takes over the presidency, as was arranged by the deep state many years ago. But what's a few million more deaths in the Middle East to privileged white folks in North America and Europe? They're more comfortable talking about the Trump charade.

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:Nobody is actually stupid enough to have been duped by this ridiculous charade. They believe it because they want to believe it. Those who appear to have been duped are actually fully aware of Clinton's war crimes, including arming terrorists, but they really don't care; that's the bottom line; and thus prefer to talk about allegations of sexual harrassment against an obvious actor, regardless how tenuous, because they are simply more comfortable with this.

It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furore over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/17/ ... all-along/

Forgive me if is is off the mark, but aren't you the same cat that shits on about presidents being puppets and having no power whatsoever.

Surely, this all means fuck all then?

The idea of the president being a puppet is hardly my own, Ed. It's been expounded by some of the most respected political analysts in the world. Noam Chomsky was particularly adamant George W Bush was never involved in policy-making during his two terms in office, for example. But did that stop Chomsky (and countless other political analysts) from blasting GW as a war criminal? Of course not. He was part of the process, even if he wasn't calling the shots. & Hillary Clinton is certainly much more involved in the sordid business of war crimes than Bush ever was. Presidents are more spokespersons than politicians, that's for sure, and Obama was pretty much 100% the former. George Bush Senior, on the other hand, was probably about 50/50. It varies from one president to the next, obviously. So it's a generalization that you have eagerly seized upon in your attempt to whitewash Clinton's well-documented war-crimes, which include complicity in the bombing of Libya and murder of its leader, her support for a coup and brutal dictatorship in Honduras which recently claimed the life of native feminist activist Berta Caceres, her support for the genocidal invasion of Iraq, her support for South Sudan against the north in spite of the use of child soldiers, her blind support for Israel - of course, and her involvement in selling arms to Saudi Arabia, some of which have been used to carry out war crimes in Yemen and elsewhere, and some of which have ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorists. & now, of course, she is talking about a no-fly zone in Syria and removing Assad, which could easily lead to WWIII with Russia. She has done all of this in accordance with the wishes of her masters on Wall Street, of course, and she will continue to serve their needs when she takes over the presidency, as was arranged by the deep state many years ago. But what's a few million more deaths in the Middle East to privileged white folks in North America and Europe? They're more comfortable talking about the Trump charade.

Can you point out which one of my posts you are referring to?

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:
Forgive me if is is off the mark, but aren't you the same cat that shits on about presidents being puppets and having no power whatsoever.

Surely, this all means fuck all then?

The idea of the president being a puppet is hardly my own, Ed. It's been expounded by some of the most respected political analysts in the world. Noam Chomsky was particularly adamant George W Bush was never involved in policy-making during his two terms in office, for example. But did that stop Chomsky (and countless other political analysts) from blasting GW as a war criminal? Of course not. He was part of the process, even if he wasn't calling the shots. & Hillary Clinton is certainly much more involved in the sordid business of war crimes than Bush ever was. Presidents are more spokespersons than politicians, that's for sure, and Obama was pretty much 100% the former. George Bush Senior, on the other hand, was probably about 50/50. It varies from one president to the next, obviously. So it's a generalization that you have eagerly seized upon in your attempt to whitewash Clinton's well-documented war-crimes, which include complicity in the bombing of Libya and murder of its leader, her support for a coup and brutal dictatorship in Honduras which recently claimed the life of native feminist activist Berta Caceres, her support for the genocidal invasion of Iraq, her support for South Sudan against the north in spite of the use of child soldiers, her blind support for Israel - of course, and her involvement in selling arms to Saudi Arabia, some of which have been used to carry out war crimes in Yemen and elsewhere, and some of which have ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorists. & now, of course, she is talking about a no-fly zone in Syria and removing Assad, which could easily lead to WWIII with Russia. She has done all of this in accordance with the wishes of her masters on Wall Street, of course, and she will continue to serve their needs when she takes over the presidency, as was arranged by the deep state many years ago. But what's a few million more deaths in the Middle East to privileged white folks in North America and Europe? They're more comfortable talking about the Trump charade.

Can you point out which one of my posts you are referring to?

Your last one sure looked that way...

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:
The idea of the president being a puppet is hardly my own, Ed. It's been expounded by some of the most respected political analysts in the world. Noam Chomsky was particularly adamant George W Bush was never involved in policy-making during his two terms in office, for example. But did that stop Chomsky (and countless other political analysts) from blasting GW as a war criminal? Of course not. He was part of the process, even if he wasn't calling the shots. & Hillary Clinton is certainly much more involved in the sordid business of war crimes than Bush ever was. Presidents are more spokespersons than politicians, that's for sure, and Obama was pretty much 100% the former. George Bush Senior, on the other hand, was probably about 50/50. It varies from one president to the next, obviously. So it's a generalization that you have eagerly seized upon in your attempt to whitewash Clinton's well-documented war-crimes, which include complicity in the bombing of Libya and murder of its leader, her support for a coup and brutal dictatorship in Honduras which recently claimed the life of native feminist activist Berta Caceres, her support for the genocidal invasion of Iraq, her support for South Sudan against the north in spite of the use of child soldiers, her blind support for Israel - of course, and her involvement in selling arms to Saudi Arabia, some of which have been used to carry out war crimes in Yemen and elsewhere, and some of which have ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorists. & now, of course, she is talking about a no-fly zone in Syria and removing Assad, which could easily lead to WWIII with Russia. She has done all of this in accordance with the wishes of her masters on Wall Street, of course, and she will continue to serve their needs when she takes over the presidency, as was arranged by the deep state many years ago. But what's a few million more deaths in the Middle East to privileged white folks in North America and Europe? They're more comfortable talking about the Trump charade.

Can you point out which one of my posts you are referring to?

Your last one sure looked that way...

Haha, it's not even close. Stop wildly flailing at everything you see. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about either of the pricks, just thought it was odd that Obama is an irrelevance yet, before time, you seem adamant that Clinton or Trump won't be.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:
Can you point out which one of my posts you are referring to?

Your last one sure looked that way...

Haha, it's not even close. Stop wildly flailing at everything you see. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about either of the pricks, just thought it was odd that Obama is an irrelevance yet, before time, you seem adamant that Clinton or Trump won't be.

What's really odd is that I've made the very same point myself a number of times, long before you got around to it. The common tactic here being to shut down unwanted debate with hostile attacks on the messenger, I interpreted it in that light.

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:
Your last one sure looked that way...

Haha, it's not even close. Stop wildly flailing at everything you see. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about either of the pricks, just thought it was odd that Obama is an irrelevance yet, before time, you seem adamant that Clinton or Trump won't be.

What's really odd is that I've made the very same point myself a number of times, long before you got around to it. The common tactic here being to shut down unwanted debate with hostile attacks on the messenger, I interpreted it in that light.

That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:
Haha, it's not even close. Stop wildly flailing at everything you see. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about either of the pricks, just thought it was odd that Obama is an irrelevance yet, before time, you seem adamant that Clinton or Trump won't be.

What's really odd is that I've made the very same point myself a number of times, long before you got around to it. The common tactic here being to shut down unwanted debate with hostile attacks on the messenger, I interpreted it in that light.

That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

What's really odd is that I've made the very same point myself a number of times, long before you got around to it. The common tactic here being to shut down unwanted debate with hostile attacks on the messenger, I interpreted it in that light.

That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

Haha. Just wow mate. For what it's worth I don't think I'm the one with an over inflated idea of my own genius.

As I said in our last, utter waste of time encounter, it's got fuck all to do with what you are writing about, and everything to do with how you write it. You make polarising assumptions about people, and relentlessly deal in absolutes, then have the neck to accuse others of shutting down debate. Your tone and presentation does far more damage your own arguments than any of the opposition you rage against. I get the feeling that's the point though. That's the reason I'm playing the man and not the ball, I'm too old not to.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:
That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

Haha. Just wow mate. For what it's worth I don't think I'm the one with an over inflated idea of my own genius.

As I said in our last, utter waste of time encounter, it's got fuck all to do with what you are writing about, and everything to do with how you write it. You make polarising assumptions about people, and relentlessly deal in absolutes, then have the neck to accuse others of shutting down debate. Your tone and presentation does far more damage your own arguments than any of the opposition you rage against. I get the feeling that's the point though. That's the reason I'm playing the man and not the ball, I'm too old not to.

No, in reality, you came along and tried to make a silly point which was shot down in flames. & so you couldn't argue the point; you had to attack the messenger instead. That's all there is to it, and the rest is just a smokescreen to diguise your embarrassment at being made to look so ridiculous. Your "haha" amounts to the grin on the face of a boxer who has just been caught with a solid punch.

My god. I actually thought a conversation was about to break out for a moment there. I'm quite interested in a lot of the opinions in here, but how is it so difficult to discuss this stuff without jabbing at anyone who may not see it the same way?

I'd quite like to read more of the thoughts here but there's 20 posts accusing each other of making things personal / "shooting the messenger" for every 1 vaguely interesting opinion.

Mikey Brown wrote:My god. I actually thought a conversation was about to break out for a moment there. I'm quite interested in a lot of the opinions in here, but how is it so difficult to discuss this stuff without jabbing at anyone who may not see it the same way?

I'd quite like to read more of the thoughts here but there's 20 posts accusing each other of making things personal / "shooting the messenger" for every 1 vaguely interesting opinion.

Yeah, that one is on me. Fair point.

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:
You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

Haha. Just wow mate. For what it's worth I don't think I'm the one with an over inflated idea of my own genius.

As I said in our last, utter waste of time encounter, it's got fuck all to do with what you are writing about, and everything to do with how you write it. You make polarising assumptions about people, and relentlessly deal in absolutes, then have the neck to accuse others of shutting down debate. Your tone and presentation does far more damage your own arguments than any of the opposition you rage against. I get the feeling that's the point though. That's the reason I'm playing the man and not the ball, I'm too old not to.

No, in reality, you came along and tried to make a silly point which was shot down in flames. & so you couldn't argue the point; you had to attack the messenger instead. That's all there is to it, and the rest is just a smokescreen to diguise your embarrassment at being made to look so ridiculous. Your "haha" amounts to the grin on the face of a boxer who has just been caught with a solid punch.

This is highly embarrassing. Perhaps not in the way you think it is.

Mike has a point though. I'll leave this at that.

Keep swinging for the fences champ.

That wasn't aimed particularly at you, or even this thread, to be clear. More the whole politics section in general.