|
Post by manmarking on Nov 24, 2016 18:41:50 GMT
Out having a family meal and then watching the footy if that's OK with you? we all don't have multiple accounts and working off multi devices and screens Ooh you can almost smell the paranoia! 31000 posts? Great life you've got! This is my only log in FYI. You and the other poster who mentioned it seem to be obsessed that I may be some other poster as well. I don't feel the need to say you and salopstick and bisham and Mary and follow you down and crappy are all the same just because you all bum up each others posts every day!
Jesus, get a head check! Just accept your political hypocrisy and move on. You and all the above mentioned were absolutely pissing their pants about a 3bn gold sale, yet here we are 122bn worse off with Brexit (and that's best case scenario I reckon) and you lot say nothing!
Never has your collective silence been such an eloquent demonstration of your tribalism, hypocrisy and double standards. Utter shithouses the lot of you!I must say mate, I don't always agree with you but on this occasion you raise a very fair point On a serious note, as soon as the idiots start calling you **************, you know you're winning
(NB. they'll claim we're the same person talking to himself now - just embrace it )
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 20:50:35 GMT
I can't help thinking that you're judging the accuracy of the media based mainly on which sections of it reinforce your existing opinions though In many ways, Wikipedia ought to be lauded by the alt-right. It's independent, not for profit, written by ordinary folk.... But then it doesn't agree with you so you choose to not trust it. No. If I wanted to reinforce my existing opinions I wouldn't come on here for a start. If Hillary can influence CNN et al so much I don't think she'd have much compunction at getting her staff, fresh from another screaming fit, to nobble a Wikipedia page or two. It might be true what you said about that Spencer guy, he could walk round in a klan outfit shouting "alt-right" like that lady who used to shout "Sentnul" up Hanley for all I care, it wouldn't make articles from what is recognised by the public before this apparent smear campaign as "alt-right" suddenly white supremacist etc. Do you think Milo Yiannopoulos is a neo-nazi for example, even if the BBC imply he's from that kind of crowd? I feel daft even asking the question it's that absurd an idea. I think any movement that's accredited as being started up by a white nationalist lays itself open to those charges. That's natural. It doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves alt-right is a white nationalist but they choose to associate with some who probably are As for Milo, no I don't think he's a neo Nazi. I think he's a thoroughly nasty Internet troll consumed by a desperately sad self-loathing rooted in his failure to accept his own sexuality. He's full of hatred and there's only so much of it he can waste on himself. The rest seeps out and is (il)liberally lashed out in the general direction of anyone he takes a dislike to. He's happy to be used as proof absolute by some on the alt-right that they can't possibly be homophobic because one gay psychopath on Twitter agrees with them. The old "I have a friend who's Asian so I can't be racist" chestnut. Milo feels included in a movement for the first time in his life this way so it's an arrangement that suits both parties. I could be wrong but that's my cod-psychoanalysis anyway
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 18:40:14 GMT
Well according to Wikipedia, the phrase "alt-right" was coined by a white nationalist who promotes his views through "mainstream punditry" so the lines are blurred mate yes Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978)[1] is an American white nationalist, known for promoting white supremacist views,[2][3][4] often through the viewpoint of mainstream punditry.[5] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think-tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian.[6] Both Spencer and others have said that he created the term "Alt-right,"[7] a term he considers a movement about white identity.[8][9][10]Wikipedia in an age of disinformation, hmmm... "and the viewpoint of mainstream punditry" is a curious phrase in its own right. Alt-right can best be judged on its content as that is what the public consumes, just as we can judge mainstream media on its content. There isn't a trace of white supremacism in any of the content I've seen from what is recognised as alt-right. If Milo and Alex Jones are so readily identified as figureheads/poster children for it then why how come we don't hear them promote white supremacy? Since Daddy won, the spin against Trump has got worse than ever. And this is a new front in a shitty war. I can't help thinking that you're judging the accuracy of the media based mainly on which sections of it reinforce your existing opinions though In many ways, Wikipedia ought to be lauded by the alt-right. It's independent, not for profit, written by ordinary folk.... But then it doesn't agree with you so you choose to not trust it.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 17:59:15 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! Well according to Wikipedia, the phrase "alt-right" was coined by a white nationalist who promotes his views through "mainstream punditry" so the lines are blurred mate yes Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978)[1] is an American white nationalist, known for promoting white supremacist views,[2][3][4] often through the viewpoint of mainstream punditry.[5] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think-tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian.[6] Both Spencer and others have said that he created the term "Alt-right,"[7] a term he considers a movement about white identity.[8][9][10]
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 8:15:02 GMT
Precisely. The problem with many on here is that they only deal in absolutes. Hillary Clinton is awful, ergo Donald Trump must be preferable. The sad fact is that the world would have benefited hugely from both candidates being sent on one-way trips to Dignitas. It is entirely possible for both candidates to be equally awful overall but to be awful in different ways. And anyone who honestly thinks that Donald Trump will do anything to curb the excesses of the economic system that put him where he is today is either thick or mad I'm afraid the problem with many on here? is we all fick ? No but many do deal solely in absolutes as I say. It's certainly easier to see the world in black and white but it's very divisive and it plays completely into the hands of those much-hated establishment elites who just want to divide and rule. The Brexit debate is a classic case study. Both sides are still just either defending or attacking rather than trying to lay down arms and come together for a sensible discussion. It's a problem we have in society as a whole to be fair. That said, some on here are fairly thick
|
|
|
Populism
Nov 22, 2016 20:01:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by manmarking on Nov 22, 2016 20:01:08 GMT
A very valid thread Big John particularly as it's opening up the debate about the normally suppressed wishes of vast swathes of disillusioned and disconnected people. If as Red suggests Brexit and Trump are a result of the unwashed/uneducated getting a voice for a change - it kind of nails proper democracy in an instant. You haven't got to look far to find supporting evidence that the intelligentsia start this process of demonising free-thinking Anyone's outside the bubble in the campuses of our Universities - www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960800/KATIE-HOPKINS-College-liberals-think-people-voted-Trump-Brexit-dumb-letting-brainwash-society-s-stupid.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490Eventually over 50% of the population will have a Masters in vaginal discharge or some other pointless ology but still won't find a job, a house or be able to pay the bills - They will just think they know how to be superior!! Hammered I agree with most of what you say , except that I think that the much maligned young people coming out of university are the biggest victims of all this. They go to Univerity very often as there is no other way forward. They have trusted the older generation and have been shafted and deceived ( Clegg). They did not make the rules. They are faced with an uncertain future, lumbered with lifetime debt, can't reasonably get on the housing market, are crippled by things such as car insurance, are expected to make provision ( save) for their own pensions and are often ridiculed for their attitude etc. The young people I work with at University are overwhelmingly decent....but unfortunately indoctrinated with the ( old) New world uni-vision - what I mean in a nutshell, dnot think that mosteoporosis of them really think that they are superior, rather they are scared of the future and are grateful to have a job .....generally speaking and IMHO of course. Good post bjr. I've met some real bellend students in my time but the vast majority are a damn site more informed than the thickos like Harry on here who've seemingly based their entire world view on one episode of The Young Ones. You get good students and bad uns, same as any walk of life
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 22, 2016 19:50:00 GMT
Yet not that long ago, you wanted instant bans for anyone you thought was ************** (ie anyone who disagreed with you) and then ragequit when you didn't get your way. A year's a short time in Internet messageboards Wtf Proof you really are in your own little world You give yourselves far too much credit baldy I'm giving myself no credit mate. You did it all
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 22, 2016 18:00:34 GMT
well if the Quran had never been written then Carpy would have no-one to fucking moan at every second of his days. basically, he'd have no life at all whereas the rest of us would enjoy a relatively stable, trouble free message board And be bored to fuck with nodding dogs Yet not that long ago, you wanted instant bans for anyone you thought was ************** (ie anyone who disagreed with you) and then ragequit when you didn't get your way. A year's a short time in Internet messageboards
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 22, 2016 13:05:30 GMT
Not necessarily. Virgin can have "offered" backing but not yet "made" any payments. Equally, Branson can do whatever he likes with his own personal fortune without involving Virgin at all. Who knows “ Virgin … are keen to help ... Since we last spoke [they] have offered a further £25k, plus bigger office space, help with legal advice and a possible secondment." "A Virgin spokesperson said: “Since the EU referendum, Virgin has not made any payments to any Brexit campaign or organisation."" So offered a further 25K, plus bigger office space, help with legal advice and a possible secondment but not made any payments. Hmm, after the headline.......... "Sir Richard Branson funding new campaign group to fight Brexit" If you're not too busy I've got a box of hairs that need splitting I agree. Like I say, who knows. "Funding" can be part-funding or total funding. Present or future. It all smacks of the language of the corporate and the politician to me. All slightly ambiguous meanings, neither confirming nor denying anything. None of the people supposedly backing this initiative exactly screams "fan of democracy" to me
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 22, 2016 12:21:25 GMT
Reading? I bet it wasn't worth it **************
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 22, 2016 12:19:35 GMT
Not necessarily. Virgin can have "offered" backing but not yet "made" any payments. Equally, Branson can do whatever he likes with his own personal fortune without involving Virgin at all. Who knows
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 22, 2016 7:58:06 GMT
On a purely semantic level, the fact that the term "populism" is commonly expressed with such disdain just goes to illustrate the total contempt that most politicians have for the basic concept of democracy - the will of the majority of the people.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 21, 2016 22:28:15 GMT
Also coupled with the fact that it is a Grand Coalition which has worked well for them over the last few decades, what will be interesting though will be 2 things, Turnout, I think will be low, people are just so pissed off, that's why Clinton lost, it wasn't so much that Trump took her voters, it was more that her ( Democrats) voters stayed at home. Will also be interesting to see if the Right Wing gain in the polls over last term...There is a gradual shift to the Right, all across Europe and indeed what we saw in USA...MArine Le Pen in France is being taken very seriously... The indigenous population of many EU countries have had enough of mass uncontrolled immigration, the failure of the EU dictatorship to address this is forcing them to look at other options hence the rising popularity of the right wing. How do you define "indigenous" carps? Are you saying that us poor whites are under threat like the native Americans or the aborigines? What a load of horseshit
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 21, 2016 19:35:54 GMT
What the fuck is a thread about intelligence doing on the EE Board?!
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 21, 2016 19:26:31 GMT
America (and Britain and others to be fair) only ever offers countries like Libya and Syria a binary option. Either we bomb the living shit out of everything and leave behind civil wars, failed states and countless dead, or we do nothing. We should never have removed Colonel Gaddafi in the way we did. We were warned against it by countless experts but our arms industry (which practically owns Hillary Clinton) demanded otherwise. Gaddafi's arms stash has found its way to militant psychopaths across the wider region from Boko Haram to IS. We should have found ways to facilitate a far more stable, peaceful transfer of power over a longer period. Re: Syria, we should've considered not funding IS and continuing to back them for as long as we did. Again, we should've tried to facilitate a less destructive transfer of power. Perhaps if, instead of constantly goading Russia, we'd worked with them from the start, this might have been possible. And no I don't agree that invading countries and taking their oil would work. It's what Barack and Hillary did in Libya, incidentally - like I say, no better than Trump. I like your thoughts. I doubt it would work - why would Gaddafi negotiate and give more freedoms if we'd let him break into Misrata and slaughter the moderates? Maybe Gaddafi staying in power would have been better but lots would argue that. I dunno what'd be better, but don't you think that your choice would probably mean Gaddafi in power and a lot of dead and imprisoned moderates in Libya too? With Clinton v Trump I doubt Trump'll be better. His buddies love bombing stuff, especially if it kills brown people. This is the party that invaded Iraq and invaded Afghanistan and loves it when he talks about murdering innocent families and torturing prisoners and invading countries and taking their oil. Given his campaign was backed by Russian hackers, I'd be pretty worried if I was an Estonian or Finn. Basically, as a fan of democracy and freedoms I'm worried about Trump, if I was an enemy of Western democracy like Putin, then I'd be thrilled. I think you're right to be worried. We do live in unstable and uncertain times. I agree about Putin too, although I'd add the caveat that we've mishandled him (and Russia generally) for a long time. For one thing, there's a dangerous lack of empathy on our part. Imagine Putin led an equivalent NATO organisation and had just brought Canada and Mexico under his sphere of influence. And that both countries were run by people who said and did anti-US stuff all the time. Are you telling me the US wouldn't act as Putin did with Ukraine? Of course they would. It's a delicate situation and clearly we shouldn't be pursuing a policy of appeasement per sé. But I think if we tried to see things from the other perspective a bit more, we might enjoy a more productive relationship with them We need to abandon this presumption that we're right and good, and that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong and bad. It might well be true in many cases but it shouldn't inform our entire foreign policy. It's overly simplistic and doesn't accommodate the reality that when people and cultures are different the world over, it's a complex challenge. We train our children to tolerate differences in opinion so why do we allow our politicians to go round attacking people who they don't like at will? As for Gaddafi, I find it interesting that we're always sold this line about nuking Japan - it saved lives in the long run so it was a necessary evil. Moral arguments aside, that may very well be true. We'll never know. Yet we never apply that same logic to bombing people with large oil supplies or who inhabit key geopolitical regions. For example, that bodybag pragmatism we used to justify Hiroshima is ridiculed by people like Blair when discussing his wars. Yet there can be no doubt that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would've resulted in far fewer casualties than the second Gulf War. The same can be said of Libya. Gaddafi wasn't a nice man by any stretch but his citizens nonetheless enjoyed higher standards of health and education than millions of Americans. It's fair to say that nowadays they do not. Equally, Libya didn't used to be a staging post for boatloads of refugees, a base for Hiluxloads of IS nutters, or a vast uncontrolled arms bazar for the very worst lunatics in sub-Saharan Africa. Nowadays it is I'm not offering some grand foolproof solution to this because I'm not an expert geopolitical strategist by any means. But I don't think you need to be one to at least see that our current foreign policies just don't work. Of that much I'm sure. I guess I like to think that if we took all the will, intellect and energy that's currently poured into "advanced" weapon systems and invested it instead into finding more peaceful solutions, then we might have a chance at making the world a more stable place. Perhaps I'm an eternal optimist but there we go Sorry for the long ramble - good discussion to have and it's interesting stuff to debate in a good natured way
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 22:51:03 GMT
You know fuck all about students because you've clearly never been one Harry. If you were talking about blackshirts, the BNP or the like then fair enough - I've no doubt they're things you've an intimate knowledge of I was a university student for 6 years ... do keep stating your pretences I always have a good chuckle about them . Either you're lying or you're insulting yourself
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 22:30:07 GMT
With all due respect Harry, you should only really comment on stuff you understand. And studying stuff clearly isn't in your sphere of understanding [b Right back at you **************... You know fuck all about students because you've clearly never been one Harry. If you were talking about blackshirts, the BNP or the like then fair enough - I've no doubt they're things you've an intimate knowledge of
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 18:48:04 GMT
Two entire countries in the middle east have ceased to exist in any meaningful sense as a direct consequence of her actions at the State Department. I get that Trump is unquestionably more noxious domestically but Clinton is a horrendous warmonger and the needs, rights, hopes and fears of the rest of the world need to be taken into consideration too What should America have done differently and what do you think the outcome would have been? Do you agree that invading the countries and taking their oil, as Trump suggests, would work? America (and Britain and others to be fair) only ever offers countries like Libya and Syria a binary option. Either we bomb the living shit out of everything and leave behind civil wars, failed states and countless dead, or we do nothing. We should never have removed Colonel Gaddafi in the way we did. We were warned against it by countless experts but our arms industry (which practically owns Hillary Clinton) demanded otherwise. Gaddafi's arms stash has found its way to militant psychopaths across the wider region from Boko Haram to IS. We should have found ways to facilitate a far more stable, peaceful transfer of power over a longer period. Re: Syria, we should've considered not funding IS and continuing to back them for as long as we did. Again, we should've tried to facilitate a less destructive transfer of power. Perhaps if, instead of constantly goading Russia, we'd worked with them from the start, this might have been possible. And no I don't agree that invading countries and taking their oil would work. It's what Barack and Hillary did in Libya, incidentally - like I say, no better than Trump.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 18:21:11 GMT
Yeah ignoring security pleas that led to the death of 4 Americans, risking the lives of millions of Americans by using a private email for her classified work and being in the pocket of anyone who will donate for her foundation is all made up Falls on deaf ears with students mate.. They won't hear any of that. They just frenzy around buzz words like " racism, islam, immigration, sexism, safe places"... With all due respect Harry, you should only really comment on stuff you understand. And studying stuff clearly isn't in your sphere of understanding
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 18:19:16 GMT
Precisely. The problem with many on here is that they only deal in absolutes. Hillary Clinton is awful, ergo Donald Trump must be preferable. The sad fact is that the world would have benefited hugely from both candidates being sent on one-way trips to Dignitas. It is entirely possible for both candidates to be equally awful overall but to be awful in different ways. And anyone who honestly thinks that Donald Trump will do anything to curb the excesses of the economic system that put him where he is today is either thick or mad I'm afraid It's dangerous to even hint that Trump and Clinton are anywhere near equally as bad as each other. Clinton never shouted for violence at her rallies, suggested that a judge of the wrong colour shouldn't be allowed to judge her, threatened to gag the media or suggested that she would ignore the results of a democratic election. Peaceful protest, the media, judges and elections are the key defences against tyranny. Trump has threatened them all. Clinton didn't. It makes sense that some believe that they're similarly bad, most of the popular fake (as in completely made up) news stories were pro-Trump or anti-Clinton. If you honestly believe these made up things then it makes sense. It might be dangerous mate but it's true. Two entire countries in the middle east have ceased to exist in any meaningful sense as a direct consequence of her actions at the State Department. I get that Trump is unquestionably more noxious domestically but Clinton is a horrendous warmonger and the needs, rights, hopes and fears of the rest of the world need to be taken into consideration too
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 17:07:09 GMT
Trump supporters are equally stupid
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 16:27:18 GMT
My Oatcake login details
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 16:10:21 GMT
Ironic that you list a bunch of events caused by either/all of the US, the EU, Hillary & her multi-million dollar backers Saudi Arabia. Trump thankfully wants to forge closer ties with Russia which can lead to a solution in Ukraine, will see the US help Assad to defeat ISIS, and take a huge step to solving the 'refugee' crisis' in the Mediterranean. You never heard of appeasement? That solved problems for millions of people. If you think putin and trump are doing anything for the good of mankind you need to study politics history and just about everything Precisely. The problem with many on here is that they only deal in absolutes. Hillary Clinton is awful, ergo Donald Trump must be preferable. The sad fact is that the world would have benefited hugely from both candidates being sent on one-way trips to Dignitas. It is entirely possible for both candidates to be equally awful overall but to be awful in different ways. And anyone who honestly thinks that Donald Trump will do anything to curb the excesses of the economic system that put him where he is today is either thick or mad I'm afraid
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 20, 2016 9:07:24 GMT
If we were a republic we would still be spending the money to preserve it Exactly This is a remarkably stupid argument, lads
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 17, 2016 18:44:04 GMT
"UK opposition leader"? Jeremy looks different somehow.... "Brexit leader"..but Farage's group wasn't nominated as the official Brexit group! Indeed, if Blowjo(b) hadn't led the campaign, Brexit would have lost! For what it's worth I think that Brexit would've won anyway. Before the election I thought Remain would get about 55%. But having read what I've read in hindsight I think the disillusion and the distrust in the established order were way stronger and more widespread than most people expected. Still doesn't stop Fox from being a truly abysmal news outlet. About as factual as Pravda during the Cold War
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 17, 2016 17:58:56 GMT
"The people will take to the streets if the government don't deliver".... "UK opposition leader"? Jeremy looks different somehow....
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 16, 2016 21:13:50 GMT
no, the leaders have already fled Mosul leaving their cannon fodder martyrs to die, and set up elsewhere, they will recruit with groups like boko haram Dressed as female children, soon to arrive in a school near Luton where they will welcomed with open arms and their errrmmmm relatives. That's how you'll have to be smuggled into Spain after we've left the EU
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 16, 2016 7:26:27 GMT
No. If anything,they will be strengthened by Trump's rhetoric and likely hawkish approach to the middle east. Expect military action in Iran within 12 months, if not sooner. Isis recruiters will be laughing their tits off at how easy their job just became. He won't do anything approaching military action in Iran Apart from the guaranteed stand-off with Russia, it goes against the basic post-war western military action principle. Namely we only attack countries that (on paper at least) we can annihilate and subjugate. That's emphatically not the case with Iran
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 15, 2016 22:22:39 GMT
No express quotes there as far as I'm aware Prick tits. Admin, sorry for my use of personal abuse. It's getting a regular thing I'm getting from this friendless cunt above, and no time out for his lack of control. Angry little cunt he is I though manmarking was our unofficial challenger of abuse- ask him Sorry mate, nee nar nee nar nee nar. Late on the scene due to a general sense of apathy brought on by ale and a big tea Anyhow, cautions for both and no lift home in the squad car for either. Final warning for fraise too, who'll be spending a night in the cells in a shitted bed next time. In other news, our entire economic system is nearing collapse. Until we get to "every man for himself" times though, do please carry on playing nicely for the most part
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 14, 2016 18:27:02 GMT
He's dreadfully thick mate. I feel sorry for him in a way but then he's so full of hate that he makes it hard to feel even that. Apparently we're the same person btw Crappy's posts on the referendum are so angry that I think I must have misheard the news on the morning of 24/06/16. Or......... Crappy is actually a secret Remainer. Well on top of everything else, he is planning to relocate to within the EU so he will probably be remaining
|
|