Time to resurrect Rock Against Racism?

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

here you go again! mate you know fucking well I didnt say that!....so why the exaggeration? you go on and on about other people exaggerating stuff and then you go and do it yourself! you are an absolute hypocrite! All I said was AT THE MOMENT trumps actions dont seem to back his words and I guess only the future will show if he really does oppose such people being linked to his politics or not..

please tell me how from that you got `Trump has sent a secret message to the alt-righters to tell them he didn't mean it`?

Double standard mate thats you, you slate and savage people on here over and over for apparently `making stuff up` then you go and do it yourself! , Id give you another chance but that`s not the first time! I believe I had to call you out yesterday on ranting about something I never actually ever said (and you still tried to twist that into it somehow being my fault you mixed me up with some other guy!)

So yeah...im done with you and these threads! if you want to twist things and make up silly little statements people didnt even make to back your supposed arguments rather then arguing with what -you know.....they actually said!.... then just do one as not even worth my time! Pointless trying to debate with someone who will just make up statements to give himself something to argue with. I get more sensible debate out of my 4 year old at bed time!
 

If Trump intends to do the worst people keep on saying he will - AND has the support to actually do it - he'd have no need whatsoever for anyone to "force" him to say something he didn't wish to say.

And he very definitely wouldn't be saying something that will anger his supporters and make them support him less, would he?

People are welcome to invent whatever nutty view they wish for why he said it, but the important part is the effect of him saying it and what it means going forwards.

And what it VERY DEFINITELY means is that the alt-right are not running the show nor are they going to be rewarded for their support with any of the things they might like to happen.

What are you going to think of your posts here when nothing of your worst fears come to pass? Yep, there might be a bigger push of standard right wing republican views of stuff like creationism, but it's not nazism or anything close to it, it's just different views to your (and my) own.

Different views to your own is what happens when the party you don't support wins. Conversations like this only tell me that people like you don't really grasp what politics and the democratic process really is.

Edited November 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

A secretary of defence with the nickname of 'mad dog'

 

Yeah, no idea why people are worried...

[waterfalls212434]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

If Trump intends to do the worst people keep on saying he will - AND has the support to actually do it - he'd have no need whatsoever for anyone to "force" him to say something he didn't wish to say.

And he very definitely wouldn't be saying something that will anger his supporters and make them support him less, would he?

People are welcome to invent whatever nutty view they wish for why he said it, but the important part is the effect of him saying it and what it means going forwards.

And what it VERY DEFINITELY means is that the alt-right are not running the show nor are they going to be rewarded for their support with any of the things they might like to happen.

What are you going to think of your posts here when nothing of your worst fears come to pass? Yep, there might be a bigger push of standard right wing republican views of stuff like creationism, but it's not nazism or anything close to it, it's just different views to your (and my) own.

Different views to your own is what happens when the party you don't support wins. Conversations like only tell me that people like you don't really grasp what politics and the democratic  process really is.

I have no problem with differing views and my comments were only speculating as I stated when I said `only the future will tell us the answer` what I have a problem with mate is people exaggerating and making up shit I never even said just so they have an argument against me. Do you not think thats a childish way to debate? 

And for the last time I am not the guy talking about all trump supporters backing fucking nazism! try to actually look at the user id of the person your replying to before you hit the reply button!  Might help your case a little bit!

Conversations like this only tell me that people like you will will clutch any straw they can even to the point of making up total bollocks that the person they are replying to didnt even say.......just as long as it means they can still argue just for the sake of it! 

Why are you the only person who is allowed to make up bollocks and exaggerate claims can I just ask that? I mean you spend so much time slating everybody else for it like your the fucking truth police or some shit but fuck me you have no problem doing it yourself do you now when it involves arguing back to people!......like I said your a fucking hypocrite!

Pull your head out your arse and show some willing to debate whats actually being said rather then making up statements to give yourself a phony argument and I might continue to give you the time of day.....if not! fuck it!

[clarkete]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Bannon had a job. The guy at the Daily Mail print works must also be a fascist on the same logic.

Meanwhile it's not grown. It's all the same nutters that there's ever been but with a more central hub.

FFS.

 

Come on, you're just being silly.

Working in the print works is not the same as being the chair and leading Breitbart.

And he's quoted as saying "We're the platform for the alt-right"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news

I've long since lost sight of why you're doing this, as it's stopped being you pricking exaggerated claims.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I have no problem with differing views and my comments were only speculating as I stated when I said `only the future will tell us the answer` what I have a problem with mate is people exaggerating and making up shit I never even said just so they have an argument against me. Do you not think thats a childish way to debate? 

And for the last time I am not the guy talking about all trump supporters backing fucking nazism! try to actually look at the user id of the person your replying to before you hit the reply button!  Might help your case a little bit!

Conversations like this only tell me that people like you will will clutch any straw they can even to the point of making up total bollocks that the person they are replying to didnt even say.......just as long as it means they can still argue just for the sake of it! 

Why are you the only person who is allowed to make up bollocks and exaggerate claims can I just ask that? I mean you spend so much time slating everybody else for it like your the fucking truth police or some shit but fuck me you have no problem doing it yourself do you now when it involves arguing back to people!......like I said your a fucking hypocrite!

Pull your head out your arse and show some willing to debate whats actually being said rather then making up statements to give yourself a phony argument and I might continue to give you the time of day.....if not! fuck it!

so say what your fears are AND why they're justified.

American having nutty neonazis as a part of the population is not any justification for anything. They've always existed, and they're a shrinking group, without power and without political representation. As "dangerous" as the BNP in the UK.

Pointing at stuff said in Trump's campaign proves nothing either. He's throwing them off quicker than anyone here is able to keep up with. No wall, no rejection of climate change, no muslim ban, a muslim register looking highly unlikely, etc, etc, etc.

And then he's said what are his priorities - a change with the immigration rules, a chjange to trading rules. Nothing evil.

So what? Saying you don't like some of his stuff isn't anything at all, that's simply how it is on the losing side.

[The Nal]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

A secretary of defence with the nickname of 'mad dog'

 

Yeah, no idea why people are worried...

 

The same James Mattis who Obama nominated as chief of the US Central Command? The same James Mattis who served under Obama in that role for 3 years?

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Come on, you're just being silly.

Working in the print works is not the same as being the chair and leading Breitbart.

And he's quoted as saying "We're the platform for the alt-right"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news

I've long since lost sight of why you're doing this, as it's stopped being you pricking exaggerated claims.

It was his employer, where he was the boss, not a writer or editor. His job was to make it commercial success, nothing more. He made it a commercial success by identifying a market and tapping into it.

The guy at the print works for the Daily Mail has the same purpose, of being a guy responsibile for making the Daily mail a commerical success too (tho in a very different and more minor role, true).

Murdoch owns both of the Time and the Sun, and is often damned for what either might print ... yet often they're printing polar opposite things. Why is Bannon solely responsible for what breitbart published AND 100% means it, when it would be impossible to make similar stick to Murdoch (and where Murdoch is in sole control, and Bannon isn't)?

I'm not looking approvingly at Bannon having done what he did - it's certainly not an angle of chasing the money I've ever been prepared to take with running my own publishing 'empire' - but it would be nuts of me to refuse to recognise that option is open to me, and that I'd be richer for it. If money mattered to me more, it's what I'd do (not necessarily right wing, but chasing where the money and 'success' was).

You're trying to pin something solidly onto Bannon when there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for why it can stick, because he's personally clean (barring the most minor of allegations by his ex within a divorce case, and where Bannon did what his wife claimed he found objectionable, which strongly suggests it wasn't very objectionable).

He's had many jobs. If it sticks to him in the way you say then Wall Street is full of neonazis, etc, etc, etc. It's well beyond anything that can stand up. All that can be said is that he worked for an objectionable publication.

And yes, I'm still 100% pricking exaggeraged claims in this reply to you. You're going waaaaay beyond what the evidence supports.

Edited November 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, The Nal said:

 

The same James Mattis who Obama nominated as chief of the US Central Command? The same James Mattis who served under Obama in that role for 3 years?

PMSL

Keep em coming Nal.

It's pretty obvious we've got to make zahidf look a total prick in his own mind before he might find his brain.

[The Nal]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL

Keep em coming Nal.

It's pretty obvious we've got to make zahidf look a total prick in his own mind before he might find his brain.

Its more about the the skim reading and believing everything on Twitter for me. Real problem in society to be honest. The Facebook "fake news" stuff for example is an absolute embarrassment for mankind. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Its more about the the skim reading and believing everything on Twitter for me. Real problem in society to be honest. The Facebook "fake news" stuff is an absolute embarrassment for mankind. 

it's much the same that I'm fighting back against - stuff like where people took in the "Mexican's are rapists" (or whatever) part, but are blind to the "not you" part that accompanied it, making it utterly different to what they claim of it.

Edited November 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

30 minutes ago, The Nal said:

 

The same James Mattis who Obama nominated as chief of the US Central Command? The same James Mattis who served under Obama in that role for 3 years?

Ah fair point.

Obama never referred to him as 'mad dog' but i was wrong in this instance.

[The Nal]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Ah fair point.

Obama never referred to him as 'mad dog' but i was wrong in this instance.

Trump is just a big Back to the Future III fan

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

Trump is just a big Back to the Future III fan

Does that mean his presidency will end with him covered in poo?

 

[zahidf]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It was his employer, where he was the boss, not a writer or editor. His job was to make it commercial success, nothing more. He made it a commercial success by identifying a market and tapping into it.

The guy at the print works for the Daily Mail has the same purpose, of being a guy responsibile for making the Daily mail a commerical success too (tho in a very different and more minor role, true).

Murdoch owns both of the Time and the Sun, and is often damned for what either might print ... yet often they're printing polar opposite things. Why is Bannon solely responsible for what breitbart published AND 100% means it, when it would be impossible to make similar stick to Murdoch (and where Murdoch is in sole control, and Bannon isn't)?

I'm not looking approvingly at Bannon having done what he did - it's certainly not an angle of chasing the money I've ever been prepared to take with running my own publishing 'empire' - but it would be nuts of me to refuse to recognise that option is open to me, and that I'd be richer for it. If money mattered to me more, it's what I'd do (not necessarily right wing, but chasing where the money and 'success' was).

You're trying to pin something solidly onto Bannon when there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for why it can stick, because he's personally clean (barring the most minor of allegations by his ex within a divorce case, and where Bannon did what his wife claimed he found objectionable, which strongly suggests it wasn't very objectionable).

He's had many jobs. If it sticks to him in the way you say then Wall Street is full of neonazis, etc, etc, etc. It's well beyond anything that can stand up. All that can be said is that he worked for an objectionable publication.

And yes, I'm still 100% pricking exaggeraged claims in this reply to you. You're going waaaaay beyond what the evidence supports.

I dont see much difference between those who promote racism for ideological reasons and those who do so for money. Bannon hae given enough interviews to suggest it is 50/50 for him.

And yes, i do think Murdoch is a big old racist. And Paul dacre certainly is ok having a go at refugees for money

 

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, zahidf said:

I dont see much difference between those who promote racism for ideological reasons and those who do so for money.

So the guy at the Daily Mail print works is the ideological equivalent of Bannon.

I can credit your consistency, at least .... but it doesn't get any less laughable.

 

Just now, zahidf said:

Bannon hae given enough interviews to suggest it is 50/50 for him.

So very many you've been unable to present a word of it. :lol:

But even if he straight-up said "I'm a white nationalist", care to tell me the evil in "I want my neighbourhood to stay unchanged"?

 

Just now, zahidf said:

And yes, i do think Murdoch is a big old racist. And Paul dacre certainly is ok having a go at refugees for money

 

 

There's lots of racists.

very few of them would welcome the gas chambers.

Spot the difference?

[The Nal]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Does that mean his presidency will end with him covered in poo?

Its one thing Trump doesn't hate

"I looooove manure, and all the people who work with manure, ok? We're going to make manure great again."

#MMGA

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Its one thing Trump doesn't hate

"I looooove manure, and all the people who work with manure, ok? We're going to make manure great again."

#MMGA

I think zahidf is on side with that, helping to spread the poo around rather than letting the alt-right have the monopoly on shit.

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So the guy at the Daily Mail print works is the ideological equivalent of Bannon.

I can credit your consistency, at least .... but it doesn't get any less laughable.

 

So very many you've been unable to present a word of it.

But even if he straight-up said "I'm a white nationalist", care to tell me the evil in "I want my neighbourhood to stay unchanged"?

 

There's lots of racists.

very few of them would welcome the gas chambers.

Spot the difference?

So we should give them a break because they are racists who are ok stoking racism for either monetary or ideological reasons, along with the violence such actions would cause, but they  arent publically proposing gas chambers yet?

And white nationalism is aok now? cant think of any situation in history where race based nationalism led to bad stuff happening.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

So we should give them a break because they are racists who are ok stoking racism for either monetary or ideological reasons, along with the violence such actions would cause, but they  arent publically proposing gas chambers yet?

Oh FFS. :lol:

Who said give the racists a free hand? Not me.

But you did promise the return of the gas chambers, and I told you you were wrong. You said you'd be proven right, but now you seem to be backing away from your claim of being right.

Is that because you're the smart guy, or because you're as full of shit as Trump?

 

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

And white nationalism is aok now? cant think of any situation in history where race based nationalism led to bad stuff happening.

People are able to disagree.

Both with their take, and with your own of take down the borders and let in everyone that wants to come.

There's no evil in either take, there is only different opinion.

When did the men come and take your brain away?

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, Avalon_Fields said:

I think it is worth pointing out that India has a wall on the border with Pakistan, to be extended to the entire border length of many hundreds of miles, heavily militarised on both sides, and constructed by the Indians for the exact same reasons as Trump (Security and preventing illegal entry).

I presume those so against Trump's proposals will be equally vociferous against these two nuclear states? (Not to mention the Korean wall/DMZ, etc). Why am I not hearing this for the many years this wall has been built?

People dont support those walls. Or the israeli wall or the former berlin wall.

 

Also, unlike above, the USA and Mexico arent fighting or in a fracticious relationship where they may start fighting. (Yet. As Trump said, they are all criminals and rapists in mexico)

Edited November 23, 2016 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

Just now, zahidf said:

People dont support those walls. Or the israeli wall or the former berlin wall.

only the people who you say should count are the ones who count....?

Yep, there's definitely a problem of fascism, but in a different place to where you said it was.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Also, unlike above, the USA and Mexico arent fighting or in a fracticious relationship where they may start fighting.

But the USA is perfectly entitled to reduce or stop immigration from Mexico or anywhere else should it wish to.

Can you grasp that? And that a decision about controlling borders is nothing about racism? Or is it beyond your intelligence?

(note: I said 'grasp', meaning 'understand'. I didn't say you have to agree with it's effect, just their right to do it, and that controlling borders isn't inherently racist).

[Cornelius_Fudge]

3 hours ago, clarkete said:

Indeed,  he wasn't very happy about it either, considering it's a lot less personal and insensitive than some of his mockery. 

It's almost like he's a narcissistic hypocrite. 

Quite like a lot of people on this board then. 

There are so many people calling him out on his flip outs on twitter but the amount of fake outrage and exaggeration by some users doesn't help the levels of bullshit go down. 

I'm not defending him for his freak outs - he's an oaf sometimes sure. But the man can make a joke if he wants to

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Cornelius_Fudge

[Cornelius_Fudge]

6 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Am fully with you here, Nal. The amount of things I get told in the boozer as news and when I think that can't be right and question, it turns out to be Fucky McFuckface's twitter opinion.  

 

I can't stand the twitter checks on things like The One Show for example. 

 

 "oh, and Barry from Norwich has just tweeted that he thinks 'I can't believe it's not butter' is better on brown bread, than white bread'

Utterly pointless 

[clarkete]

50 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

 

I'm not defending him for his freak outs - he's an oaf sometimes sure. But the man can make a joke if he wants to

 

Indeed,  hence if people think his jokes are inappropriate for a man in his position they're entitled to say so, as I think with some of our own politicians.