Donald Trump

[mnb089mnb]

Very weak reply. As with all libtards the ability to substantiate what you say with reason & logic is lacking. I'm not half anything. It's people like you that provided the catalyst for Trump to get elected, "don't say that it doesn't fit with my own subjective agenda"

Are those tears salty?

Substantiate why I think "libtard" is an ableist term? I don't think I have to. It's pretty obvious. I'm not offended or angry, I just find it a bit pathetic really.

You seem to think you know a lot about me. It's quite funny.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

What for? I fully support the right of anyone I disagree with to share their views.

The first act of the Ian_Wrexhamist People's Revolutionary Government would be to have OFF user Ebeneezer Goode publicly shot. Please defend to the death my rights to hold those views.

Your move Voltaire.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

You're confused. That's not a view, that's a threat. A view would be to say "I think Ebeneezer Goode should be shot". That's why someone saying "I'm going to kill the president" will be investigated by the police, but someone saying "I wish the president was shot" will not.

 

[Stevencc]

What if they wish the president was shot seconds after being granted three wishes by a genie?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

What if they wish the president was shot seconds after being granted three wishes by a genie?

"A question for the philosophers I think."
- Lady Olenna Tyrell

 

[sl1k]

You're confused. That's not a view, that's a threat. A view would be to say "I think Ebeneezer Goode should be shot". That's why someone saying "I'm going to kill the president" will be investigated by the police, but someone saying "I wish the president was shot" will not.

So in your view, would it be acceptable for an angry bearded guy to go around preaching to the ignorant disenfranchised young how; he thinks the west should pay for all the shit in the middle, how he thinks Muslims everywhere should mobilise, how he thinks that his interpretation of Islam is the only way and that every other view has hidden roots to an anti-Islamic agenda.

Do you not think, that sometimes blatantly damaging beliefs have to be ruthlessly stamped out so as to not let allow it to reach the metaphorical shores of people incapable of critical thought and are looking to direct blame for the shit situations in their lives? Where do you draw the line?

People have the right to believe whatever they want, but when it comes to expressing them in a public domain they should bare responsibility and obligation to back up what they say. And this goes for any person, any walk of life, any view.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So in your view, would it be acceptable for an angry bearded guy to go around preaching to the ignorant disenfranchised young how; he thinks the west should pay for all the shit in the middle, how he thinks Muslims everywhere should mobilise, how he thinks that his interpretation of Islam is the only way and that every other view has hidden roots to an anti-Islamic agenda.

Yes. I think we would be much better off with those people and views out in the open. Censoring them doesn't change them, it just makes sure they're shared behind closed doors instead. Choudary being the open figure of fun that he is is much less of a threat than the random Imam peddling the same views behind closed doors that we don't know about, just as Griffin only became an irrelevance as soon as he went on Question Time.

 

[Jockney]

Yes. I think we would be much better off with those people and views out in the open. Censoring them doesn't change them, it just makes sure they're shared behind closed doors instead. Choudary being the open figure of fun that he is is much less of a threat than the random Imam peddling the same views behind closed doors that we don't know about, just as Griffin only became an irrelevance as soon as he went on Question Time.

Griffin and the BNP proved to be hopelessly inept, but not before they capitalised on a well-spring of extreme right-wing sentiment. Half a million votes in the 2010 GE is a scarily impressive performance for a party who made very little attempt to disguise their racism and in any other decade would have been relegated to localised street activity. The platform that UK broadcast and print media afforded to Griffin was disproportionate to other similarly marginal political parties and conferred upon them an undeserved legitimacy. Without that exposure, they'd have remained on the margins. Ultimately, it was only a relatively slick and very well-funded UKIP resurgence, counter-fascist street movements and the wholesale rejection of their politics across the institutions of civil society that prevented the BNP from gaining any sort of political traction.

I also don't agree with state censorship, but then I'm also not of the opinion that the nation-state, in its entire history, has ever allowed unfettered democratic freedom of expression anyway. Fascism has never worked on an appeal to reason (like, that is the fundamental component of facism/nazism: a staunch opposition to reason; they literally want to bring an end to modernity and destroy the gains made during the enlightenment), it appeals to the emotions of people. You can't beat a fascist by deconstructing their arguments: once you allow them a platform they have already won. These people will not stop until they are too scared, too weak, too demoralised to continue. Willingly miring yourself in their web of anti-reason is to make yourself an object of their cause.

Edit: I'm also confused by your rejection of political violence. How else do you think liberal democracy is maintained? We are all complicit in political violence in one form or another; you have to pick the right side. This also goes some way to answering your question about the victims, numbering in the thousands (if we're being uber charitable), of liberal democracy*: how do you think the standard of living in countries like ours is sustained?

*I think some conceptual clarity is needed on the use of "liberalism", which perplexingly has come to encompass the manifestations of capitalism that claim to be conscientious, or variants of post-war social democracy, rather than a philosophy that equates liberty to the ownership of private property. Most conservatives in the global north are advocates of liberalism in one form or another. Almost every politician in America is fundamentally liberal, or at least pretends to invest faith in liberalism.

 

[Abertawe]

I fucking knew something was up initially.

 

[mnb089mnb]

No, just substantiate one view, just one.

I don't know anything about you other than you're the complete opposite to what a man should represent. Frank heavens we didn't have people of your ilk in ww1 & ww2, fascists would've won. Just imagine mnb089mnb The Paranoid Partridge Martino Quackavelli smat having to fight for our freedom, fuck me we'd have been fucked before we even started.

It's people like you that represent danger to the world by being so maggoty, not irrelevant terms like libtard, you big wet freaking LIBTARD.

Why should I substantiate a view to someone who continually indulges in personal abuse?

The "real man" stuff made me laugh out loud. What's being a real man? Offering discounts on Sky TV and posting about global Zionist conspiracies on the internet?

lol.

 

[mnb089mnb]

You abuse & mock more than anyone on here. I just pull you up on your attempts to set the moral compass and you libtard out when I ask you to substantiate.

You're just some wannabe pompous prick. Tell you what, you don't go to Cardiff games anymore, what's the next Wales game you're going to? I will show you.

Are you really threatening to fight someone on the internet?

You have issues. Seek help.

 

[Techno Natch]

You want some as well do ya? 2nd of September, two on one I don't mind.
#RealMan
#TrueFightingMan
#ResistAgainstLibGimps

Go for it. I'll be out dancing no doubt so come find and I'll knock you out with my jaw.

 

[Abertawe]

Go for it. I'll be out dancing no doubt so come find and I'll knock you out with my jaw.

Typical Bristolian.

 

[Renegade]

Good thread, would read again.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Griffin and the BNP proved to be hopelessly inept, but not before they capitalised on a well-spring of extreme right-wing sentiment. Half a million votes in the 2010 GE is a scarily impressive performance for a party who made very little attempt to disguise their racism and in any other decade would have been relegated to localised street activity. The platform that UK broadcast and print media afforded to Griffin was disproportionate to other similarly marginal political parties and conferred upon them an undeserved legitimacy. Without that exposure, they'd have remained on the margins. Ultimately, it was only a relatively slick and very well-funded UKIP resurgence, counter-fascist street movements and the wholesale rejection of their politics across the institutions of civil society that prevented the BNP from gaining any sort of political traction.

Then the issue is with bias in the print media, not a simple right to free expression.

I also don't agree with state censorship, but then I'm also not of the opinion that the nation-state, in its entire history, has ever allowed unfettered democratic freedom of expression anyway. Fascism has never worked on an appeal to reason (like, that is the fundamental component of facism/nazism: a staunch opposition to reason; they literally want to bring an end to modernity and destroy the gains made during the enlightenment), it appeals to the emotions of people. You can't beat a fascist by deconstructing their arguments: once you allow them a platform they have already won. These people will not stop until they are too scared, too weak, too demoralised to continue. Willingly miring yourself in their web of anti-reason is to make yourself an object of their cause.

The US has probably the most liberal and rigorous defence of freedom of expression of any county that has ever existed, they also have their own National Socialist party, which has achieved precisely nothing in the 58 years since it's founding. And I can't say that in my experience the authoritarian right is any more prone to irrationality than the authoritarian left, they just have a diametrically opposed set of ideals.

Edit: I'm also confused by your rejection of political violence. How else do you think liberal democracy is maintained? We are all complicit in political violence in one form or another; you have to pick the right side. This also goes some way to answering your question about the victims, numbering in the thousands (if we're being uber charitable), of liberal democracy*: how do you think the standard of living in countries like ours is sustained?

I was more taking issue with the use of the word "murder" than anything else. Not entirely sure what you mean by liberal democracy being maintained by political violence. Is that a reference to violence being the supreme authority that governments are built upon? Or our foreign policy?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Yes. I think we would be much better off with those people and views out in the open. Censoring them doesn't change them, it just makes sure they're shared behind closed doors instead. Choudary being the open figure of fun that he is is much less of a threat than the random Imam peddling the same views behind closed doors that we don't know about, just as Griffin only became an irrelevance as soon as he went on Question Time.

This is not true. The BNP went up in polls after Nick Griffin's Question Time appearance. Despite liberals insisting it was disastrous, plenty of other people saw stuff they liked in their NF-lite platform. 22% of people said they would "seriously consider" voting BNP after the programme aired.

The 2010 election results, while superficially disappointing to the BNP, represent the largest share of the vote achieved by a far right party in history.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8323638.stm

 

[johnnytodd]

I'm sure UKIP got 4 million votes and that equates to more votes than the liberals and SNP put together.

Funny how the latter seem to appear on Question time etc much more than UKIP.

The people have spoken.

 

[Son of Cod]

Pathetic excuse for a man, mnb, with his ravishingly dashing face VS broken legs Abertawe pulling himself along on a skateboard like a three legged dog? I would definitely pay good money to see that fight.

 

[Abertawe]

I don't do coke.

Think you just failed your own standard btw.

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

Good point, I'm better than this. Post deleted, apologies.

 

[sl1k]

This internetting is serious bizz and that, I get it, but we should take it down a notch with the personal abuse and threats. Isn't good for forum ambience.

 

[Krazy8]

#sl1k4mod

 

[T.A]

 

[Abertawe]

Remember that Gove interview? Little man was just a pawn used as a smokescreen so the real ballers could have a chat.

It was the journalistic coup of the moment, the first British newspaper interview with Donald Trump since his victory. But there was one thing The Times of London did not reveal: that its proprietor Rupert Murdoch was sitting in on the conversation.

The chairman of News Corp did not feature in photographs of the encounter last month at the top of Trump Tower in Manhattan but two people have confirmed he was in the room. The interview was conducted by Michael Gove, a former British cabinet minister and proponent of the UK’s exit from the EU.

Mr Murdoch’s presence is a sign of the mogul’s interest in Mr Trump and his close relationship with the new president and his family. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...g-as-fake-news-politics-live?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[johnnytodd]

http://www.onefootballforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/donald-trump.8729/

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Murdock rules the (western) world... Shocker.

 

[MJA]

How do all of these fucking idiots become so successful?

 

[Stevencc]

Small loans.

 

[epic73]

Of a million dollars.

 

[Abertawe]

How do all of these fucking idiots become so successful?

Born into the circle and it goes from there I suppose.