Brit/pol/ #1: second attempt edition

U

URBANUS

Guest
My point is, he, and anybody else for that matter, should be able to say what they feel without having to retract or apologise afterwards. We have this alt-left group dictating how we should run our lives and what we should say and not say. Famous people are easy targets for them, it is interesting to see who buckles and who doesn't :popcorn:
I swore to myself that I would be less political on here so I hand that torch over to you my dear friend.
 

Shyness 1s nice

Well-Known Member
I swore to myself that I would be less political on here so I hand that torch over to you my dear friend.
You say that while commenting on a politics thread. Oh the irony :D

Very well :) But remember, if YOU want to comment, then you can do so.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
Hamilton’s error was to plaster it all over the internet.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
You say that while commenting on a politics thread. Oh the irony :D

Very well :) But remember, if YOU want to comment, then you can do so.
At least I tried, clues in another thread dealing with Israel.

*whistles innocently looking at sky*
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
This Obama/Clinton/FISA business in the US has huge ramifications for the British political leadership if true. Emphasis on the “if true”.

Put simply it is alleged that the DoJ and the CIA asked GCHQ and MI6 to spy on candidate Trump and that might in part explain Obama’s willingness to attempt to help Cameron on Brexit.

If that is what happened Theresa May, now PM, would have been Home Secretary at the time and would have to have signed off on it. In turn that might explain the awkwardness between Trump and May.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
This Obama/Clinton/FISA business in the US has huge ramifications for the British political leadership if true. Emphasis on the “if true”.

Put simply it is alleged that the DoJ and the CIA asked GCHQ and MI6 to spy on candidate Trump and that might in part explain Obama’s willingness to attempt to help Cameron on Brexit.

If that is what happened Theresa May, now PM, would have been Home Secretary at the time and would have to have signed off on it. In turn that might explain the awkwardness between Trump and May.
I have to lie down now!
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
Not strictly British Politics but I think this is the most appropriate thread for it. Cathy Newman is no match for the intellectual might of Jordan Peterson, this is as close to complete ownage in a debate as I've ever seen :lbf::lbf:

 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
Not strictly British Politics but I think this is the most appropriate thread for it. Cathy Newman is no match for the intellectual might of Jordan Peterson, this is as close to complete ownage in a debate as I've ever seen :lbf::lbf:

Believe it or not C4 News have had the brass neck to claim they have had to call in security analysts because of the “violence and misogyny” of some of the comments on the above.

I’ve chuckled along and read a couple of hundred comments at random over the last few days. The worst I’ve seen is pointing out the simple fact that Peterson figuratively ripped her to shreds.

For those abroad unaware of Newman she has previous form and C4 News has in recent years become our version of MSNBC.

 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
I have to lie down now!
So far it seems to be very much in the sphere of Sean Hannity which sets alarm bells ringing, but there are curious aspects that currently defy easy explanation.

The accidental meeting of Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at an Arizona airport during the election was odd, and the FBI’s announcement of their having lost evidence from two major figures involved in the matter is also curious. In between there are other aspects from which an unkind commentator might draw negative conclusions.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
So far it seems to be very much in the sphere of Sean Hannity which sets alarm bells ringing, but there are curious aspects that currently defy easy explanation.

The accidental meeting of Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at an Arizona airport during the election was odd, and the FBI’s announcement of their having lost evidence from two major figures involved in the matter is also curious. In between there are other aspects from which an unkind commentator might draw negative conclusions.
Hannity or not I’m 100% sure something nefarious has occurred. As soon as I heard the FBI had ‘lost’ all those text messages, the one’s dat8ng back from the EXACT day Meuller was assigned to the Russia investigation you can put the ring on it, there has been massive deep state collusion and it is slowly drifting to the surface.

On a side note don’t you find it ridiculous that Lynch and ‘Raping Bill Clinton’ had an accidental meeting on a tarmac that went on for around 40 minutes as they discussed each other’s families???? That is about as believable as Hilary destroying 30,000 emails about yoga and restaurant reservations :lbf::lbf::lbf::lbf:
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
Believe it or not C4 News have had the brass neck to claim they have had to call in security analysts because of the “violence and misogyny” of some of the comments on the above.

I’ve chuckled along and read a couple of hundred comments at random over the last few days. The worst I’ve seen is pointing out the simple fact that Peterson figuratively ripped her to shreds.

For those abroad unaware of Newman she has previous form and C4 News has in recent years become our version of MSNBC.

Milo has an excellent take on this which you can find on YouTube, echoes very much what you are saying.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
I don't believe Milo has ever had an excellent take on anything, the fingers in his ears, shit spouting twat. I'll give him his due though, he is the master at getting his point across in a debate, no way that fucker is ever giving an inch.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
I don't believe Milo has ever had an excellent take on anything, the fingers in his ears, shit spouting twat. I'll give him his due though, he is the master at getting his point across in a debate, no way that fucker is ever giving an inch.
It's all about that these days if someone wants to grab attention. He seems to know about Sweden more than most swedes.

LOL
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
So far it seems to be very much in the sphere of Sean Hannity which sets alarm bells ringing, but there are curious aspects that currently defy easy explanation.

The accidental meeting of Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at an Arizona airport during the election was odd, and the FBI’s announcement of their having lost evidence from two major figures involved in the matter is also curious. In between there are other aspects from which an unkind commentator might draw negative conclusions.
It was very interesting so thank you for posting it.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
I don't believe Milo has ever had an excellent take on anything, the fingers in his ears, shit spouting twat. I'll give him his due though, he is the master at getting his point across in a debate, no way that fucker is ever giving an inch.
Then I’m afraid you’re letting your prejudice get in the way of learning a bit more about his take on things. I suggest you pop on to YouTube and listen to his recent piece on Peterson as well as his take on Oprah’s speech at the Globes and you might be pleasantly surprised. You may not agree with all of it (I don’t) but there are parts that are geu8nelly thought provoking and well reasoned.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
Then I’m afraid you’re letting your prejudice get in the way of learning a bit more about his take on things. I suggest you pop on to YouTube and listen to his recent piece on Peterson as well as his take on Oprah’s speech at the Globes and you might be pleasantly surprised. You may not agree with all of it (I don’t) but there are parts that are geu8nelly thought provoking and well reasoned.
I'm genuinely not interested in the trouble that him and his divisive kind want to stir up. I'm not. The thoughts he provokes in me are wanting to give him a slap.

Half truths passed as 'facts' as he calls them. The man is a two bit cunt that is good at getting his message across to the easily hoodwinked.

I've no urge to see us lurch to the far right, the far left or any other place. Keep taking that Breitbart shit on board and see where it leads. I guarantee it won't lead to anything good.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
Then I’m afraid you’re letting your prejudice get in the way of learning a bit more about his take on things. I suggest you pop on to YouTube and listen to his recent piece on Peterson as well as his take on Oprah’s speech at the Globes and you might be pleasantly surprised. You may not agree with all of it (I don’t) but there are parts that are geu8nelly thought provoking and well reasoned.
Yeah, I must say that I always found people interesting that I did not agree with cause with time most views seem to make some sort of sense.

Milo like me just hates when those in power wanna bash us all in the head with a giant hammer and force us to accept the common belief that is of course full of lies.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
I'm genuinely not interested in the trouble that him and his divisive kind want to stir up. I'm not. The thoughts he provokes in me are wanting to give him a slap.

Half truths passed as 'facts' as he calls them. The man is a two bit cunt that is good at getting his message across to the easily hoodwinked.

I've no urge to see us lurch to the far right, the far left or any other place. Keep taking that Breitbart shit on board and see where it leads. I guarantee it won't lead to anything good.
See that's where I find the great shame in attempting to have discussions with those on the Left. The ad hominem attack means I don't have to listen to anything he says. How can we build bridges if we aren't prepared to contest the marketplace of ideas, even if we find them unpalatable? I assumed that we have argued/debated respectfully enough in the past that if I suggested you check something out you might avail yourself of that advice if only to further the debate in our mutual attempt to find common ground. I certainly know that if you were to send something my way, I would check it out regardless because I am interested in ALL ideas, good, bad and otherwise, and who knows, I might genuinely find something within that opens my mind to a point of view I hadn't considered before. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

As for Milo, his new daily show is actually pretty good, the views are pretty much mainstream conservative and he is not so much playing the provocateur that he does in his live speeches and interviews. Some of his Conservative positions are well thought out and articulated clearly.

I'll put the two links down below in the hopes that you may change your mind. try watching them with an open mind.



 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
See that's where I find the great shame in attempting to have discussions with those on the Left. The ad hominem attack means I don't have to listen to anything he says. How can we build bridges if we aren't prepared to contest the marketplace of ideas, even if we find them unpalatable? I assumed that we have argued/debated respectfully enough in the past that if I suggested you check something out you might avail yourself of that advice if only to further the debate in our mutual attempt to find common ground. I certainly know that if you were to send something my way, I would check it out regardless because I am interested in ALL ideas, good, bad and otherwise, and who knows, I might genuinely find something within that opens my mind to a point of view I hadn't considered before. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

As for Milo, his new daily show is actually pretty good, the views are pretty much mainstream conservative and he is not so much playing the provocateur that he does in his live speeches and interviews. Some of his Conservative positions are well thought out and articulated clearly.

I'll put the two links down below in the hopes that you may change your mind. try watching them with an open mind.



At what point is it acceptable to stop paying attention to somebody after you've realized they're an idiot? Straight away, never?

Is there any point in watching those links when I have no context with which to watch them? I can tell by the front of both of them that I have no idea what the original stories are. Aside from knowing Milo, like every other time I've heard him talk will leave much of the subject to one side to suit his own narrative and not budge one inch from where he started.

I think I'm fairly central to be honest, I just don't care for shit talking half truth idiots. For the same reason I don't bother with Breitbart, I don't bother with the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, ITV News, Fox, I'm sure you get the point. I do read the Times though which is probably right leaning but has all things covered.

Anything Milo says can be ripped apart in five minutes, just like that other spouting twat Katie Hopkins. Honestly, if you want to get your information from those sources and think you're getting something from them knock yerself out. I'll keep my sources to things which at least attemp to be factual instead of having a child like simplicity where their thinking on a subject stops at the point where the subject makes sense to them. The man is an idiot, but granted a very convincing idiot.
 
Last edited:

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
I'll keep my sources to things which at least attemp to be factual instead of having a child like simplicity where their thinking on a subject stops at the point where the subject makes sense to them.
Fair enough, Charlie. You’ve given a slew of sources you reject and one you use, but what are the others? Unless we know those you regularly use it is hard to determine their veracity.

What we are suffering from at the moment, in my opinion, is that we as a species haven’t yet come to terms with the internet. Its power and influence might take another couple of generations to fully integrate itself into our civilisation. I’m holding in my hand a device that is not only playing me Radio 4 while I’m on a train into London, it is allowing me to communicate directly with you instantaneously and, oh, by the way, when I press send, I can, if I wish, immediately access the entire accumulated knowledge of the whole of human history for free. The magnitude of that advance is still stunning. No wonder we can occasionally struggle.

Along with its brilliance however comes advantages and disadvantages which depend on you personal beliefs. If Fox News told me the sky was blue I would instinctively look out the window to check. The thing is, and here’s the rub, it’s bec9me ever more clear through Brexit, then Trump, and the advance of parties such as the AfD in Germany, that news sources with hitherto unblemished reputations are at it too. When Jon Sopel tells me on BBC News every night what a terrible human being Donald Trump is - and he does - I think to myself, “Jon, that’s your opinion. You’re paid to tell me the news, not what you think of the news.” This ever less subtle change in the way our news is presented to us is driving people away from partisan halfwits like Sopel, Don Lemon or Greg Gutfeld and off into the recesses of the internet, a medium still in its infancy. There are many reasons I love my girlfriend. One of them, and I’m not joking, is she thinks the earth is flat, and not only can she espouse irrefutable evidence over several hours if pushed she also dreams, should we be blessed, of home schooling our children. Yeah, right, that’ll happen.

It’s easy for the talking heads on the news channels to point at the internet as the problem, but they need to look closer to home. Rolling news is the problem. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that they can be first, they can be fast and they can be factual, but rarely can they be all three at the same time. As I’ve said here before it is the single most dangerous invention of the 20th Century, and I include the AK47 and the hydrogen bomb.
 
Top Bottom