Naked Trump

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:

In all seriousness it is true, you have received some abuse and you really have never deserved it.  I know I shout at you in the mod section occasionally because I'm a grumpy cow, but I think you're a top Scot.

And you haven't even seen under my kilt.

Handy Andy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:

In all seriousness it is true, you have received some abuse and you really have never deserved it.  I know I shout at you in the mod section occasionally because I'm a grumpy cow, but I think you're a top Scot.

And you haven't even seen under my kilt.

Its gruesome.

Irn Bru wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I think we should all absolutely avoid voting for the left again. If Sassy and HA are representative of the attitude and morals existing therein. If they can,with clear conscience,state publicly here that they wish debilitating illness at best on a foreign politician,what hidden attitude is prevalent within that odious party towards those of us who hold contrary view points?
Gulags/gas chambers for non card carrying  folk?

I consider myself a ‘leftie’ and If you think that it’s only ‘lefties’ that can come out with wishing ill health on people then let me put you right.

I’ve had a poster who is a member of this very forum who has said in the past ‘I hope you die in agony like that decrepit old Scotsman you called Daddy.'

I had a poster tell me that they wished cancer on me and that they would deny me the drugs to treat it and laugh as they watched me wither away and die.

I had a poster who told me that my mother should have been slapped and punished for giving birth to me.

I had a poster tell me how much he loved seeing Thatcher rip the miners including the men and a couple of kids who died picking coal from a pit bing just to try and keep warm.

They were all right wing and the last two were by someone who you described as your old mucker.

The first one was from someone who runs a forum close by and the second one was from a poster of that forum although the were not as far as I know repeated on there. I believe you may have visited there recently which is of course your choice and nothing wrong with that.

There’s a lot more and I’m not even a public figure just a guy on the internet sharing my views so what does that say about the RW?

It says to me that there are foul characters on all sides...surprise surprise....but ATM its certain lefties standing on pedestals with claims to big morals who are doing the dirty.... and...whlst the right are in some cases not much better...it seems to me they do so with the expectation that they will get a whipping for it....it is significant that its generally (with one exception) the left that are crying all over my inbox....

As far as Thatcher is concerned just remember she died a natural death living at the Ritz and that she was no Princess Diana but she was given a funeral to match some of which was paid for with taxpayers money. Parliament was recalled and MPs who were scattered around the globe were able to return with all their expenses paid for by the taxpayer, which included going back to their holiday destinations. They were brought back to sit in the House of Commons to listen and offer all their glowing tributes to her.

And whilst all these celebrations of her death and tributes were going on, much of it under the state chandeliers, those in the communities that were ripped apart and ravaged by her policies had to just accept it. It was like a kick in the teeth to them so they celebrated in their own way being that she was public figure not a private person.

The only person in the House of Commons that day that I can remember to tell it like it was and speak for those that suffered was Glenda Jackson.

I never celebrated her death and I didn’t agree with partying and celebrating it by whoever it was but would I condemn the communities for doing what they did?

Fat chance that.

my attitude almost entirely...but again IRN here YOU fall into the same trap of duality

you say the part in blue but then you say the part in red...contradictory ...you either disagree with it (and thus condemn it) or you dont (and thus condone it)
you cant have it both ways
MY take on it is that I dissagree with how they behaved (and thus condemn it) BUT I DO iunderstand why they would feel that way (and thus my condemnation is mitigated and limited
i.e. It goes from being "they were pure evil for doing this" to "they should really have known better and it was uncivilised but......."
It does NOT however make me take the view like HA and co....that they were justified and right to do so......
THERIN lies the difference....

As far as Trump is concerned, just remember, when you hear the sound of the Goosesteps it’s already too late.

and what has that got to do with it...

lets just consider its a very short step, both personally and politically from "i wish that bastard was dead" to saying "I'm going to kill that bastard" to then saying "YESSSSS I killed that bastard" (or in the case of politics saying ...you, my military...go kill that bastard)
all that restricts one from the other is civility and failing that lack of means/courage..... and...that is a neutral POV too....the rightness of it depends on many things...

however to me it is a form of mental sickness to "wish death/illness upon someone...that says more about the person making such a wish than it does about their target.....Unless of course one has a very personal and burning reason to...I mean I wouldnt condemn a rape victim for wishing the worst hell has to ofer upon her rapist...but its NOT up to me you or anyone else NOT involved directly to do so.....

eddie wrote:Scots and their sporrans

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Scots and their sporrans

My OH says a sporran is there to weigh down the said member, so it doesn't lift the kilt.   They just can't help themselves can they!

Lord Foul wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I think we should all absolutely avoid voting for the left again. If Sassy and HA are representative of the attitude and morals existing therein. If they can,with clear conscience,state publicly here that they wish debilitating illness at best on a foreign politician,what hidden attitude is prevalent within that odious party towards those of us who hold contrary view points?
Gulags/gas chambers for non card carrying  folk?

I consider myself a ‘leftie’ and If you think that it’s only ‘lefties’ that can come out with wishing ill health on people then let me put you right.

I’ve had a poster who is a member of this very forum who has said in the past ‘I hope you die in agony like that decrepit old Scotsman you called Daddy.'

I had a poster tell me that they wished cancer on me and that they would deny me the drugs to treat it and laugh as they watched me wither away and die.

I had a poster who told me that my mother should have been slapped and punished for giving birth to me.

I had a poster tell me how much he loved seeing Thatcher rip the miners including the men and a couple of kids who died picking coal from a pit bing just to try and keep warm.

They were all right wing and the last two were by someone who you described as your old mucker.

The first one was from someone who runs a forum close by and the second one was from a poster of that forum although the were not as far as I know repeated on there. I believe you may have visited there recently which is of course your choice and nothing wrong with that.

There’s a lot more and I’m not even a public figure just a guy on the internet sharing my views so what does that say about the RW?

It says to me that there are foul characters on all sides...surprise surprise....but ATM its certain lefties standing on pedestals with claims to big morals who are doing the dirty.... and...whlst the right are in some cases not much better...it seems to me they do so with the expectation that they will get a whipping for it....it is significant that its generally (with one exception) the left that are crying all over my inbox....

As far as Thatcher is concerned just remember she died a natural death living at the Ritz and that she was no Princess Diana but she was given a funeral to match some of which was paid for with taxpayers money. Parliament was recalled and MPs who were scattered around the globe were able to return with all their expenses paid for by the taxpayer, which included going back to their holiday destinations. They were brought back to sit in the House of Commons to listen and offer all their glowing tributes to her.

And whilst all these celebrations of her death and tributes were going on, much of it under the state chandeliers, those in the communities that were ripped apart and ravaged by her policies had to just accept it. It was like a kick in the teeth to them so they celebrated in their own way being that she was public figure not a private person.

The only person in the House of Commons that day that I can remember to tell it like it was and speak for those that suffered was Glenda Jackson.

I never celebrated her death and I didn’t agree with partying and celebrating it by whoever it was but would I condemn the communities for doing what they did?

Fat chance that.

my attitude almost entirely...but again IRN here YOU fall into the same trap of duality

you say the part in blue but then you say the part in red...contradictory ...you either disagree with it (and thus condemn it) or you dont (and thus condone it)
you cant have it both ways
MY take on it is that I dissagree with how they behaved (and thus condemn it) BUT I DO iunderstand why they would feel that way (and thus my condemnation is mitigated and limited
i.e. It goes from being "they were pure evil for doing this" to "they should really have known better and it was uncivilised but......."
It does NOT however make me take the view like HA and co....that they were justified and right to do so......
THERIN lies the difference....

As far as Trump is concerned, just remember, when you hear the sound of the Goosesteps it’s already too late.

and what has that got to do with it...

lets just consider its a very short step, both personally and politically from "i wish that bastard was dead" to saying "I'm going to kill that bastard" to then saying "YESSSSS I killed that bastard" (or in the case of politics saying ...you, my military...go kill that bastard)
all that restricts one from the other is civility and failing that lack of means/courage..... and...that is a neutral POV too....the rightness of it depends on many things...

however to me it is a form of mental sickness to "wish death/illness upon someone...that says more about the person making such a wish than it does about their target.....Unless of course one has a very personal and burning reason to...I mean I wouldnt condemn a rape victim for wishing the worst hell has to ofer upon her rapist...but its NOT up to me you or anyone else NOT involved directly to do so.....

and on a lighter note...what has the sound of jack boots got to do with it

Its not the jackboots ...its the other shit that comes with them thats the problem
the sound of jackboots (well any marching boots really) is the sound of precision and discipline...nothing wrong with that...

do learn to deconstruct your arguments....

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

No, I wouldn't have him killed.   I'd be cleverer than that.   I'd find enough dirt on him to stop him ever putting his face out in public again.   Because I'm quite sure there is enough.

Well I think there are people doing that already, finding dirt.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well I think there are people doing that already, finding dirt.

I don't think you have to do anything.  I believe he's about to be indicted for two counts of bribery, one of fraud, and one of income tax evasion.  

He has caused his Foundation trust to bribe the attorneys general of Florida, and Texas, to stay out of the Trump University fraud case, which I believe will result in the fraud conviction.  That's two counts.

Then, I believe he will be hit with income tax misuse regarding the trust, and consequently for evasion for unreported income diverted through the trust.  That's violation of the Tax Code.

In fact, I believe Trump is running for President as a calculated move to avoid these inevitable charges.  It gives him a good defense, that it is political.  That's why you don't see his income tax returns...that would spill the whole pot of beans.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think you have to do anything.  I believe he's about to be indicted for two counts of bribery, one of fraud, and one of income tax evasion.  

He has caused his Foundation trust to bribe the attorneys general of Florida, and Texas, to stay out of the Trump University fraud case, which I believe will result in the fraud conviction.  That's two counts.

Then, I believe he will be hit with income tax misuse regarding the trust, and consequently for evasion for unreported income diverted through the trust.  That's violation of the Tax Code.

In fact, I believe Trump is running for President as a calculated move to avoid these inevitable charges.  It gives him a good defense, that it is political.  That's why you don't see his income tax returns...that would spill the whole pot of beans.

So is Clinton squeaky clean or just better at covering her tracks?

Handy Andy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

And you haven't even seen under my kilt.

Its gruesome.

Miffs2 wrote:Thanks Quill, I never understood the private server kerfuffle tbh.
This isn't going to be remembered as a glorious time for American politics its ? The next president will be the one people hated less. That said, at least you get to vote, we got Theresa May whether we liked it or not.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

So is Clinton squeaky clean or just better at covering her tracks?

There has never been any basis in fact that Hillary Clinton has ever done anything against the law.  It's a rumor that Republicans started in 2008, having to do with the attack on Benghazi, which was a CIA outpost.  How that implicates the State Department is another matter, but Republicans tried to say it was somehow Hillary's fault because originally it was reported it was a DOS outpost.  All this and hey...fook, it's a war.  Didn't the Republicans get the memo?  Attacks are expected during a war.  Happens all the time.  Eventually, this was dropped even by the Republican Congress.

Next came these nonsensical emails.  Hillary used a private server for her emails.  Just to say it...it sounds ridiculous.  No law was broken.  It was legal.  She's never sent clandestine materials over her server.  In fact, it was a practice that was done by Republicans Colin Powell and Dr. Rice.  The Republicans point to certain actions, which were there any basis in fact, would look like furtive behavior.  As I've said elsewhere, they build their whole case without any predicate illegality, and have a shit-fit over what they call clandestine behavior.  Hell, I've erased my emails and the police have never cared.  Without the predicate illegal acts, why should they?

Hillary has never broken any law, and they know it.  The Republicans just hope you will gloss over  that part of the narrative and engage the conversation where illegal acts are a foregone conclusion.  

In all cases, there's no there there.

Handy Andy wrote:Did you twitter this info to your mate Trump? The one who reads your messages

Dean wrote:she sent classified documents via her private server which were probably read by foreign powers before the recipients.

Dean wrote:she claimed not to know what C on a document stood for despite receiving training on protocols. she lied about the whole thing several times as leaked documents have shown.
Others have been charged for less than she did.

Dean wrote:http://observer.com/2016/08/did-nsa-try-to-destroy-hillary-clinton/

Worse was what transpired in EmailGate, which witnessed Hillary’s “unclassified” email including reams of very highly classified information—some of it from NSA. The agency is especially unhappy about what I revealed previously in this column, how Top Secret-plus NSA reports wound up being copied verbatim in “personal” emails sent to Clinton by her friend and factotum, Sid Blumenthal, back in 2011.

Dean wrote:Although NSA determined beyond doubt that Blumenthal—who had no position in the Obama administration and did not have active security clearances—somehow got his hands on Top Secret / Special Intelligence NSA assessments only hours after they appeared in classified channels, then retyped them in his personal, unsecured email, which was sent to then-Secretary Clinton.

Dean wrote:Some of the information Blumenthal emailed to Hillary’s “private” server included GAMMA reporting, which as I explained previously, “is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Clinton compromised in another series of her ‘unclassified’ emails.”

The agency was hopping mad about that compromise of its “crown jewel” information, and they were even more displeased that the FBI decided to punt on prosecuting anybody for that notorious incident. “In wartime, we shoot people for compromising GAMMA,”explained an unhappy NSA senior official: “But the FBI was clearly told to look the other way by the White House—so they did.”