Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes but the current cult of personality didn't have the backing of nascar and jesus and soldier of fortune on his side. That's why he's screwing everything up.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:JANE COWAN: In an interview on CNN that had host Candy Crowley with a look of disbelief on her face throughout, Trump outlined his approach to Libya.

DONALD TRUMP: Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all.

CANDY CROWLEY: You'd just take their oil?

DONALD TRUMP: Absolutely. I'd take the oil. I'd give them plenty so they can live very happily. I would take the oil. You know, in the old days, …

CANDY CROWLEY: Wait, we can't go …

DONALD TRUMP: In the old days when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours.

I have an uncle that talks nonsense almost that exact same nonsense when he's drunk.

Guitardian wrote:Yes but the current cult of personality didn't have the backing of nascar and jesus and soldier of fortune on his side. That's why he's screwing everything up.

Well, not NASCAR at least.

He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.

sebster wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:JANE COWAN: In an interview on CNN that had host Candy Crowley with a look of disbelief on her face throughout, Trump outlined his approach to Libya.

DONALD TRUMP: Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all.

CANDY CROWLEY: You'd just take their oil?

DONALD TRUMP: Absolutely. I'd take the oil. I'd give them plenty so they can live very happily. I would take the oil. You know, in the old days, …

CANDY CROWLEY: Wait, we can't go …

DONALD TRUMP: In the old days when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours.

I have an uncle that talks nonsense almost that exact same nonsense when he's drunk.

Perhaps that's how we should do all the candidate interviews, at closing time after a night on the lash, whilst they are slumped against the bar and repeating themselves and telling the landlord they 'love you like a bruther man, yur me best mate!'

I bet serious cash Bachmann is an absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto... 'oh lookit tha, me bra strap's fallin orf, be a gent and 'itch it back up love.. oooh, ain't you got strong 'ands... *hic*'

What a horrible mental picture.

Agreed. Won't sleep right for a week now!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Yes but the current cult of personality didn't have the backing of nascar and jesus and soldier of fortune on his side. That's why he's screwing everything up.

Well, not NASCAR at least.

He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.

Do tell. which militants would those be?

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.

Do tell. which militants would those be?

Mostly former-terrorists-turned-college-professors. Although I'm sure the ELF et al are on his side.

Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."

Way to raise the bar guys.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.

Do tell. which militants would those be?

Mostly former-terrorists-turned-college-professors. Although I'm sure the ELF et al are on his side.

Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."

Way to raise the bar guys.

So now Dorn and Ayers are a Militia? Proof? any proof to the ELF claim as well?

How's about we link him to the ETA?

biccat wrote:Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."

Way to raise the bar guys.

Cripes, after that much (not sure what a Dirty Vimto is) who wouldn't be?

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.

Do tell. which militants would those be?

Mostly former-terrorists-turned-college-professors. Although I'm sure the ELF et al are on his side.

Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."

Way to raise the bar guys.

So now Dorn and Ayers are a Militia? Proof? any proof to the ELF claim as well?

Militant, not militia.

Are you seriously suggesting there are no left-wing terrorists/militants? While ELF might be a poor example (honestly, I haven't heard anything from them in a few years), they're certainly a left-wing group. But then again, I don't know if I could name a specific right-wing militant group that specifically supported Bush, as the above poster alluded to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

biccat wrote:Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."

Way to raise the bar guys.

Cripes, after that much (not sure what a Dirty Vimto is) who wouldn't be?

Pelosi.

Like a sandpaper jock strap.

I think the inability of anybody to name a left wing militant group that's actually done anything in the last 30 years seems to imply that they're pretty rare.

Not that right wing groups do anything either. From what I remember seeing of the Michigan Milita growing up in the 90's they were basically LARPers with live ammo.

Polonius wrote:I think the inability of anybody to name a left wing militant group that's actually done anything in the last 30 years seems to imply that they're pretty rare.

Not that right wing groups do anything either. From what I remember seeing of the Michigan Milita growing up in the 90's they were basically LARPers with live ammo.

I know you're referring to groups within the USA, but could the ETA be seen as left-wing?

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:He's got plenty of support from religious people and militants.

Do tell. which militants would those be?

Mostly former-terrorists-turned-college-professors. Although I'm sure the ELF et al are on his side.

Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."

Way to raise the bar guys.

So now Dorn and Ayers are a Militia? Proof? any proof to the ELF claim as well?

Militant, not militia.

Are you seriously suggesting there are no left-wing terrorists/militants? While ELF might be a poor example (honestly, I haven't heard anything from them in a few years), they're certainly a left-wing group. But then again, I don't know if I could name a specific right-wing militant group that specifically supported Bush, as the above poster alluded to.

No, i'm seiously asking you to prove the link to Obama and the groups you site. just because they exhist, they're working for President Obama? Really?

and you've mentioned 2 so-called militants. where is the rest of the masses?

alarmingrick wrote:No, i'm seiously asking you to prove the link to Obama and the groups you site. just because they exhist, they're working for President Obama? Really?

and you've mentioned 2 so-called militants. where is the rest of the masses?

I said "militants" and I established the truthfulness of the argument. I admit that the ELF hasn't been active for a while, so I'll withdraw that part.

The original poster I was responding to implied that militants were an exclusive right-wing phenomenon. If you're interested in having this discussion, please substantiate this claim.

biccat wrote:Although, I find it terribly amusing that the moderators are OK with calling Michelle Bachman an "absolute whore after 9 Baileys and a Dirty Vimto."

Way to raise the bar guys.

Really, you've just now decided that jokes about public figures aren't okay? I mean, did you think what would happen if such a rule into place? Half the board would be banned in the first week for their attacks on Jervis Johnson.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Are you seriously suggesting there are no left-wing terrorists/militants?

No, just questioning your silly claim that any such group supported Obama. The logic behind which seems to be that they exist, they're on the left wing, everything on the left is all one giant group, therefore they support Obama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The original poster I was responding to implied that militants were an exclusive right-wing phenomenon. If you're interested in having this discussion, please substantiate this claim.

No he didn't. He said that soldiers of fortune were on Bush's side, and well, I don't think it's a particularly outlandish claim that the militia groups that go wandering around the backwoods playing army games on weekends are going to be more aligned with Republicans than Democrats.

Meanwhile, you're claiming Obama got plenty of support from militants, which you really haven't substantiated in any way.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:No, i'm seiously asking you to prove the link to Obama and the groups you site. just because they exhist, they're working for President Obama? Really?

and you've mentioned 2 so-called militants. where is the rest of the masses?

I said "militants" and I established the truthfulness of the argument. I admit that the ELF hasn't been active for a while, so I'll withdraw that part.

The original poster I was responding to implied that militants were an exclusive right-wing phenomenon. If you're interested in having this discussion, please substantiate this claim.

biccat wrote:You "win" at arguments by shouting down and insulting other posters, with little to no regard for their responses, it's just another chance for you to belittle and attack them.

It glorious that you can completely shut down biccat by quoting him back at himself.

sebster wrote:Really, you've just now decided that jokes about public figures aren't okay? I mean, did you think what would happen if such a rule into place? Half the board would be banned in the first week for their attacks on Jervis Johnson.

There's a difference between making a political joke and calling a female politician a "whore." If such a label had been thrown around about her lobbying activities or something, it might be legitimate. But in the context it was given, it's misogynist.

sebster wrote:He said that soldiers of fortune were on Bush's side, and well, I don't think it's a particularly outlandish claim that the militia groups that go wandering around the backwoods playing army games on weekends are going to be more aligned with Republicans than Democrats.

Man, that totally makes sense.

sebster wrote:The logic behind which seems to be that they exist, they're on the left right wing, everything on the left right is all one giant group, therefore they support Obama Bush.

Oh wait, no, it doesn't.

I'm done responding to your inconsistent posts. Welcome to the ignore list.

Bookrack wrote:It glorious that you can completely shut down biccat by quoting him back at himself.

Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.

Meh, Trump is just another nutjob. The only difference is that he's got money so that means he gets to be a presidential candidate.

Either that or he's just playing the other nutjobs and laughing all the way to the bank as he gets sponsors and donaters to give him money he doesn't need.

edit: Oh, and yes, all birthers are nutjobs. Yes you are. You're just like the damn truthers, claiming that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Birthers are EXACTLY like them. Conspiracy nuts one and all.

I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.

You need only look at the Green party to see that many left wingers have distanced themselves from the Democrats, and no longer see them as a viable option. I can't really find much data on the subject, but I contend that right-wing militancy is simply less radical than left wing, and is more likey to include supporters of mainstream candidates.

Meaning, when you start talking violence among lefties, you're pulling from a group that generally isn't big into militria. while right wing groups natrually blend into hunting groups, gun clubs, veterans groups, etc. I'm not saying all or any of those groups are militants, but it's hard to tell which guys holding guns and wearing camo are militants and which ones are a gun club.

Here's an interesting article on domestic terroirism:

http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/militant-extremists-united-states/p9236

Essentially, left wing militants were the biggest threat during the late cold war, but right wing or single issue threats have now surpassed them in terms of threat level.

biccat wrote:
There's a difference between making a political joke and calling a female politician a "whore." If such a label had been thrown around about her lobbying activities or something, it might be legitimate. But in the context it was given, it's misogynist.

I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".

Polonius wrote:but I contend that right-wing militancy is simply less radical than left wing

Not so much that, as much as we are already a very right-wing leaning nation to begin with, so they appear more mainstream.

biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.

Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...

I mean seriously, hypocricy much?

You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.

You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?

[EDIT]: Misogynist is the noun, the word you wanted was "misogynistic"

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.

Why not? The only difference suggested between the two groups is right vs. left. Without more, saying that right-wing militias support Bush while left-wing militants don't support Obama is inconsistent.

On the topic of left-wing violence, recall Norman Leboon. Or Kenneth Gladney? Erik Pidrman? Vanalism of Republican offices (there are lots of examples of this)? And here are some regular, garden-variety death threats.

dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".

For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.

While the personal arguments are amusing, can we talk about some random big business conspiracy nut instead?

I mean, this thread IS about Trump, isn't it?

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.

Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...

So, you'll agree that Bookwrack's (apologies for misspelling his name in my other post) comment was incorrect? Because now you're the one moving the goalposts. His claim was that I was "shouting down and insulting other posters." Now, the new claim is that I'm "moving the goalposts."

If you're going to respond to my post, then respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Goliath wrote:You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.

I assume you mean "repudiations," since I assume you're not being ironic. I ignored sebster's "refudiations" because he thinks that personal attacks are a valid debate technique. I think that he's wrong, and honestly, I don't want to read more of his insulting drivel.

Goliath wrote:You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?

The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum. No one else seemed even moderately phased by the comment, so I guess it's open season on female politicians. I'm simply rising to the level of discourse that is provided.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".

For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.

Which part? The comparison of lecher (a person who indulges in an inordinate amount of sex, male connotation) and whore (a person who is either promiscuous or immoral, female connotation), or the bit about misogyny (hatred of women)?

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.

Why not? The only difference suggested between the two groups is right vs. left. Without more, saying that right-wing militias support Bush while left-wing militants don't support Obama is inconsistent.

Hmm, it's odd that I would make a statment and not explaint my point...

Oh wait....

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's terribly inconsistent to argue that right wing militias/militants, which are reasoanbly well organized and have/had decent numbers, supported Bush in a way that the few (if any) militant left wing groups did not support Obama.

You need only look at the Green party to see that many left wingers have distanced themselves from the Democrats, and no longer see them as a viable option. I can't really find much data on the subject, but I contend that right-wing militancy is simply less radical than left wing, and is more likey to include supporters of mainstream candidates.

Meaning, when you start talking violence among lefties, you're pulling from a group that generally isn't big into militria. while right wing groups natrually blend into hunting groups, gun clubs, veterans groups, etc. I'm not saying all or any of those groups are militants, but it's hard to tell which guys holding guns and wearing camo are militants and which ones are a gun club.

The nature of the groups are very different, if no other reason than right wing groups of nearly all stripes consider gun rights important. few left wing groups do. In your post you compare right wing militias to left wing militants. I think that's telling: there are no left wing militias, while there are both right and left wing militants. So saying that a right wing militia is likely to support a republican is not the same as saying a left wing (or right wing) militant supports any given candidate. One is a group organized for some given purpose, the other are much smaller groups or individuals that see the government as being unviable, and force being necessary.

Polonius wrote:Hmm, it's odd that I would make a statment and not explaint my point...

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency issue in sebster's post.

While you have provided some reasoning to support a difference between right and left, I don't think it's necessarily dispositive of the issue.

Left wing anti-war protests (which could get violent) have pretty much dropped off since the 2008 election, despite the continued presence of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Libya).

Either the protesters are getting tired (unlikely), they think that Obama won't listen (not sure how this would be any different than Bush), or they are satisfied with the results of the '08 election.

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the reduction in anti-war violence is due to Obama's election.

Short answer: Some people are going to be crazy regardless of politics. Some people are going to be crazy based on politics regardless of political affiliation. Most people aren't going to be crazy.

The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum

It really is lovely the way that you keep raising this issue. The actual truth of the matter, is of course somewhat more complicated. I would suggest a careful rereading of what was actually said, especially with regards to context.