Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Hotblack Desiato

Lurkio wrote: »

You might pass on some tips to the Identity Ireland people. Certainly they have excellent sprinting ability, but I think they need more time on the weights and generally building themselves up for the ruck.

That's an utterly reprehensible post, and yes I do know who Identity Ireland are.

You might want to study how 'street politics' in the Weimar Republic ended up.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

I swear by the antler velvet of organically farmed New Zealand stags, harvested by the light of a new moon, myself.

That wasn't a fair fight. The Polish lads were heavily outnumbered by the scrotes

True. And we should applaud Identity Ireland for their inclusiveness, if nothing else.

The Randy Riverbeast

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Add some growth hormone and test, continuous joint use and mobility, barring a catastrophic injury in your youth you have no excuse.

Because internet use= obese estrogenic neckbeard :rolleyes: eating healthy and going to the gym for two hours a day before work isnt taxing and doesnt impinge on your day whatsoever.

You "go to" the gym? Im sure the gym is fine for the "men" who take selfies (hashtag gains) but I dont know how people settle for anything less than owning their own equipment.

Shouldnt you be out getting multiple women? Living off the land in he forest? If a man doesnt kill something bigger than himself every day he can hardly call himself a man.

Lurkio

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's an utterly reprehensible post, and yes I do know who Identity Ireland are..

Perhaps, but do you know humour?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You might want to study how 'street politics' in the Weimar Republic ended up.

I only watched the original Star Wars series I'm afraid.

Lurkio

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

You "go to" the gym? Im sure the gym is fine for the "men" who take selfies (hashtag gains) but I dont know how people settle for anything less than owning their own equipment.

Shouldnt you be out getting multiple women? Living off the land in he forest? If a man doesnt kill something bigger than himself every day he can hardly call himself a man.

In fairness some of those meals in Rolys bistro are quite filling.

robindch

Lurkio wrote: »

You might pass on some tips to the Identity Ireland people. Certainly they have excellent sprinting ability, but I think they need more time on the weights and generally building themselves up for the ruck.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's an utterly reprehensible post, and yes I do know who Identity Ireland are. You might want to study how 'street politics' in the Weimar Republic ended up.

OK folks, lighten up a little - Identity Ireland might be little more than a joke in Ireland at the moment, but their idealogical friends and colleagues in many other countries are anything but a joke.

Thanking youze.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

You might pass on some tips to the Identity Ireland people. Certainly they have excellent sprinting ability, but I think they need more time on the weights and generally building themselves up for the ruck.

I agree with you, the main guy needs to seriously start hitting some PR's in the gym if he is to be taken seriously, and get a new haircut and better fitting suits.

The Randy Riverbeast

This is the kind of person Trump supports. while Trump would be gone after 4 years this guy could be there a lot longer.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/trump-scotus-pick-william-pryor-would-have-let-states-jail-lgbt-people-for-having-sex-in-their-homes/

Links234

It gets worse...

Donald Trump To Court Anti-LGBT Hate Groups, 'Prophets' And Televangelists

According to a copy of the invitation to the event obtained by the National Review, Trump will be joined by Religious Right activists including Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Penny Nance, Jim Garlow, Rick Scarborough, Phil Burress, Ken Cuccinelli, Lila Rose, E.W Jackson, Harry Jackson, Tim Wildmon, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and Cindy Jacobs.

The meeting will be cohosted by the Family Research Council, Vision America and AFA Action, the political arm of the American Family Association, three of the most vicious anti-LGBT hate groups in the country.

Trump has already pledged to use nominees to the Supreme Court to pave the way for the reversal of the landmark rulings on abortion rights and marriage equality and has vowed to defund Planned Parenthood, key priorities of right-wing activists.

robindch

North Korea breaks the habit of a lifetime and says something accurate:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-trump-idUSKCN0YE2IZ

North Korean Spokesman, So Se Pyong wrote:

It is up to the decision of my Supreme Leader whether he decides to meet or not, but I think his (Trump's) idea or talk is nonsense [...] There is no meaning, no sincerity [...]

PopePalpatine

Links234 wrote: »

It gets worse...

Donald Trump To Court Anti-LGBT Hate Groups, 'Prophets' And Televangelists

I wonder how he'll pander to them, I'd say it's a close call between reviving his statement that women who have illegal abortions should be imprisoned and transgender bathroom rights.

Igotadose

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder how he'll pander to them, I'd say it's a close call between reviving his statement that women who have illegal abortions should be imprisoned and transgender bathroom rights.

The list is the usual 'movers and shakers' in the Teapublican party - Ralph Reed and the usual cretins. And now, they have a new way to suck money from their followers - fear of transgenders. Trump courting them probably means he's listening a little bit to the RNC and doing what he's told; his type's always just 'following orders'.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm not actually sure if Trump is really trying to get elected, or just destroy the Republican party from within.

The Randy Riverbeast

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm not actually sure if Trump is really trying to get elected, or just destroy the Republican party from within.

Oddly its the Dems that look like to get the most damaged. Reps look to be accepting things as they are and moving on with it.

Igotadose

Interesting read, media piling on the Trumpanzee: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/exclusive-donald-trump-signed-off-deal-designed-to-deprive-us-of/

FA Hayek

Links234 wrote: »

It gets worse...

Donald Trump To Court Anti-LGBT Hate Groups, 'Prophets' And Televangelists

Content aside, anything with the url of rightwingwatch.org should be treated with extra scepticism.

KomradeBishop

FA Hayek wrote: »

Content aside, anything with the url of rightwingwatch.org should be treated with extra scepticism.

Why exactly? If there's a problem with a sources credibility - that problem needs to be explained, or it's just a smear.

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

Content aside, anything with the url of rightwingwatch.org should be treated with extra scepticism.

Unless of course, the website is exactly what it says - a site dedicated to watching what combustible nonsense the right-wing is feeding itself.

Could you elaborate on why it should be treated, from its name alone, as unreliable?

FA Hayek

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why exactly? If there's a problem with a sources credibility - that problem needs to be explained, or it's just a smear.

To take a quote from you

Ad Hominem is a necessity in attacking the credibility of sources in cases like this - and why that is valid, simply as a matter of practicality, in online discussion

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99764570&postcount=1485

Could not say it better myself, unless of course you disagree with it because its ideologically and politically suits your world view in this very instance while in another instance it was the opposite case.

Seems to be a clear cut case of not applying your own rules in assessing sources.
Just saying, is all.

FA Hayek

robindch wrote: »

Unless of course, the website is exactly what it says - a site dedicated to watching what combustible nonsense the right-wing is feeding itself.

Could you elaborate on why it should be treated, from its name alone, as unreliable?

Do you equate its reputation, it's reporting standards and it's credibility with something similar to https://www.jihadwatch.org or http://unionwatch.org on the basis of its name alone? I very much doubt it on the face of it.

These watch dog websites no matter what they are watching, are generally the purveyors of spooks, activists with an ax to grind and cranks with too much time on their hands and the essence of what is wrong with the internet.

Scepticism is healthy in terms of these websites. Thats all.

KomradeBishop

FA Hayek wrote: »

To take a quote from you


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99764570&postcount=1485

Could not say it better myself, unless of course you disagree with it because its ideologically and politically suits your world view in this very instance while in another instance it was the opposite case.

Seems to be a clear cut case of not applying your own rules in assessing sources.
Just saying, is all.

I always back up my credibility-attacking Ad Hominem, with some actual criticism of an organizations credibility - so there is no actual contradiction between my use of Ad Hominem against discreditable organizations, and my criticism of your post.

What you've posted doesn't even rise to the quality of being an Ad Hominem - because you don't seem to actually have a criticism, or reasoning, for what is supposed to be bad about the organization.

KomradeBishop

FA Hayek wrote: »

Do you equate its reputation, it's reporting standards and it's credibility with something similar to https://www.jihadwatch.org or http://unionwatch.org on the basis of its name alone? I very much doubt it on the face of it.

These watch dog websites no matter what they are watching, are generally the purveyors of spooks, activists with an ax to grind and cranks with too much time on their hands and the essence of what is wrong with the internet.

Scepticism is healthy in terms of these websites. Thats all.

That's not skepticism. Skepticism is based upon facts/evidence - or some kind of solid reasoning... - you haven't got that, you're completely lacking a reason for presenting the organization as discreditable.

I've actually gone and looked up Right Wing Watch for a bit, including people associated with it, without being able to find anything discreditable.


This is a lot like when people criticize me for posting links to Naked Capitalism - just because the site is named 'Naked Capitalism' - and the funny thing is, nobody can actually explain in any way, what is meant to be bad about that, or any other kind of criticism of the site.


It took me about 10 seconds, to find out that Jihad Watch is linked to this organization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center#Criticism

It doesn't seem a stretch to portray that as a racist organization, at first glance - that's an actual substantive criticism, not just saying "oh it's name is 'Jihad Watch' - that's bad!...somehow...".


A minute or so of searching shows me that Union Watch is connected to the Koch-funded State Policy Network - and the Koch's are notorious for using their money both to promote outright lies/propaganda, as well as to actually use the purse strings to influence the narrative of organizations - very good reasons to be highly skeptical.

What kind of substantive criticisms and reasons for skepticism, can you show for Right Wing Watch?

JPNelsforearm

The ADL and SPLC are a joke, them deeming something "hateful" is meaningless. Jihadwatch is full of hysterical and misleading coverage, that is why you avoid it, not because some subversive organisation deems to to be un-kosher.

FA Hayek

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I always back up my credibility-attacking Ad Hominem

Eh, no you don't. Hence why its an Ad hominem attack on the source.
Its OK, you would not be the first to admit this but find it funny is all, that you having differing standards because it suits your argument and even excuse it. If you expect others to adhere to your standards in a discussion then at least you could do the same yourself. People will can make up their own minds after a while.

FA Hayek

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not skepticism.
.
..
...
What kind of substantive criticisms and reasons for skepticism, can you show for Right Wing Watch?

See, you go and prove the very point I was making.

Remember, on the face it it I said. I never even mentioned the content of each website, I was talking purely about the name of its URL.

Its no surprise that you took issue with two of the examples I posted, which is fine of course. Yet, you think something named rightwingwatch.org is fine, because I presume you like people watching the right wing, just like other people like watching Islamists or other people like to watch unions.

I repeat what I said, these websites are the purveyors of spooks, activists with an ax to grind and cranks with too much time on their hands. I apply that scepticism to them all in equal measure. I do not pick and choose because it may suit my world view and bias unlike some.

To illustrate the point more, you criticise unionwatch.org for being funded by the Koch brothers, yet don't even mention that rightwingwatch.org is funded by George Soros, another billionaire. How is one ok and the other comes in for criticism.

One billionaire funding a website whom message I agree with - fine and dandy
One billionaire funding a website whom message I do not agree with - treat it with scepticism

Surely people see the double standards here. I am sure you will respond by posting your own reason for your own bias. Koch brothers are bad, evil incarnate and so on. George Soros is an upstanding member of society and so on.

All this will do is prove the bias even more. Which is fine of course, most people are biased nothing really new there but most people don't pass themselves off as neutral with some edifying instructions in how to debate while at the same time engaging debate with inherent bias when it suits the argument. Its all very Catholic Priest lecturing on the pulpit while having a bit on the side-esque.

recedite

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I always back up my credibility-attacking Ad Hominem, with some actual criticism of an organizations credibility...

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It took me about 10 seconds, to find out that Jihad Watch is linked to this organization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center#Criticism

It doesn't seem a stretch to portray that as a racist organization, at first glance - that's an actual substantive criticism, not just saying "oh it's name is 'Jihad Watch' - that's bad!...somehow...".

Is that it?
A different website, possibly connected, possibly not, at first glance might be racist. That seems quite a stretch to me.

KomradeBishop

FA Hayek wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

I always back up my credibility-attacking Ad Hominem

Eh, no you don't. Hence why its an Ad hominem attack on the source.
Its OK, you would not be the first to admit this but find it funny is all, that you having differing standards because it suits your argument and even excuse it. If you expect others to adhere to your standards in a discussion then at least you could do the same yourself. People will can make up their own minds after a while.

Don't quote-mine me. What I said is this:

"I always back up my credibility-attacking Ad Hominem, with some actual criticism of an organizations credibility - so there is no actual contradiction between my use of Ad Hominem against discreditable organizations, and my criticism of your post."

You are directly lying about what I have said, in a deliberate and dishonest way, by stripping your quotation of me out of context.

Yes - I just about always substantiate an Ad Hominem against an organization, with actual criticism, which I usually source some backing and evidence for - as I have done in this discussion, with other sources posters have mentioned.

KomradeBishop

FA Hayek wrote: »

See, you go and prove the very point I was making.

Remember, on the face it it I said. I never even mentioned the content of each website, I was talking purely about the name of its URL.

Its no surprise that you took issue with two of the examples I posted, which is fine of course. Yet, you think something named rightwingwatch.org is fine, because I presume you like people watching the right wing, just like other people like watching Islamists or other people like to watch unions.

I repeat what I said, these websites are the purveyors of spooks, activists with an ax to grind and cranks with too much time on their hands. I apply that scepticism to them all in equal measure. I do not pick and choose because it may suit my world view and bias unlike some.

To illustrate the point more, you criticise unionwatch.org for being funded by the Koch brothers, yet don't even mention that rightwingwatch.org is funded by George Soros, another billionaire. How is one ok and the other comes in for criticism.

One billionaire funding a website whom message I agree with - fine and dandy
One billionaire funding a website whom message I do not agree with - treat it with scepticism

Surely people see the double standards here. I am sure you will respond by posting your own reason for your own bias. Koch brothers are bad, evil incarnate and so on. George Soros is an upstanding member of society and so on.

All this will do is prove the bias even more. Which is fine of course, most people are biased nothing really new there but most people don't pass themselves off as neutral with some edifying instructions in how to debate while at the same time engaging debate with inherent bias when it suits the argument. Its all very Catholic Priest lecturing on the pulpit while having a bit on the side-esque.

Citing merely the name of a website, doesn't actually make any sense as a reason to be skeptical of the website - certainly not in this case anyway.
You are posting as if I took issue with just the names of the two websites you posted - except I went and sourced actual substantive criticism of those websites.

You have done nothing like that. You have provided zero justification for your supposed 'skepticism' - all you've provided is merely FUD.


Ad Hominem's, still have to provide a valid argument, as to why the credibility of a source should be put in question - there are still rules of logical argument, that apply to Ad Hominem's... Your argument doesn't even rise to the point of being a valid Ad Hominem.

You make a lot of smearing claims about the Right Wing Watch website in your post - yet you substantiate none of them. That is not skepticism, that is smearing/FUD - find something to back up your claims, like I do, if you want to have a valid Ad Hominem.


This here, is a direct misrepresentation of what I said - such a deep misrepresentation, that again, it's as good as a lie:

FA Hayek wrote:

One billionaire funding a website whom message I agree with - fine and dandy
One billionaire funding a website whom message I do not agree with - treat it with scepticism

I explicitly explained why the Koch brothers funding is discreditable - and it's nothing to do with them being billionaires, it's to do with the Koch's own discreditable actions over organizations they fund.

Can you show George Soro's pulling purse strings for influence within an organization, or doing any of the other things I criticize the Koch's for?
I don't know a great deal about Soro's - maybe he is discreditable - and it's up to you to prove that; you're doing nothing other than throwing around lazy smears though, which you don't bother to substantiate.


If it's so obvious and easy to show that the organization has discreditable connections, then go find them and post those connections, to prove your argument...

What you're engaging in isn't skepticism or logical argument, it's just variations of rhetoric-based argument; you won't rise from the latter to the former, until you start actually backing up your smears with something to substantiate them.

KomradeBishop

recedite wrote: »

Is that it?
A different website, possibly connected, possibly not, at first glance might be racist. That seems quite a stretch to me.

It's not a different website, that group hosts the website. It took ~10 seconds, to see that that website, is linked to that group, and that that group is linked to racist anti-muslim type views - the founder is David Horowitz.

Here he is describing Palestinians in general as 'morally sick':
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142844#.VSYYHPnF-LU
(trimmed to 40 seconds)

Here's another brief thing he did, describing an organization supporting justice for Palestine as 'Jew Haters':
http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/conservative_activist_david_horowitz_admits_responsibility_for_posters


I did a ~10-second first glance search which gave me that initial (and now fully justified) first impression - now another short but more in-depth search (which anyone else here could have done) throws up the above.

orubiru

FA Hayek wrote: »

One billionaire funding a website whom message I agree with - fine and dandy
One billionaire funding a website whom message I do not agree with - treat it with scepticism

Surely people see the double standards here.

That's the thing. People don't see the double standards.

Even when the double standard is pointed out they will try to rationalise their way around it.

Maybe that's just human nature though. If we were watching the Saturday morning football match and the referee gives a bad decision against our team? It's an absolute outrage and a disgrace. The referee gives a bad decision against the other team? Ah, sure, that's just the way the game goes, isn't it?

Maybe we are all guilty of this to some extent?

This is magnified on the internet because nobody wants to be Wrong On The Internet.