The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Brian?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Oh, and it's not just "Art"

https://s30.postimg.org/lala881dd/12345.png

In an AMA reddit she stated Magik could be performed in a private setting. I'm sure the Podesta brothers wouldn't be into that kind of thing though, FRESH SPERM ON EARTHQUAKE NIGHTS while stabbing themselves in the finger is enough for them to handle.

So what? What do you care what adults do in the privacy of their own homes. Once everyone is consenting and no laws are broken, who gives a flying feck.

The government or the media have no business prying into a private home.

Hank Scorpio

Trump won, Hillary lost. Nothing else matters. Try point score all you want when I've already answered the same questions you keep repeating. You're right about John Podesta, he's a stand up guy. If he enjoys playing with blood in occultist rituals he's free to do so. Being so pedantic I just want to reply with garbage but hey I'll try give some of the reasons why I think Hillary lost.

Next time run with someone who isn't receiving illegal money from Qatar and donations from Countries like Saudi Arabia who are funding terrorist groups. Or being involved in deals which ended up selling 20% of US uranium to Russia and receiving donations to the Clinton "Foundation" in return. Or perhaps a candidate that wasn't at fault for four people dying in Benghazi and ignoring hundreds of messages for help, instead emailing Sidney Blumenthal pushing his agenda for financial gain in Libya. A person who let people die to hide the truth of her failings. Someone who was receiving point for point instructions from George Soros instructing her what foreign policy to implement in Albania. A person who's campaign were willing to pay mentally ill people to start fights at Trump rallies.

The fake news line is the most amusing aspect of it all, your candidate had all the fake news MSM outlets shilling for her and she still lost.Not just the cable networks, the major papers too. She received debate questions in advance and had the DNC conspire against Bernie Sanders which eventually led to DWS resigning. She had the DNC writing the questions for Trump interviews on CNN. She even received tip offs from the DoJ during her email hearings, and Slick Willy conspired with the AG on the back of a plane for 45 minutes two days before the email hearings. Somebody who had an email server with no security running in a mom and pop shop putting her nations security at risk because she was running a pay for play operation and wanted to hide it. Somebody who deleted 33,000 emails and then acid washed the server after getting a congressional subpoena.

None of that is fake news is it? It's truth. This thread has gone off topic, I'll leave you all to the bashing of your inferiors.

WinnyThePoo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump won, Hillary lost. Nothing else matters. Try point score all you want when I've already answered the same questions you keep repeating. You're right about John Podesta, he's a stand up guy. If he enjoys playing with blood in occultist rituals he's free to do so. Being so pedantic I just want to reply with garbage but hey I'll try give some of the reasons why I think Hillary lost.

Next time run with someone who isn't receiving illegal money from Qatar and donations from Countries like Saudi Arabia who are funding terrorist groups. Or being involved in deals which ended up selling 20% of US uranium to Russia and receiving donations to the Clinton "Foundation" in return. Or perhaps a candidate that wasn't at fault for four people dying in Benghazi and ignoring hundreds of messages for help, instead emailing Sidney Blumenthal pushing his agenda for financial gain in Libya. A person who let people die to hide the truth of her failings. Someone who was receiving point for point instructions from George Soros instructing her what foreign policy to implement in Albania. A person who's campaign were willing to pay mentally ill people to start fights at Trump rallies.

The fake news line is the most amusing aspect of it all, your candidate had all the fake news MSM outlets shilling for her and she still lost.Not just the cable networks, the major papers too. She received debate questions in advance and had the DNC conspire against Bernie Sanders which eventually led to DWS resigning. She had the DNC writing the questions for Trump interviews on CNN. She even received tip offs from the DoJ during her email hearings, and Slick Willy conspired with the AG on the back of a plane for 45 minutes two days before the email hearings. Somebody who had an email server with no security running in a mom and pop shop putting her nations security at risk because she was running a pay for play operation and wanted to hide it. Somebody who deleted 33,000 emails and then acid washed the server after getting a congressional subpoena.

None of that is fake news is it? It's truth. This thread has gone off topic, I'll leave you all to the bashing of your inferiors.

To be fair when you post conspiracy theories and expect to be taken seriously.

Do you really think thats going to happen?

Anyway can you please define art and tell me how Abramovic catalogue of work isn't considered art?

Why do you have a problem with Clinton using celebrities to endorse her and not Trump?

Where did you get that figure for Jay Z?

oscarBravo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump won, Hillary lost. Nothing else matters.

Sure: if the only thing you care about is Trump winning. If you care about other things, then other things matter.

K-9

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I don't think you regret posting it. I think it's only a touchy subject when your thread backfired and people laughed.
It's not news . It's a conspiracy theory, it's not going to congress.

How is it shallow to bring it up?. Because you took some drugs and came out the other side believing in a conspiracy theory?.

Mod:
The poster requested that thread to be closed, let's leave it there and don't drag it over here.

K-9

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Oh, and it's not just "Art"

https://s30.postimg.org/lala881dd/12345.png

In an AMA reddit she stated Magik could be performed in a private setting. I'm sure the Podesta brothers wouldn't be into that kind of thing though, FRESH SPERM ON EARTHQUAKE NIGHTS while stabbing themselves in the finger is enough for them to handle.

Mod:
Stop with the conspiracy theory stuff, we've a forum on the site to discuss that stuff to your hearts content.

frostyjacks

So I'm guessing the alt-right were behind the Berlin attack and the ambassador assassination? That would be the line of thinking from the surrender-monkeys talking about fighting all hate, both Muslim terrorists and the far right. How can they lump the two into the same pot? I don't recall Trump supporters driving trucks through a crowd of civilians.

I think the penny is starting to drop with people that allowing in a flood of people from a culture that is diametrically opposed to ours isn't such a good idea.

Chips Lovell

I've yet to hear anyone say the alt-right were behind either.

FreudianSlippers

frostyjacks wrote: »

So I'm guessing the alt-right were behind the Berlin attack and the ambassador assassination? That would be the line of thinking from the surrender-monkeys talking about fighting all hate, both Muslim terrorists and the far right. How can they lump the two into the same pot? I don't recall Trump supporters driving trucks through a crowd of civilians.

I think the penny is starting to drop with people that allowing in a flood of people from a culture that is diametrically opposed to ours isn't such a good idea.

I stopped reading at the phrase "surrender-monkeys" personally.

FA Hayek

Just on wiki-leaks, these guys were heroes of the progressives when they were releasing embarrassing inside stories of Bush, the establishment and Co.

However, over the past 12-18 months, the shoe has been on the other foot, whereby they released very embarrassing stuff on the DNC and Clinton. Yet, the progressives were strangely quiet on this.

Look, you are either for full transparency or not. If emails are released about Bush which you feel great about, then you can't turn around years later and moan about it when it happens to Clinton. It just shows up you for a hypocrite, playing for the team not matter what aims the team has.

K-9

Works both ways, people who were up in arms about Obama will not apply the same standards to Trump.

FA Hayek

K-9 wrote: »

Works both ways, people who were up in arms about Obama will not apply the same standards to Trump.

Oh agree! Obama's use of drones is well documented but he get a passes because well, he is Obama. He has also deported more illegal migrants than any president ever. Yet, he wins a Nobel peace prize. Makes total sense.

The problem with politics is that people think its a team sport. They lose the faculty of critical analysis. Trump could do something good, but people will hate regardless. Of course he could do something bad and some people will love him.

People need to start talking to each other in a free and open manner first and foremost.

Professor Moriarty

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh agree! Obama's use of drones is well documented but he get a passes because well, he is Obama. He has also deported more illegal migrants than any president ever. Yet, he wins a Nobel peace prize. Makes total sense.

The problem with politics is that people think its a team sport. They lose the faculty of critical analysis. Trump could do something good, but people will hate regardless. Of course he could do something bad and some people will love him.

People need to start talking to each other in a free and open manner first and foremost.

Chump may well do some good but I expect that to be by chance. People have eyes to see and most people think Chump will be useless at best because of what they see.

K-9

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh agree! Obama's use of drones is well documented but he get a passes because well, he is Obama. He has also deported more illegal migrants than any president ever. Yet, he wins a Nobel peace prize. Makes total sense.

The problem with politics is that people think its a team sport. They lose the faculty of critical analysis. Trump could do something good, but people will hate regardless. Of course he could do something bad and some people will love him.

People need to start talking to each other in a free and open manner first and foremost.

People need to recognise their biases and hypocrisy first. Throwing around slurs and insults at "them", with a complete lack of self awareness doesn't help.

Acceptance leads to recovery!

marienbad

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh agree! Obama's use of drones is well documented but he get a passes because well, he is Obama. He has also deported more illegal migrants than any president ever. Yet, he wins a Nobel peace prize. Makes total sense.

The problem with politics is that people think its a team sport. They lose the faculty of critical analysis. Trump could do something good, but people will hate regardless. Of course he could do something bad and some people will love him.

People need to start talking to each other in a free and open manner first and foremost.

Yeah and you could lead the way , though I won't be holding my breath on that one .

frostyjacks

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I've yet to hear anyone say the alt-right were behind either.

Well the widower of Jo Cox had a pop at Nigel Garage for quite rightly pointing the finger at Merkel. He's connected to the 'Hope not Hate' organisation, which seems to only target pro-white groups and turns a blind eye to Muslim and Jewish extremists.

They're crowdfunding to take legal action against Farage. Would they not be better donating money to actual victims of hate, like those poor souls in Berlin, than just lining the pockets of some shysters and trying to score a cheap political point?

legocrazy505

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well the widower of Jo Cox had a pop at Nigel Garage for quite rightly pointing the finger at Merkel. He's connected to the 'Hope not Hate' organisation, which seems to only target pro-white groups and turns a blind eye to Muslim and Jewish extremists.

They're crowdfunding to take legal action against Farage. Would they not be better donating money to actual victims of hate, like those poor souls in Berlin, than just lining the pockets of some shysters and trying to score a cheap political point?

The reason they are taking legal action is not because Farage gave out about Merkel but because he claimed they had links to extremism.

“Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means.”

The organisation as far as I can see is not set up to tackle Islamic extremism but rather a part of politics which is fuelled by division and hate for people who aren't part of their own gang:

"HOPE not hate exists to provide a positive antidote to the politics of hate. We combine first class research with community organising & grassroots actions to defeat hate groups at elections and to build community resilience against extremism.

Hate is often the consequence of a loss of hope and a political articulation of despair, but given an alternative, especially one that understands and addresses their anger, most people will choose HOPE over hate. Our job is to expose and undermine groups that preach hate, intolerance and division whilst uniting communities around what they have in common.

Building a society that celebrates rather than scapegoats our differences."

ancapailldorcha

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well the widower of Jo Cox had a pop at Nigel Garage for quite rightly pointing the finger at Merkel. He's connected to the 'Hope not Hate' organisation, which seems to only target pro-white groups and turns a blind eye to Muslim and Jewish extremists.

Pro-white groups? You mean Nazis and fascists? You make them sound like victims. Nobody is turning a blind eye to Islamic extremism. Not sure what you mean when you say Jewish extremism.

frostyjacks wrote: »

They're crowdfunding to take legal action against Farage. Would they not be better donating money to actual victims of hate, like those poor souls in Berlin, than just lining the pockets of some shysters and trying to score a cheap political point?

Fair play to them. He's a bigot and a liar and he deserves to be called out on his slanderous accusations. Nobody in the alt-right cares about victims beyond using them for cheap points so let's ditch that pretence please.

Billy86

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pro-white groups? You mean Nazis and fascists? You make them sound like victims. Nobody is turning a blind eye to Islamic extremism. Not sure what you mean when you say Jewish extremism.



Fair play to them. He's a bigot and a liar and he deserves to be called out on his slanderous accusations. Nobody in the alt-right cares about victims beyond using them for cheap points so let's ditch that pretence please.

Actually, that's ignoring the fact that the alt right tend to have possibly the biggest victim complex about themselves out of any political categorisation.

ancapailldorcha

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually, that's ignoring the fact that the alt right tend to have possibly the biggest victim complex about themselves out of any political categorisation.

This doesn't make them victims. It makes them a load of self-pitying, pampered, selfish bigots.

Billy86

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This doesn't make them victims. It makes them a load of self-pitying, pampered, selfish bigots.

Oh absolutely, it's just quite funny (though not necessarily in an amusing sense) in the whole scheme of things.

Widdershins

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well the widower of Jo Cox had a pop at Nigel Garage for quite rightly pointing the finger at Merkel. He's connected to the 'Hope not Hate' organisation, which seems to only target pro-white groups and turns a blind eye to Muslim and Jewish extremists.

They're crowdfunding to take legal action against Farage. Would they not be better donating money to actual victims of hate, like those poor souls in Berlin, than just lining the pockets of some shysters and trying to score a cheap political point?

Brendan Cox..he does not have a good reputation. He was accused of sexual harassment at Save the Children.

Professor Moriarty

Widdershins wrote: »

Brendan Cox..he does not have a good reputation. He was accused of sexual harassment at Save the Children.

Was he found to be innocent or guilty?

legocrazy505

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Was he found to be innocent or guilty?

Neither it seems, there were allegations from women in the organisation and shortly after he resigned along with Justin Forsyth though for "unconnected reasons". They don't really specifically say what these allegations are so honestly not sure I'd call them sexual harassment without question.

"Several of the women complained about inappropriate behaviour by Brendan. When the charity did nothing about it they threatened to make a huge fuss. Shortly afterwards it was announced that Brendan was leaving. Then we heard Justin was going as well."

Professor Moriarty

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Neither it seems, there were allegations from women in the organisation and shortly after he resigned along with Justin Forsyth though for "unconnected reasons".

Allegations but no prosecution and conviction? So he is an innocent man.

legocrazy505

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Allegations but no prosecution and conviction? So he is an innocent man.

Well, Trump settles things like his Trump University scam which makes him get away with it so I wouldn't really want to make a judgement when someone promptly resigns after those things although false allegations seem to be ruining a lot of people's careers recently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298572/New-charity-scandal-Save-Children-executive-quits-women-s-complaints-inappropriate-behaviour.html

I know they aren't a great source, I wouldn't normally use them but it's the only somewhat sane source I found quickly unless you think the following is sane:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=135177

FreudianSlippers

FA Hayek wrote: »

Just on wiki-leaks, these guys were heroes of the progressives when they were releasing embarrassing inside stories of Bush, the establishment and Co.

However, over the past 12-18 months, the shoe has been on the other foot, whereby they released very embarrassing stuff on the DNC and Clinton. Yet, the progressives were strangely quiet on this.

Look, you are either for full transparency or not. If emails are released about Bush which you feel great about, then you can't turn around years later and moan about it when it happens to Clinton. It just shows up you for a hypocrite, playing for the team not matter what aims the team has.

Care to elaborate on the contents of the emails you have particular issue with?

FreudianSlippers

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Well, Trump settles things like his Trump University scam which makes him get away with it so I wouldn't really want to make a judgement when someone promptly resigns after those things although false allegations seem to be ruining a lot of people's careers recently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298572/New-charity-scandal-Save-Children-executive-quits-women-s-complaints-inappropriate-behaviour.html

I know they aren't a great source, I wouldn't normally use them but it's the only somewhat sane source I found quickly unless you think the following is sane:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=135177

Settlement without admission of liability is vastly different to never being charged with or sued for anything.

frostyjacks

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Allegations but no prosecution and conviction? So he is an innocent man.

By that logic, Jimmy Savile was an innocent man.

Professor Moriarty

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Well, Trump settles things like his Trump University scam which makes him get away with it so I wouldn't really want to make a judgement when someone promptly resigns after those things although false allegations seem to be ruining a lot of people's careers recently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298572/New-charity-scandal-Save-Children-executive-quits-women-s-complaints-inappropriate-behaviour.html

I know they aren't a great source, I wouldn't normally use them but it's the only somewhat sane source I found quickly unless you think the following is sane:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=135177

Chump is a clown. I don't take him seriously apart from the damage he might do.

The Mail article quotes only 'insiders' and 'sources' apart from Cox himself who said that the rumours were untrue.

I stopped reading the other website when I read this:
Jo Cox’s murder couldn’t have come at a better time for the Remain campaign. Although there was little sign of blood at the crime scene, coming a week before the referendum her supposed “murder” has given renewed impetus to the Remain campaign. The absence of blood at the scene of Jo Cox’s murder is all the more telling as she is supposed to have been shot and stabbed with a 12 inch blade multiple times. Yet no blood is evident in crime scene photos.

The fact is that Cox was never found guilty of any harassment either by internal investigation or by police. Therefore, he is completely innocent.