Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

1…4849515354…83

Comments

  • #2502
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    BoatMad wrote: »
    and typically leaves them physically broken by 50

    Nonsense, if you look after yourself, ice baths, gym, healthy diet, yoga/pilates, stretching/foam rolling/massage, proper training(block periodisation etc), the only people who end up crocked are lazy bollocks's who think a pint is an appropriate post match meal. There are more people crocked at fifty who have never stepped foot on a rugby pitch, then have played rugby.


  • #2503
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    Nonsense, if you look after yourself, ice baths, gym, healthy diet, yoga/pilates, stretching/foam rolling/massage, proper training(block periodisation etc), the only people who end up crocked are lazy bollocks's who think a pint is an appropriate post match meal. There are more people crocked at fifty who have never stepped foot on a rugby pitch, then have played rugby.

    merely throwing fun at the " rugby mould men" nonsense.


  • #2504
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    BoatMad wrote: »
    merely throwing fun at the " rugby mould men" nonsense.

    Its not nonsense. The amount of pathetic sad sacks passing for men that abound in sanitised and feminised modern society is ridiculous. Your Elliot Rodgers types being the extreme examples.


  • #2505
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    Its not nonsense. The amount of pathetic sad sacks passing for men that abound in sanitised and feminised modern society is ridiculous. Your Elliot Rodgers types being the extreme examples.

    the point is things are often better run in todays "anitised and feminised modern society " then in the past.

    there is no evidence to suggest playing a sport ( for example) makes you a better decision maker.

    if anything we need less machismo in the modern world


  • #2506
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Lurkio


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    Its not nonsense. The amount of pathetic sad sacks passing for men that abound in sanitised and feminised modern society is ridiculous. Your Elliot Rodgers types being the extreme examples.


    http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/79/Laughing_Cat.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070919052017

    Maybe he would have been better off ditching the far right views and "manning up".

    Meanwhile, at the Ranch.......
    "The top ranks of the Republican Party may be coalescing around Donald Trump, but grass-roots conservative activists are still trying to find a way to stop him at the party’s convention in July.
    Angered by Trump’s shifting views on taxes, the minimum wage, national security and how little he discusses social issues, conservatives across the country are studying the party rule book for last-ditch moves they could make when the convention begins in Cleveland."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-conservatives-are-still-plotting-to-stop-trump-at-the-gop-convention/2016/05/16/117166ee-1954-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_last-ditch-610a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


  • #2507
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    Nonsense, if you look after yourself, ice baths, gym, healthy diet, yoga/pilates, stretching/foam rolling/massage, proper training(block periodisation etc), the only people who end up crocked are lazy bollocks's who think a pint is an appropriate post match meal. There are more people crocked at fifty who have never stepped foot on a rugby pitch, then have played rugby.

    Because sports injuries are rare and never act up in old age.

    And this is all coming from some guy sitting on the internet. Real alpha male there :rolleyes:


  • #2508
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Lurkio wrote: »
    http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/79/Laughing_Cat.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070919052017

    Maybe he would have been better off ditching the far right views and "manning up".

    Meanwhile, at the Ranch.......
    "The top ranks of the Republican Party may be coalescing around Donald Trump, but grass-roots conservative activists are still trying to find a way to stop him at the party’s convention in July.
    Angered by Trump’s shifting views on taxes, the minimum wage, national security and how little he discusses social issues, conservatives across the country are studying the party rule book for last-ditch moves they could make when the convention begins in Cleveland."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-conservatives-are-still-plotting-to-stop-trump-at-the-gop-convention/2016/05/16/117166ee-1954-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_last-ditch-610a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

    Its actually hilarious

    a party that has a candidate it doesnt want

    a populist candidate appealing to disposed white voters, running as a republican

    the intellectual wing of the that party horrified as they see a left wing candidate populist , masquerading as a right wing republican

    you couldnt make it up


  • #2509
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Lurkio wrote: »
    Meanwhile, at the Ranch.......
    "The top ranks of the Republican Party may be coalescing around Donald Trump, but grass-roots conservative activists are still trying to find a way to stop him at the party’s convention in July.
    Notice how they are planning to do this; by subverting democracy.
    ...offering to educate delegates on how they can act as free agents, even if the Republican National Committee insists that delegates adhere to the results of their state primary.
    Back in ye olden days, when a delegate had to ride on horseback to Washington, it was accepted that events on the ground could change while he was en route, so he was free to vote whichever way he wanted when he got there. That allowed him the flexibility to respond to events, but he was still expected to respect the mandate insofar as possible that was given to him before he left.

    So this "free agent" plan is not something that would apply in the modern world of instant communication with their home state.
    Trump will turn on these guys, and tear them apart for even suggesting such a sneaky and undemocratic plan.


  • #2510
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    So this "free agent" plan is not something that would apply in the modern world of instant communication with their home state.
    Trump will turn on these guys, and tear them apart for even suggesting such a sneaky and undemocratic plan.

    I think we can rest assured that Trump will be the uncontested candidate and the GOP will have no ability to deny him the candidacy as a result

    The resulting tearing apart of the GOP will be interesting to watch however

    The GOP is inside the Trump event horizon, theres is no escape , and destruction is just a time away


  • #2511
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Lurkio


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I think we can rest assured that Trump will be the uncontested candidate and the GOP will have no ability to deny him the candidacy as a result

    The resulting tearing apart of the GOP will be interesting to watch however

    The GOP is inside the Trump event horizon, theres is no escape , and destruction is just a time away

    ....regardless of who gets in, I think we might be in for at least a bad four years.


  • Advertisement
  • #2512
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Lurkio wrote: »
    ....regardless of who gets in, I think we might be in for at least a bad four years.

    maybe , it can hardly be worse then the last 8


  • #2513
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »
    Because sports injuries are rare and never act up in old age.

    And this is all coming from some guy sitting on the internet. Real alpha male there :rolleyes:
    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.


  • #2514
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    two hours a day before work isnt taxing and doesnt impinge on your day whatsoever.

    it seriously impinges on your sleep time , when you get up already at 7:30 am


  • #2515
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Lurkio


    BoatMad wrote: »
    maybe , it can hardly be worse then the last 8

    Unfortunately they can be indeed. The best case scenario is a Trump that doesn't have a real set of beliefs winning and doing four years of not very much internationally. Worst case is a trump that actually enacts his nonsense and second worst is Hillary, who I fear has a touch of the Thatcher about her. The tone on the middle east from her is not good at all, and I think many may suffer because of it.


  • #2516
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Lurkio


    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 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.


  • #2517
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    BoatMad wrote: »
    The resulting tearing apart of the GOP will be interesting to watch however..
    I doubt it. Once he is the candidate the vast majority will unite behind him against the democrat candidate. The few republicans who defect will be balanced out by the Trump supporters who would normally vote democrat.
    Notice at the meeting he had with Ryan recently. Ryan pretended to be surprised to find that Trump wasn't as a bad as he had previously thought. That is the exact neutral point of the U in a politician's U-turn.


  • #2518
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    recedite wrote: »
    I doubt it. Once he is the candidate the vast majority will unite behind him against the democrat candidate. The few republicans who defect will be balanced out by the Trump supporters who would normally vote democrat.
    Notice at the meeting he had with Ryan recently. Ryan pretended to be surprised to find that Trump wasn't as a bad as he had previously thought. That is the exact neutral point of the U in a politician's U-turn.

    if you read , as I do , conservative blogs, there is a deep hatred of Trump. why?, because deep down ( and not so deep down ) They know Trump is not a conservative , he's a populist that has hijacked the republican party as a road to the presidency. Its why the likes of the Tea party and Ryan are deeply deeply suspicious of the mans conservative credentials ( and they have plenty to be concerned about)

    I suspect Trump is more left wing then Clinton in reality , he's garnering support from disaffected white middle class areas, These people dont care about " deficits " , they care about jobs, lower taxes for middle classes ( and by extension higher ons for rich people ) . They care about schooling and healthcare costs

    Thats a near left wing agenda , if I ever saw one and Trump is fundamentally a populist not a conservative.

    The resulting Trump presidency will be interesting, it might even be popular with the voters, its will tear the heart out of the GOP though

    Have you not thought why the GOP officials want to stop him, they know thats coming


  • #2519
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    Add some growth hormone ...
    I swear by the antler velvet of organically farmed New Zealand stags, harvested by the light of a new moon, myself.
    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 wasn't a fair fight. The Polish lads were heavily outnumbered by the scrotes ;)


  • #2520
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I suspect Trump is more left wing then Clinton in reality , he's garnering support from disaffected white middle class areas, These people dont care about " deficits " , they care about jobs, lower taxes for middle classes ( and by extension higher ons for rich people ) . They care about schooling and healthcare costs

    Thats a near left wing agenda , if I ever saw one and Trump is fundamentally a populist not a conservative.
    I agree. But at the end of the day, what the GOP care about most is winning.
    The purpose of the fat cat lobbyists is to finance the campaign costs. The fancy campaign garners populist support. If Trump already has populist support and can part-fund his own campaign, that just makes the win cheaper.


  • Advertisement
  • #2521
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    recedite wrote: »
    I agree. But at the end of the day, what the GOP care about most is winning.
    The purpose of the fat cat lobbyists is to finance the campaign costs. The fancy campaign garners populist support. If Trump already has populist support and can part-fund his own campaign, that just makes the win cheaper.

    I dont believe so, otherwise they wouldn't be trying desperately to stop Trump. long after Trump has won and the costs are long forgotten, the GOP will be tearing itself apart as it realises it was used as a trojan horse to elect a populist politician , that will enhance big government, significantly raise the deficit and implement a popular "populist" policy platform , all in the name of the republican party.

    the funding is irrelevant


  • #2522
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #2523
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2524
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2525
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2526
    Lurkio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2527
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2528
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2529
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭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/


  • #2530
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2531
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭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 [...]


  • Advertisement
  • #2532
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,964 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2533
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,823 ✭✭✭✭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'.


  • #2534
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


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

    Scrap the cap!



  • #2535
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2536
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,823 ✭✭✭✭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/


  • #2537
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2538
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2539
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #2540
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2541
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2542
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2543
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭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?


  • #2544
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2545
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2546
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2547
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2548
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2549
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2550
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2551
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement