Baxter Parp Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, banana said: Links (you'll find plenty), from The Express or Breitbart (you'll find none), chop chop. Alright, the most trustworthy news organisations are...? I'm not trawling through your posts, sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Why doesn't Trump call for a thorough investigation into the claims made and make it as public as possible? Allow every enemy going to throw as much shit at him as possible and if the major accusations (i.e. being funded with a clear intent of Russian influence in disrupting US democracy) cannot be proven - he gets the chance to sweep the deck and look relatively popular. I don't really think Buzzfeed should have published it though. The story stinks badly and will never be able to be verified. I imagine that if every intelligence report ever created was made public, there would be quite a lot of nonsense contained. Every billionaire is probably going to have extensive relations with a nation like Russia and have Russian money involved in their business ventures somewhere but the focus should be on some of his appointees who it is as clear as day are susceptible to influence and otherwise dodgy b*****ds. It's incredible that his own campaign chairman was laundering money secretly from other governments (Russia) to pressure groups in DC and it wasn't that big of an issue when the story broke. He's now back advising in a senior capacity and no one seems to have noticed. That is one of quite a few who it would have been unthinkable to have such influence a few years ago. I get that the Democrats (and every US government) of recent years have had corrupt personalities involved and interests that have been counter productive to the American people (the Israel lobby for example) but it's quite incredible how the response to that sort of influence being exposed is to elect an administration which seems to take pride in having so many scandals and despicable characters that people can't attack them because they don't know where to begin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, Baxter Parp said: Alright, the most trustworthy news organisations are...? I'm not trawling through your posts, sorry. So you admit you're making shit up as you go along, and refuse to check sources. Splendid stuff as usual, Mr Parp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, banana said: Quite the studmuffin tbf... Ugh, sorry, I didn't realise you were such a blatant troll. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 To be fair, the Guardian's investigative journalism is still pretty highly thought of, even if they do focus on issues appealing to those to the left. Its just half their writers that contribute to the opinion section that talk utter shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Not really related but the most fash place on the internet is the Guardian comments section. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Ugh, sorry, I didn't realise you were such a blatant troll. Phwoarrrr 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermik Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Does that make you want to piss on him even if he wasn't on fire? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, supermik said: Does that make you want to piss on him even if he wasn't on fire? Do you think he likes being pissed on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Do you think he likes being pissed on? How does it feel when the only posters siding with you on here are absolute arseholes like Hannibal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, banana said: Do you think he likes being pissed on? Not at all. According to the best information available he likes watching prostitutes pissing on a bed Mr and Mrs Obama slept on. Presumably he has a chug in the corner to stay away from the nasty germs. Edited January 12, 2017 by welshbairn Gender reassignment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest Saints Fan Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 America elected a guy who tweets this shit. Worse than any golden shower pish... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, pandarilla said: How does it feel when the only posters siding with you on here are absolute arseholes like Hannibal? I already told you in our long conversation about Feminism a year or so back, I'm not responsible for anyone's posts or opinions or sources for those opinions but my own. I assumed this association fallacy was a pretty straight-forward thing that was put to bed - Hitler was an animal-loving vegetarian, George Washington owned slaves, etc. I've only recognised Hannibal in the last day or so, so I can't comment on whether he's an 'absolute arsehole' or not. Why do you think that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Not at all. According to the best information available he likes watching prostitutes pissing on a bed Mrs and Mrs Obama slept on. Presumably he has a chug in the corner to stay away from the nasty germs. Odds on that somewhere in LA this is being pornscripted right now. EDIT: upvoted for your edit note Edited January 12, 2017 by banana 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I already told you in our long conversation about Feminism a year or so back, I'm not responsible for anyone's posts or opinions or sources for those opinions but my own. I assumed this association fallacy was a pretty straight-forward thing that was put to bed - Hitler was an animal-loving vegetarian, George Washington owned slaves, etc. I've only recognised Hannibal in the last day or so, so I can't comment on whether he's an 'absolute arsehole' or not. Why do you think that? Because my judgment is pretty reasonable.I didn't say you were responsible for other views. I just asked how you felt. Your point about association fallacy only works if every other animal loving vegetarian was a genocidal maniac. The vast, vast majority of the bampots on here are right wing in their politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: Not at all. According to the best information available he likes watching prostitutes pissing on a bed Mr and Mrs Obama slept on. Presumably he has a chug in the corner to stay away from the nasty germs. Urine is sterile in a healthy person anyway. He'd be fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooky Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Concerned that Linda may have something on Trump that involves lobster and a compromising position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Hannibal is a stand up guy of respectable standing with a low tolerance for left wing snowflake twats. That's good to know petal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, pandarilla said: Because my judgment is pretty reasonable. I didn't say you were responsible for other views. I just asked how you felt. Your point about association fallacy only works if every other animal loving vegetarian was a genocidal maniac. The vast, vast majority of the bampots on here are right wing in their politics. That's not how association fallacy works, almost the opposite. Your question is how do I feel that some other people who you've valued judged as being 'bampots' (without outlining why they are bampots, and I specifically asked why) seem to have some crossover with a small subset of my opinions. I hope you can see how ludicrous a framing you're going with, if not I can clarify. I also suspect to a significant degree you think they are bampots because they are right-wing in their politics rather than independently of their politics. To answer directly, I'd say the majority of people avoid being openly associated with those who the majority think are e.g. 'bampots', for various reasons (social stigma, ostracism, political correctness, etc.). The powerful anonymity of the ballot box tells a different story, as we've seen in the last year or so. I personally mostly couldn't give a f**k, hence my posts. Edited January 13, 2017 by banana 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.