Planet Rugby Forum

paddyor wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:so Zt is now saying no big deal. Facebook is in a bit of trouble for selling ads to a troll farm. That is an issue of inadvertently aiding a foreign entity to meddle in US elections. You then have Kushner bragging about his genius in using social media to help bubblefart win though if you look at the work done, it is impossible for his small team to do it as compared to how vast the Obama digital team was, not to mention IT experts.

Ah DT joining the dots again, whether they're actually there or not.

And I'm not actually SAYING no big deal. I am ASKING what is the big deal. His opponents think it's enough to check a story out there and it's a big deal because Russia.

The fact of the matter is that a year after the DNC "hack" there is still more evidence of collusion between she who must not be named, she lost get over it, and Russia than there is between Trvmp and Russia.

Privately Putin must be delighted. I don't imagine he could have ever dreamed of the extent to which US politics could be disrupted over this.

You're so bad at whataboutery. Not helped by previously claiming Clinton had Seth Rich murdered...now this Russian collusion?

You get it now? The penny's dropped? You've come around to the realisation that Russian meddling in US elections is a bad thing and probably worthy of sanctions?

I have never claimed that Clinton had Seth Rich murdered.

RuggaBugga wrote:

Santa wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

Santa wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote:Shirley

The crime is that of a foreign power ATTEMPTING to influence the outcome of the election.

To be found guilty of that there need be no evidence of effectiveness, only of the attempt.

This is where Santa's straw man is so deeply annoying, demanding something unnecessary.

It's not a straw man you tiny penoid, because what I have argued is narrowly focussed on specific aspect. I have drawn no wider conclusions.

Honestly I am horrified at the level of comprehension on here. My comments have been very specific. All you f.uckers inferring things that I did not say, did not imply and so not believe are utter c.unts. f.uck off.

Perhaps you shouldn't constantly split hairs with your semantically driven, thread derailing bullshit then you fantastically tedious plum.

Look. You don't like or understand what I write? Fine. Put me on ignore. It doesn't bother me. I certainly have nothing to say to you. I've not seen you post a single thing that has been interesting.

You're so misunderstood.

It couldn't possibly be the fact that you're a tedious thread clogging bore or anything...

He's another Silveresque contrarian.

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:so Zt is now saying no big deal. Facebook is in a bit of trouble for selling ads to a troll farm. That is an issue of inadvertently aiding a foreign entity to meddle in US elections. You then have Kushner bragging about his genius in using social media to help bubblefart win though if you look at the work done, it is impossible for his small team to do it as compared to how vast the Obama digital team was, not to mention IT experts.

Ah DT joining the dots again, whether they're actually there or not.

And I'm not actually SAYING no big deal. I am ASKING what is the big deal. His opponents think it's enough to check a story out there and it's a big deal because Russia.

The fact of the matter is that a year after the DNC "hack" there is still more evidence of collusion between she who must not be named, she lost get over it, and Russia than there is between Trvmp and Russia.

Privately Putin must be delighted. I don't imagine he could have ever dreamed of the extent to which US politics could be disrupted over this.

You're so bad at whataboutery. Not helped by previously claiming Clinton had Seth Rich murdered...now this Russian collusion?

You get it now? The penny's dropped? You've come around to the realisation that Russian meddling in US elections is a bad thing and probably worthy of sanctions?

I have never claimed that Clinton had Seth Rich murdered.

No no, of course not. You were "just asking questions", it's ok.

penguin wrote:

zt1903 wrote:
Privately Putin must be delighted. I don't imagine he could have ever dreamed of the extent to which US politics could be disrupted over this.

Maybe, I wonder. If the idea is to simply destabilise your enemies, and keep them fighting internally, then he may have over-played his hand. What might happen is that there is a new anti-Russian sentiment in US politics, and actually Putin ends up with a more resolved opponent, and more sanctions. We've already seen congress going beyond bubblefart to get sanctions in place. Without a pro-Russian in the oval office, Putin might face more consensus in US tactics...so he's inadvertently creating a stability in their attitude to Russia. Short term pros vs long terms cons. Maybe...

Maybe.

Only thing I would disagree with is the suggestion that Trvmp is particularly "pro-Russian". His campaign position of "we'd like a better relationship with them" was only common sense. It's pretty much out the window now.

Right and left have pushed questions about Rich's unsolved murder. Though at the request of his family I think it's best to leave it alone going forward.

Bowens wrote:

Bowens wrote:This guy (worked in Clinton WH) says the Russkies got Rich
https://mobile.twitter.com/TrueFactsSta ... 5018216453

This was a very odd tweet yesterday, now deleted. Had 1000s of RTs.

RuggaBugga wrote:

Santa wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

Santa wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote:Shirley

The crime is that of a foreign power ATTEMPTING to influence the outcome of the election.

To be found guilty of that there need be no evidence of effectiveness, only of the attempt.

This is where Santa's straw man is so deeply annoying, demanding something unnecessary.

It's not a straw man you tiny penoid, because what I have argued is narrowly focussed on specific aspect. I have drawn no wider conclusions.

Honestly I am horrified at the level of comprehension on here. My comments have been very specific. All you f.uckers inferring things that I did not say, did not imply and so not believe are utter c.unts. f.uck off.

Perhaps you shouldn't constantly split hairs with your semantically driven, thread derailing bullshit then you fantastically tedious plum.

Look. You don't like or understand what I write? Fine. Put me on ignore. It doesn't bother me. I certainly have nothing to say to you. I've not seen you post a single thing that has been interesting.

You're so misunderstood.

It couldn't possibly be the fact that you're a tedious thread clogging bore or anything...

No. You don't understand. It's you not me. Just ignore me. If you can.

Turbogoat wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:so Zt is now saying no big deal. Facebook is in a bit of trouble for selling ads to a troll farm. That is an issue of inadvertently aiding a foreign entity to meddle in US elections. You then have Kushner bragging about his genius in using social media to help bubblefart win though if you look at the work done, it is impossible for his small team to do it as compared to how vast the Obama digital team was, not to mention IT experts.

Ah DT joining the dots again, whether they're actually there or not.

And I'm not actually SAYING no big deal. I am ASKING what is the big deal. His opponents think it's enough to check a story out there and it's a big deal because Russia.

The fact of the matter is that a year after the DNC "hack" there is still more evidence of collusion between she who must not be named, she lost get over it, and Russia than there is between Trvmp and Russia.

Privately Putin must be delighted. I don't imagine he could have ever dreamed of the extent to which US politics could be disrupted over this.

You're so bad at whataboutery. Not helped by previously claiming Clinton had Seth Rich murdered...now this Russian collusion?

You get it now? The penny's dropped? You've come around to the realisation that Russian meddling in US elections is a bad thing and probably worthy of sanctions?

I have never claimed that Clinton had Seth Rich murdered.

No no, of course not. You were "just asking questions", it's ok.

Not on that one I wasn't.

My only post to mention Seth Rich was this one on the Russian sanctions thread.

http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... h#p4609248

zt1903 wrote:Btw if the Craig Murray assertion is true it rules out Seth Rich as the source (a favourite infowars et al conspiracy theory) as Murray says he received the files in September but Rich was murdered in July.

iarmhiman wrote: He's another Silveresque contrarian.

No Silver is a genuine loon. Santa likes to dress his trolling up in a coat of intellectual rigour. He focuses on a specific part of a post and creates a strawman argument. Take this from the Folau thread as classic example:

Santa wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:
Just let the benders get marriem 'foreign'ed. If you really care if strangers can or cannot get married, you're an arsehole. If you oppose gay Marriage you can do something about it: don't marry a gay person and mind your own f'n business.

Just to explore the asserted principle that we shouldn't care about whether or not strangers can get married, what if one of them is a, let's say, a child and the other one is, let's say, a man as sometimes occurs in, let's call them, 'foreign' countries. Are we allowed to care about that?

It's all a ruse so someone will snap and call him a bigot at which point Santa will spring his gotcha trap and challenge them to find an instance of him saying he doesn't support gay marriage. Page after page of this crap.

Better shut up now or Seneca will make another allusion to his credentials which he knows but won't tell us.

RuggaBugga wrote:

iarmhiman wrote: He's another Silveresque contrarian.

No Silver is a genuine loon. Santa likes to dress his trolling up in a coat of intellectual rigour. He focuses on a specific part of a post and creates a strawman argument. Take this from the Folau thread as classic example:

Santa wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:
Just let the benders get marriem 'foreign'ed. If you really care if strangers can or cannot get married, you're an arsehole. If you oppose gay Marriage you can do something about it: don't marry a gay person and mind your own f'n business.

Just to explore the asserted principle that we shouldn't care about whether or not strangers can get married, what if one of them is a, let's say, a child and the other one is, let's say, a man as sometimes occurs in, let's call them, 'foreign' countries. Are we allowed to care about that?

It's all a ruse so someone will snap and call him a bigot at which point Santa will spring his gotcha trap and challenge them to find an instance of him saying he doesn't support gay marriage. Page after page of this crap.

Better shut up now or Seneca will make another allusion to his credentials which he knows but won't tell us.

It's my fault that people read stuff into what I write that isn't there?

And yes I recognise that gutless c.unty behaviour of posting about me while pretending to ignore me. Very Irish. You f.ucking child.

Bowens wrote:Right and left have pushed questions about Rich's unsolved murder. Though at the request of his family I think it's best to leave it alone going forward.

Bowens wrote:

Bowens wrote:This guy (worked in Clinton WH) says the Russkies got Rich
https://mobile.twitter.com/TrueFactsSta ... 5018216453

This was a very odd tweet yesterday, now deleted. Had 1000s of RTs.

Eh that's Menschs side-kick (or vice versa) of "I was told by the Marshall of the Supreme Court" fame.

This thread has settled into a steady diet of loons, contrarians and pseudo-intellectuals

Top stuff.

Todays Question:

Who the fudge let Manafort in the campaign?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ba35554068

All Kosher!

People close to Manafort told The Post that he and Kilimnik used coded language as a precaution because they were transmitting sensitive information internationally.

shanky wrote:This thread has settled into a steady diet of loons, contrarians and pseudo-intellectuals

Top stuff.

Dunno why their drawn to this forum in such droves.

Floppykid wrote:

shanky wrote:This thread has settled into a steady diet of loons, contrarians and pseudo-intellectuals

Top stuff.

Dunno why their drawn to this forum in such droves.

They're.

Floppykid wrote:

shanky wrote:This thread has settled into a steady diet of loons, contrarians and pseudo-intellectuals

Top stuff.

Dunno why their drawn to this forum in such droves.

The legendary Irish hospitality

It was autocorrect.
Yeah that's it.

This is media related more than Trump.

https://twitter.com/DavidRutz/status/910631632507428866

Does anyone know where Nambia is located?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCdLJe06r8U

Kiwias wrote:Does anyone know where Nambia is located?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCdLJe06r8U

between Zamibia, Zamunda and Wakanda...

Floppykid wrote:

shanky wrote:This thread has settled into a steady diet of loons, contrarians and pseudo-intellectuals

Top stuff.

Dunno why their drawn to this forum in such droves.

I see Hollywood has come to the aid of Mueller and the neocons and launched "The Committee to Investigate Russia". Mandela being the spokesperson.

Floppykid wrote:

shanky wrote:This thread has settled into a steady diet of loons, contrarians and pseudo-intellectuals

Top stuff.

Dunno why their drawn to this forum in such droves.

Are they drawn to the forum, though?

Consider whether posting here is really as a result of being drawn here on a general basis or perhaps (instead) a public service in correcting an incorrect argument? Is it existential or syllogismic?
Who can say? Just asking the question...

/santa

Bowens wrote:

Mahoney wrote:

Bokkom wrote:Nearly a year after "the one who cannot be mentioned on this thread" has lost the election against the Orange buffoon, is she still campaigning hard for the Democratic Party and trying to win over hearts and minds? No, she is on a book tour selling herself...again. The mind boggles. But, Bernie...

Writing a book straight after losing was what Bernie did, too.

People wanted to hear what he had to say.

much like the primary, she will have more people interested to hear her speak.

Bokkom wrote:I got this far regarding DT's quote:

By this point in the campaign, Sanders’ most loyal supporters were reaching new levels of fanaticism. They frequently lashed out at Clinton, Clinton’s supporters, the Democratic Party, pollsters, the media — anyone and everyone who failed to be as enlightened as them. They harassed female journalists and civil rights icons. They peddled far too many conspiracy theories to even count. They were paranoid, convinced the primary was rigged against them, unable to handle the reality that Hillary Clinton was winning more votes.

Conspiracy? Paranoid? Rigged primary? Were they eventually vindicated, or not?
Nearly a year after "the one who cannot be mentioned on this thread" has lost the election against the Orange buffoon, is she still campaigning hard for the Democratic Party and trying to win over hearts and minds? No, she is on a book tour selling herself...again. The mind boggles. But, Bernie...
Give it a rest, DT.

She has done what most do after they lose and fall back and write a book. Typical Bokkom, she gives her post match interview of what happened and you say she is selling her self. Tell did Meyer give an interview after the bok loss. Why are you now scared to call her a psychopathic witch like you normally do. as described in the article, any point counter to she is the devil and Bernie is not good is too much for your small brain.

furthermore before any other person gets into it, Obama speechwriters that have read said 80-90 percent of the book is her taking blame for what went wrong but as usual the press only speaks about the 10-20 percent are when she points out the external factors. She is somehow not allowed to discuss anything else but she sucks. similar to the election.

Bowens wrote:Right and left have pushed questions about Rich's unsolved murder. Though at the request of his family I think it's best to leave it alone going forward.

Bowens wrote:

Bowens wrote:This guy (worked in Clinton WH) says the Russkies got Rich
https://mobile.twitter.com/TrueFactsSta ... 5018216453

This was a very odd tweet yesterday, now deleted. Had 1000s of RTs.

Taylor is a proven fraud. he is not really leftie. He is as left as Mench. He got one bit of info right once and that is it. Did you see the exchange between Schindler of TPM and Ambassador Rice.

I think he and Mench are both frauds, but they seem to have a certain type of following online (corporate dem/neocon).

No I haven't read the exchange.

With that derailment done perhaps we can get back to the normal flow of memes, retweets and "Yeah Brah, Trump's a total dick" type posts.

Deadtigers wrote:

Bokkom wrote:I got this far regarding DT's quote:

By this point in the campaign, Sanders’ most loyal supporters were reaching new levels of fanaticism. They frequently lashed out at Clinton, Clinton’s supporters, the Democratic Party, pollsters, the media — anyone and everyone who failed to be as enlightened as them. They harassed female journalists and civil rights icons. They peddled far too many conspiracy theories to even count. They were paranoid, convinced the primary was rigged against them, unable to handle the reality that Hillary Clinton was winning more votes.

Conspiracy? Paranoid? Rigged primary? Were they eventually vindicated, or not?
Nearly a year after "the one who cannot be mentioned on this thread" has lost the election against the Orange buffoon, is she still campaigning hard for the Democratic Party and trying to win over hearts and minds? No, she is on a book tour selling herself...again. The mind boggles. But, Bernie...
Give it a rest, DT.

She has done what most do after they lose and fall back and write a book. Typical Bokkom, she gives her post match interview of what happened and you say she is selling her self. Tell did Meyer give an interview after the bok loss. Why are you now scared to call her a psychopathic witch like you normally do. as described in the article, any point counter to she is the devil and Bernie is not good is too much for your small brain.

furthermore before any other person gets into it, Obama speechwriters that have read said 80-90 percent of the book is her taking blame for what went wrong but as usual the press only speaks about the 10-20 percent are when she points out the external factors. She is somehow not allowed to discuss anything else but she sucks. similar to the election.

Because you then lose your shit and start calling me names.

Bokkom wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:

Bokkom wrote:I got this far regarding DT's quote:

By this point in the campaign, Sanders’ most loyal supporters were reaching new levels of fanaticism. They frequently lashed out at Clinton, Clinton’s supporters, the Democratic Party, pollsters, the media — anyone and everyone who failed to be as enlightened as them. They harassed female journalists and civil rights icons. They peddled far too many conspiracy theories to even count. They were paranoid, convinced the primary was rigged against them, unable to handle the reality that Hillary Clinton was winning more votes.

Conspiracy? Paranoid? Rigged primary? Were they eventually vindicated, or not?
Nearly a year after "the one who cannot be mentioned on this thread" has lost the election against the Orange buffoon, is she still campaigning hard for the Democratic Party and trying to win over hearts and minds? No, she is on a book tour selling herself...again. The mind boggles. But, Bernie...
Give it a rest, DT.

She has done what most do after they lose and fall back and write a book. Typical Bokkom, she gives her post match interview of what happened and you say she is selling her self. Tell did Meyer give an interview after the bok loss. Why are you now scared to call her a psychopathic witch like you normally do. as described in the article, any point counter to she is the devil and Bernie is not good is too much for your small brain.

furthermore before any other person gets into it, Obama speechwriters that have read said 80-90 percent of the book is her taking blame for what went wrong but as usual the press only speaks about the 10-20 percent are when she points out the external factors. She is somehow not allowed to discuss anything else but she sucks. similar to the election.

Because you then lose your shit and start calling me names.

but it is OK for you to call her names? You said it not me, stand by your comment. It is not like anyone is buying your, I don't under the US system act anymore.

I've used up my smiley quota for the day.

RuggaBugga wrote:

iarmhiman wrote: He's another Silveresque contrarian.

No Silver is a genuine loon. Santa likes to dress his trolling up in a coat of intellectual rigour. He focuses on a specific part of a post and creates a strawman argument. Take this from the Folau thread as classic example:

Santa wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:
Just let the benders get marriem 'foreign'ed. If you really care if strangers can or cannot get married, you're an arsehole. If you oppose gay Marriage you can do something about it: don't marry a gay person and mind your own f'n business.

Just to explore the asserted principle that we shouldn't care about whether or not strangers can get married, what if one of them is a, let's say, a child and the other one is, let's say, a man as sometimes occurs in, let's call them, 'foreign' countries. Are we allowed to care about that?

It's all a ruse so someone will snap and call him a bigot at which point Santa will spring his gotcha trap and challenge them to find an instance of him saying he doesn't support gay marriage. Page after page of this crap.

Better shut up now or Seneca will make another allusion to his credentials which he knows but won't tell us.

Is Santa, Seneca PhD mate Satan?

iarmhiman wrote:
He's another Silveresque contrarian.

I don't think he is.

I think he's desperate to come across as some sort of witty sage, dealing in one line pearls of wisdom, but he doesn't quite manage to carry it off.

Santa wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

iarmhiman wrote: He's another Silveresque contrarian.

No Silver is a genuine loon. Santa likes to dress his trolling up in a coat of intellectual rigour. He focuses on a specific part of a post and creates a strawman argument. Take this from the Folau thread as classic example:

Santa wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:
Just let the benders get marriem 'foreign'ed. If you really care if strangers can or cannot get married, you're an arsehole. If you oppose gay Marriage you can do something about it: don't marry a gay person and mind your own f'n business.

Just to explore the asserted principle that we shouldn't care about whether or not strangers can get married, what if one of them is a, let's say, a child and the other one is, let's say, a man as sometimes occurs in, let's call them, 'foreign' countries. Are we allowed to care about that?

It's all a ruse so someone will snap and call him a bigot at which point Santa will spring his gotcha trap and challenge them to find an instance of him saying he doesn't support gay marriage. Page after page of this crap.

Better shut up now or Seneca will make another allusion to his credentials which he knows but won't tell us.

It's my fault that people read stuff into what I write that isn't there?

And yes I recognise that gutless c.unty behaviour of posting about me while pretending to ignore me. Very Irish. You f.ucking child.

Yes it is your fault as you continually take small sections of posts out of context and create absurd straw man arguments in full knowledge of the reaction you will get. You then sit there in full smug mode bemoaning how misunderstood you are.

Also, I addressed you direct in my previous post to the one you've quoted you fucking idiot.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

iarmhiman wrote: He's another Silveresque contrarian.

No Silver is a genuine loon. Santa likes to dress his trolling up in a coat of intellectual rigour. He focuses on a specific part of a post and creates a strawman argument. Take this from the Folau thread as classic example:

Santa wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:
Just let the benders get marriem 'foreign'ed. If you really care if strangers can or cannot get married, you're an arsehole. If you oppose gay Marriage you can do something about it: don't marry a gay person and mind your own f'n business.

Just to explore the asserted principle that we shouldn't care about whether or not strangers can get married, what if one of them is a, let's say, a child and the other one is, let's say, a man as sometimes occurs in, let's call them, 'foreign' countries. Are we allowed to care about that?

It's all a ruse so someone will snap and call him a bigot at which point Santa will spring his gotcha trap and challenge them to find an instance of him saying he doesn't support gay marriage. Page after page of this crap.

Better shut up now or Seneca will make another allusion to his credentials which he knows but won't tell us.

I can't work out why you get so rarked up about this stuff. You seem to work yourself into an absolute fury about some anonymous internet presence's posting style.

Christ, the Wellington cabals with you and Indomite must be a seething supernova of barely concealed emotional violence.

The Southern Cross Wellington Cabal:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38l78

I almost glassed the him last time he ordered a double scotch during my round.

SilverGrin wrote:

Without getting paid for his trouble.

Wonderful servant of the American people, he is.

Taranaki Snapper wrote:

Kiwias wrote:Does anyone know where Nambia is located?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCdLJe06r8U

between Zamibia, Zamunda and Wakanda...

But nowhere near Ruritania or Freedonia.

The Republicans are going after Obamacare again. It's hard to tell whether they actively hate poor, and working class, people or if they just don't care about them. The most disgusting party. Might be their cruelest alternative healthcare bill yet.

Dumbledore wrote:The Republicans are going after Obamacare again. It's hard to tell whether they actively hate poor, and working class, people or if they just don't care about them. The most disgusting party. Might be their cruelest alternative healthcare bill yet.

Given that they clearly hadn't been able to come up with a coherent alternative that they could transition to after a brisk repeal, they really need to take a long damn hard look at themselves for trying this yet again.

Repeal and REPLACE kinda indicates there has to have been a workable model for healthcare that would be an improvement on Obamacare ready to roll out. After 7 years there really isn't an excuse for not having one. The complete lack of agreement or even prior planning in the previous attempts show that the compulsion to just dogmatically undo anything Obama did is far greater than the need to do what's right for the country. And this is why hyper-partisan bullshit just drives me up the wall.

Yep, Obamacare has a lot of things wrong with it. Speaking to a lot of US healthcare workers really reinforces that. It's not a panacea or a perfect system, even remotely. It is however, a helluva lot better than anything proposed as an alternative.
After so many failed attempts, it's time to abandon 'Repeal and Replace' - that's just not tenable with the abortions that have been proposed as alternatives.

It's time to Switch to 'adjust and improve'. OK, it's not quite so alliterative, but there are some rather more basic tweaks that could make it run a lot smoother, provide a few more options, and hopefully not mean that 24 million people will lose their healthcare. Swallow the ego, chumps. The voters would actually think a bit more highly of you if you came out with an improved healthcare option... try it. Many dyed in the wool GOP voters from the redneck of the woods are actually pretty reliant on current healthcare and might actually appreciate being alive at the next election to vote for anyone-but-Hillary.

SilverGrin wrote:

No one knows what it's like, to be the



Behind blue eyes