Planet Rugby Forum

Hong Kong wrote:“Did your report exonerate the president?”

“No, it did not”

I'll leave it to a comedian to explain the concept to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCE3EZuUHM

get some new material if you want more than a smiley.

You're genuinely beyond parody.

I was reacting to the link you posted. It's not my material, it's yours. And it's delusional at best

You used to be reasonably sane, back in the day. What happened?

happyhooker wrote:

get some new material if you want more than a smiley.

You're genuinely beyond parody.

I was reacting to the link you posted. It's not my material, it's yours. And it's delusional at best

You used to be reasonably sane, back in the day. What happened?

<sigh>

you used to be sharper than this. the material I was referring to was this..

happyhooker wrote:

merry! wrote:

you pathetic twat.

You've lost it son

http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... t#p5987624


as for 'reasonably sane', that's just more of the crap I've come to expect from you these days. what happened?

Hong Kong wrote:not only was there ruskie interference they are still at it

Yep, sadly the issue is still being used a partisan football rather than attacked on a unified basis, as that threat deserves.

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:not only was there ruskie interference they are still at it

Yep, sadly the issue is still being used a partisan football rather than attacked on a unified basis, as that threat deserves.

and yet if only there was one person in a position of authority who could actually acknowledge this, then maybe a bipartisan approach could be possible, instead of sticking his fat orange face in the sand and covering his eyes, ears and brain to the fact that there was.

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:not only was there ruskie interference they are still at it

Yep, sadly the issue is still being used a partisan football rather than attacked on a unified basis, as that threat deserves.

and yet if only there was one person in a position of authority who could actually acknowledge this, then maybe a bipartisan approach could be possible, instead of sticking his fat orange face in the sand and covering his eyes, ears and brain to the fact that there was.

yes, that’s on him, and it’s on the Democrats that they continue to feed his paranoia and insecurity for their own political ends. Both sides are letting down the country, that’s the whole partisan point.

The primary aim of Russia was to undermine confidence in the democratic institutions of the USA. Now we have both major parties openly cooperating to facilitate exactly that outcome, and too many people excusing it all for a bit of whataboutism.

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:not only was there ruskie interference they are still at it

Yep, sadly the issue is still being used a partisan football rather than attacked on a unified basis, as that threat deserves.

and yet if only there was one person in a position of authority who could actually acknowledge this, then maybe a bipartisan approach could be possible, instead of sticking his fat orange face in the sand and covering his eyes, ears and brain to the fact that there was.

yes, that’s on him, and it’s on the Democrats that they continue to feed his paranoia and insecurity for their own political ends. Both sides are letting down the country, that’s the whole partisan point.

The primary aim of Russia was to undermine confidence in the democratic institutions of the USA. Now we have both major parties openly cooperating to facilitate exactly that outcome, and too many people excusing it all for a bit of whataboutism.

Agree entirely mate.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:not only was there ruskie interference they are still at it

Yep, sadly the issue is still being used a partisan football rather than attacked on a unified basis, as that threat deserves.

and yet if only there was one person in a position of authority who could actually acknowledge this, then maybe a bipartisan approach could be possible, instead of sticking his fat orange face in the sand and covering his eyes, ears and brain to the fact that there was.

yes, that’s on him, and it’s on the Democrats that they continue to feed his paranoia and insecurity for their own political ends. Both sides are letting down the country, that’s the whole partisan point.

The primary aim of Russia was to undermine confidence in the democratic institutions of the USA. Now we have both major parties openly cooperating to facilitate exactly that outcome, and too many people excusing it all for a bit of whataboutism.

I just want to raise a question here - have they definitively linked the troll farms to the kremlin?

Well they haven’t exonerated them...

The Don taking aim at the ultimate race hustler Al Sharpton. Things really heating up now

Anybody posted this yet?



Margins.

Hadn't seen that. Very good

Serious question - I couldn't find an answer from a quick bit of googling, has Trump ever used the word 'infested' to describe anywhere that wasn't predominantly black or hispanic?

of course!

Us, on the left, find everything racist.

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:not only was there ruskie interference they are still at it

Yep, sadly the issue is still being used a partisan football rather than attacked on a unified basis, as that threat deserves.

and yet if only there was one person in a position of authority who could actually acknowledge this, then maybe a bipartisan approach could be possible, instead of sticking his fat orange face in the sand and covering his eyes, ears and brain to the fact that there was.

hmmmmm, I wonder why Donald isn't in such a hurry to stop interference ?

penguin wrote:Hadn't seen that. Very good

Serious question - I couldn't find an answer from a quick bit of googling, has Trump ever used the word 'infested' to describe anywhere that wasn't predominantly black or hispanic?

Yes. He referred to New Hampshire is a “drug-infested den”.

What a silly question though!

zt1903 wrote:

penguin wrote:Hadn't seen that. Very good

Serious question - I couldn't find an answer from a quick bit of googling, has Trump ever used the word 'infested' to describe anywhere that wasn't predominantly black or hispanic?

Yes. He referred to New Hampshire is a “drug-infested den”.

Fck me, it’s second worse by opioid death rate after the vastly more predictable West Virginia. Didn’t see that coming.

Definitely lily white though, 94%. Norman Rockwell white.

fatcat wrote:What a silly question though!

Why? There was a suggestion he only uses it for certain peoples... Turns out he doesn't.

penguin wrote:

fatcat wrote:What a silly question though!

Why? There was a suggestion he only uses it for certain peoples... Turns out he doesn't.

Because it's a silly suggestion in the first place, regardless of whether he's used the word before or not. People only focussed on that word after he tweeted something similar to Nancy Pelosi about SF, but of course they couldn't shoehorn racism into that tweet so they looked for something else to focus on.

fonzeee wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

penguin wrote:Hadn't seen that. Very good

Serious question - I couldn't find an answer from a quick bit of googling, has Trump ever used the word 'infested' to describe anywhere that wasn't predominantly black or hispanic?

Yes. He referred to New Hampshire is a “drug-infested den”.

Fck me, it’s second worse by opioid death rate after the vastly more predictable West Virginia. Didn’t see that coming.

Definitely lily white though, 94%. Norman Rockwell white.

2017 stats had Ohio #2

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

Bowens wrote:

fonzeee wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

penguin wrote:Hadn't seen that. Very good

Serious question - I couldn't find an answer from a quick bit of googling, has Trump ever used the word 'infested' to describe anywhere that wasn't predominantly black or hispanic?

Yes. He referred to New Hampshire is a “drug-infested den”.

Fck me, it’s second worse by opioid death rate after the vastly more predictable West Virginia. Didn’t see that coming.

Definitely lily white though, 94%. Norman Rockwell white.

2017 stats had Ohio #2

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

Hmm, seems I was using 2015 numbers.

Surprised Missouri didn’t make the cut. Though I think meth’s more our thing.

Poor West Virginia though; the numbers have increased even as public awareness and efforts have ramped up.

That's a shocking stat map. (and thanks for putting it up.)

penguin wrote:

fatcat wrote:What a silly question though!

Why? There was a suggestion he only uses it for certain peoples... Turns out he doesn't.

Certainly doesn't use it for the thousands of rat infested mouldy shit-holes that Jared's company owns in Baltimore in Cummings district.

fonzeee wrote:
Hmm, seems I was using 2015 numbers.

Surprised Missouri didn’t make the cut. Though I think meth’s more our thing.

Poor West Virginia though; the numbers have increased even as public awareness and efforts have ramped up.

Speaking of meth, this article caught my eye this weekend.

puku wrote:

fonzeee wrote:
Hmm, seems I was using 2015 numbers.

Surprised Missouri didn’t make the cut. Though I think meth’s more our thing.

Poor West Virginia though; the numbers have increased even as public awareness and efforts have ramped up.

Speaking of meth, this article caught my eye this weekend.

that can't be unseen


& it also makes a powerful case against legalizing meth, in any way, shape, or form

fishfoodie wrote:

puku wrote:

fonzeee wrote:
Hmm, seems I was using 2015 numbers.

Surprised Missouri didn’t make the cut. Though I think meth’s more our thing.

Poor West Virginia though; the numbers have increased even as public awareness and efforts have ramped up.

Speaking of meth, this article caught my eye this weekend.

that can't be unseen


& it also makes a powerful case against legalizing meth, in any way, shape, or form

I'm a huge advocate for the legalisation of all drugs, but meth is a huge stumbling block in my argument

I didn't think that any reasonable call for legalisation of drugs included meth. More cannabis and MDMA type stuff.
I can't see any reason that a functioning society could have "responsible" amounts of meth usage.

Actually it didn’t .

They really started to crap out with psychosis, and even the housewives were committed.

Nolanator wrote:I didn't think that any reasonable call for legalisation of drugs included meth. More cannabis and MDMA type stuff.
I can't see any reason that a functioning society could have "responsible" amounts of meth usage.

Except that MDMA is/can be a source of psychotic episodes depending on the individual, & the pill; that's the damn problem; it's partially the taker, & partially the pill. In the same way that some people are grand when they've a few drinks; & some are complete twats; but you cannot, yet, legislate in any reasonable way for that genetic predisposition.

The long term effects of the ever increasing levels of THC is another minefield for anyone looking at the the trends of cannabinoids

Seneca of the Night wrote:

eugenius wrote:Actually it didn’t .

They really started to crap out with psychosis, and even the housewives were committed.

Oh. I didn't know that. Well, apart from that then.

Consider how many Blue-on-Blue deaths in the Gulf Wars, & the, 'War on Terror', were caused by pilots, who were flying too many sorties, & as a result were hopped up on, officially prescribed, speed, to divide the number of sorties being tasked; by the number of pilots; & damn the consequences !!

eugenius wrote:Actually it didn’t .

They really started to crap out with psychosis, and even the housewives were committed.

They say middle-class housewives are actually a huge user group for meth.

As for Nazi Germany, can't believe I never heard of this before:

In his bestselling book, “Der Totale Rausch” (The Total Rush)—recently published in English as “Blitzed”—Ohler found that many in the Nazi regime used drugs regularly, from the soldiers of the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) all the way up to Hitler himself. The use of methamphetamine, better known as crystal meth, was particularly prevalent: A pill form of the drug, Pervitin, was distributed by the millions to Wehrmacht troops before the successful invasion of France in 1940.

Developed by the Temmler pharmaceutical company, based in Berlin, Pervitin was introduced in 1938 and marketed as a magic pill for alertness and an anti-depressive, among other uses. It was briefly even available over the counter. A military doctor, Otto Ranke, experimented with Pervitin on 90 college students and decided, based on his results, that the drug would help Germany win the war. Using Pervitin, the soldiers of the Wehrmacht could stay awake for days at a time and march many more miles without resting.

If you think about it though, amphetamines do seem like a very German sort of drug.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

fonzeee wrote:

eugenius wrote:Actually it didn’t .

They really started to crap out with psychosis, and even the housewives were committed.

They say middle-class housewives are actually a huge user group for meth.

As for Nazi Germany, can't believe I never heard of this before:

In his bestselling book, “Der Totale Rausch” (The Total Rush)—recently published in English as “Blitzed”—Ohler found that many in the Nazi regime used drugs regularly, from the soldiers of the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) all the way up to Hitler himself. The use of methamphetamine, better known as crystal meth, was particularly prevalent: A pill form of the drug, Pervitin, was distributed by the millions to Wehrmacht troops before the successful invasion of France in 1940.

Developed by the Temmler pharmaceutical company, based in Berlin, Pervitin was introduced in 1938 and marketed as a magic pill for alertness and an anti-depressive, among other uses. It was briefly even available over the counter. A military doctor, Otto Ranke, experimented with Pervitin on 90 college students and decided, based on his results, that the drug would help Germany win the war. Using Pervitin, the soldiers of the Wehrmacht could stay awake for days at a time and march many more miles without resting.

If you think about it though, amphetamines do seem like a very German sort of drug.

Yeah, this story has been known for a few years now, but I don't think we've fully digested it. Nazi Germany may have been undergoing a complete meth breakdown across the entire society. Explains a few things for sure.

Hitler himself, though a vegetarian teetotaller, was on a crazy cocktail of drugs from his doctors, and was in a terrible state for his age by the end of the war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E98Sx3mTQU

He only became a vegetarian from about 37/38 and there's photographs of him appearing to drink from steins to the same time.

His increasing opiate/speed/cocaine etc consumption combined with some health issues is suspected to have caused this change in his behaviour.

And, the rumours of Parkinson's towards the end of his life are probably more due to the shortage of the above drugs.

Anyone else catch the orange shitgibbon’s hilarious joke about the stage collapsing at the signing of the 9/11 compensation bill? Where he followed up with a claim that he was also a first responder?

Hong Kong wrote:Anyone else catch the orange shitgibbon’s hilarious joke about the stage collapsing at the signing of the 9/11 compensation bill? Where he followed up with a claim that he was also a first responder?

He must have raced to the site from Jersey where he had watched thousands of Muslims cheering as the towers collapsed.

Kiwias wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Anyone else catch the orange shitgibbon’s hilarious joke about the stage collapsing at the signing of the 9/11 compensation bill? Where he followed up with a claim that he was also a first responder?

He must have raced to the site from Jersey where he had watched thousands of Muslims cheering as the towers collapsed.

And at the same time phoning in a claim that his tower was now the tallest in the city (which it wasn’t)

Mueller: "I am not certain I agree with your characterizations".

But Jordan is reading from Mueller's own report. And a bunch of other minor individuals were charged for exactly that kind of behaviour, ie. lying to the FBI?
What a can of worms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EbrfiAxjY0

fatcat wrote:

penguin wrote:

fatcat wrote:What a silly question though!

Why? There was a suggestion he only uses it for certain peoples... Turns out he doesn't.

Because it's a silly suggestion in the first place, regardless of whether he's used the word before or not. People only focussed on that word after he tweeted something similar to Nancy Pelosi about SF, but of course they couldn't shoehorn racism into that tweet so they looked for something else to focus on.

Such a silly suggestion that Chris Wallace on Fox called it a 'clear pattern'. I asked the question because Trump tweets a lot so there would be plenty of data to corroborate or disprove his 'pattern'. Turns out there is evidence to support Trump in this case.

Away from this particular tweet I think Trump is quite clearly racist (not a white supremacist because that would involve giving a sh*t about other people, even if it was only some of them). I'm not basing that on any particular tweet but a pattern of behaviour going back to that 1970s court ruling mentioned a page back. Multiple sources have said that Trump is a racist; Michael Cohen 'black people are too stupid to vote for me', 'Name one country run by a black person that’s not a sh*thole'. Omarosa claims he used the n word repeatedly, and said of George Conway 'F**ing FLIP! Disloyal! f**king Goo-goo.', Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, accused another one of Trump’s businesses of discrimination. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” (no doubt people will question the sources, fine - they are shady characters, but they are the people he chose to work with) or how about this example;

'A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

Time after time from birtherism to the muslim ban he goes after minorities in word or action. If the bar for being a racist is a white supremacist then you've set the bar too high. Trump is your garden variety old racist - a man born in 1946 when these views were the standard setting - and it seems he hasn't changed his view with the times.

Anyone claiming Trump isn't racist, or at least has the whiff of racism about him, would have to have forgotten about birtherism and Trump's pitiful leading role in publicizing that nonsense.*




*although, like Sen, he could have just been trolling

penguin wrote:
Time after time from birtherism to the muslim ban he goes after minorities in word or action. If the bar for being a racist is a white supremacist then you've set the bar too high. Trump is your garden variety old racist - a man born in 1946 when these views were the standard setting - and it seems he hasn't changed his view with the times.

Yip pretty much this

BokJock wrote:Anyone claiming Trump isn't racist, or at least has the whiff of racism about him, would have to have forgotten about birtherism and Trump's pitiful leading role in publicizing that nonsense.*




*although, like Sen, he could have just been trolling

sneaker is trolling???!!