RugbyRebels

Trump it would seem is a big fan of Baldrick as a poet.

morepork wrote:Waaaaaheyyyy!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38410027

via Twitter, naturally

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref ... r%5Eauthor

Actually, Hillary Clinton is the warmonger, you see, because

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:
I'd prefer Rufus Hound or Owen Jones.
No sexism involved,......I just don't think Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins understand what Humanity entails.
Glenda Slagg is supposed to be a caricature.

Have you heard the theory/rumour that these extreme characters such as Katie Hopkins and Joey Essex are a group of comedians playing an incredibly long practical joke - TV's incarnations of Glenda Slagg. I hope it to be true but, sadly, I doubt it.

Yeah,...sadly there really are people who are that thick.
Katie is ex-military so her brainwashing was state sponsored and in that respect it's at least understandable.

No offence, Sandy.

Hahahaha. Is she fuck. She never passed out.

As for the rest of your post add a few more lols.

Nothing like an open-minded, mature discussion on international politics, eh

Open minded. Classic.

rowan wrote:Nothing like an open-minded, mature discussion on international politics, eh

This from Mr. 'I'm right everyone else is wrong & what you have to say is irrelevant'. I don't know whether he is
being sarcarstic/ironic or just doesn't read the stuff he posts in response to other posters

Interesting interview with Pilger here (part 2 at the link below):



https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/20 ... s-victory/

So now he's calling for a nuclear arms race. Just as well they didn't elect the warmonger.

So remind me who's the one that keeps bringing up Clinton and attempting justification through comparison again?

Bottom line is it was always a choice between a proven warmonger and a potential one. But it's good to see the mask off, anyway. No charm offensive nor smokescreens here. Fire away . . .

rowan wrote:So remind me who's the one that keeps bringing up Clinton and attempting justification through comparison again?

Quick search result with randomly selected posters:

1. Eugene Wrayburn - 55 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton
2. Lizard - 22 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton
3. Sandydragon - 58 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton
4. belgarion - 5 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton
5. cashead - 42 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton
6. Mikey Brown - 3 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton
7. morepork - 56 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton
8. rowan - 200 posts or replies interacting with posts mentioning Clinton

Yeh, but he didn't mention her by name. & my post count is generally much higher. & the number of times mentioned gives no indication of the context. So that was a pointless exercise, sorry to inform you.

rowan wrote:Yeh, but he didn't mention her by name. & my post count is generally much higher. & the number of times mentioned gives no indication of the context. So that was a pointless exercise, sorry to inform you.

You either mention, or reply to a post that mentions Clinton for roughly every 12th post you make. 1:12, if you want a ratio. That's not even mentioning the number of times you post the same stupid fucking youtube videos about her in seemingly every thread you wander by.

Euge's ratio is 1:29. That's 1 post mentioning or replying to a post that mentions Clinton, for every 29th post.
Sandy has similar ratio of 1:30.
I'm at 1:25.
Morepork is at 1:22.

I think that speaks for itself.

No, it means we had long-running debates about Clinton and Trump during campaigning and I contributed very actively to them. It gives zero indication of who has been bringing up Clinton most often since the election, let alone in the justification through comparison context which seems to be the point you are attempting to make here, in your own confused sort of way.

Oops, just added 2 more to the count. 202, I guess

No, it means you might want to listen when multiple people are saying "change the fucking record, jesus christ."

My, my, what an astonishing hypocrite you are! Scroll back and you will find that it was not me who put the record on - but Eugene. I merely responded to it.

Doh! Don't you feel really, really stupid now, Cashead?

In the last month - you have 29 posts that is about, or responding to a post that mentions Clinton.

Eugene has all of 5 in the same period. As do Sandy and morepork, one of which is.

morepork wrote:Not sure if you noticed, but Clinton didn't win the election. It may be time to, you know,

CHANGE THE FUCKING RECORD

I've got 6, including this one.

Grow up and admit you got it wrong, Cashead. Anybody can scroll back and see who put the record on in this instance and it was not me. I responded to the person who put the record on. You got it wrong so at least be adult enough to admit it.

& speaking of broken records, attacking every single comment I make is not especially clever either. It only indicates that you are somehow quite afraid of my viewpoints.

Your ratio of posts that mention Clinton or responding to ones that mention her:ones that are neither goes to 1:11. Eugene goes to 1:23.

I'm looking at it holistically, and while I don't pretend that this isn't entirely a scientific or robust measurement, the numbers speak for themselves.

Edit: forgot to mention that a fair few of them involved you going out of your way to namedrop her.

P.S. "Scared of your viewpoints." Yeah, bro totally terrified of them.

cashead wrote:Your ratio of posts that mention Clinton or responding to ones that mention her:ones that are neither goes to 1:11. Eugene goes to 1:23.

I'm looking at it holistically, and while I don't pretend that this isn't entirely a scientific or robust measurement, the numbers speak for themselves.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

cashead wrote:Your ratio of posts that mention Clinton or responding to ones that mention her:ones that are neither goes to 1:11. Eugene goes to 1:23.

I'm looking at it holistically, and while I don't pretend that this isn't entirely a scientific or robust measurement, the numbers speak for themselves.

Oh look, the tedious poser has decided to add his two cents.

rowan wrote:Grow up and admit you got it wrong, Cashead. Anybody can scroll back and see who put the record on in this instance and it was not me. I responded to the person who put the record on. You got it wrong so at least be adult enough to admit it.

& speaking of broken records, attacking every single comment I make is not especially clever either. It only indicates that you are somehow quite afraid of my viewpoints.

Or barking mad (more likely).

It's an interesting position that Obama is creating for Trump with the expulsion of the Russia diplomats. Really Trump should be able to keep separate his election win being homologated by the electoral college with the actions of Russia in the elections of a sovereign nation, especially with a view to upcoming elections in France, in Germany and so on that Russia may also care to interfere with.

I don't think this is about the election at all. I think the US is simply angry at Russia for foiling its plans in Syria.

1-0 to Russia as it stands.

Putin has played a masterstroke.