Jump to content

Using your real name


rmanx

Using real names on MF  

68 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

And the thread slides into off topic in just over 2 and a bit pages...

 

Lines are being drawn, labels dusted off, factions made.

 

This is a typical response. You may think you're being smart but it just looks juvenile. It looks as if it stems from an outlook that has very little experience of how the world works but has a very definite idea of how you would like it to look, as well as the need to create a 'side' internally and pick one. Classic divide and rule and you're walking right into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Typical of the attitude. The likes of Trump and Brexiteers are fair game because they are obviously a crazy malign force that any reasonable person should want to attack. On the other hand it is impolite, politically incorrect and bordering on insane to attack the liberal narrative.

Well, in the opinion of just some bloke who posts on MF it is....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And the thread slides into off topic in just over 2 and a bit pages...

 

Lines are being drawn, labels dusted off, factions made.

 

This is a typical response. You may think you're being smart but it just looks juvenile. It looks as if it stems from an outlook that has very little experience of how the world works but has a very definite idea of how you would like it to look, as well as the need to create a 'side' internally and pick one. Classic divide and rule and you're walking right into it.

 

 

This is a typical response. Taking an assumed position of authority (be it age, or some self appointed level of experience in a topic (such as the "real word") and then using to talk down to another poster.

 

You, Wooley and llap started turning this into a Trump/Brexit/left/right/liberal/conservative discussion, and when called on it, start crying the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We're reaching a stage in society now where, for example, anyone who says anything about Trump or Brexit that isn't negative is denounced as being a fascist or xenophobic or racist, even thought these events were voted in by a majority.

 

I can certainly see why people would like to remain anonymous, especially if they had a business for example whose reputation could be ruined by a few idiots who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

Rubbish. It's expression of free speech for people to disagree which is all we are doing. Same as Brexit which was almost 50/50. There is no clear (overriding) majority in either vote and if you look at Trump now it's maybe no different to Hitler in 1933. He might be good for America (as Hitler was in rebuilding Germany after the failure of the Weimar Republic) but a few years down the line the threats and the global instability is going to be extreme. He's going to threaten or piss off every major country in the planet in an attempt to make America great again. George W Bush was a fucking idiot who plunged the US into a complete quagmire in the Middle East. Even he has nothing on the potential of Trump.

 

 

'A few years down the line'

 

'He's going to threaten or piss off every major country on the planet'

 

I'd love to have the benefit of your foresight.

 

Just outline to me how exactly it would have been different under Clinton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We're reaching a stage in society now where, for example, anyone who says anything about Trump or Brexit that isn't negative is denounced as being a fascist or xenophobic or racist, even thought these events were voted in by a majority.

 

I can certainly see why people would like to remain anonymous, especially if they had a business for example whose reputation could be ruined by a few idiots who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

Rubbish. It's expression of free speech for people to disagree which is all we are doing. Same as Brexit which was almost 50/50. There is no clear (overriding) majority in either vote and if you look at Trump now it's maybe no different to Hitler in 1933. He might be good for America (as Hitler was in rebuilding Germany after the failure of the Weimar Republic) but a few years down the line the threats and the global instability is going to be extreme. He's going to threaten or piss off every major country in the planet in an attempt to make America great again. George W Bush was a fucking idiot who plunged the US into a complete quagmire in the Middle East. Even he has nothing on the potential of Trump.

 

 

'A few years down the line'

 

'He's going to threaten or piss off every major country on the planet'

 

I'd love to have the benefit of your foresight.

 

Just outline to me how exactly it would have been different under Clinton?

 

 

 

How do you think it would have gone? Just for comparison to JackCarters response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We're reaching a stage in society now where, for example, anyone who says anything about Trump or Brexit that isn't negative is denounced as being a fascist or xenophobic or racist, even thought these events were voted in by a majority.

 

I can certainly see why people would like to remain anonymous, especially if they had a business for example whose reputation could be ruined by a few idiots who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

Rubbish. It's expression of free speech for people to disagree which is all we are doing. Same as Brexit which was almost 50/50. There is no clear (overriding) majority in either vote and if you look at Trump now it's maybe no different to Hitler in 1933. He might be good for America (as Hitler was in rebuilding Germany after the failure of the Weimar Republic) but a few years down the line the threats and the global instability is going to be extreme. He's going to threaten or piss off every major country in the planet in an attempt to make America great again. George W Bush was a fucking idiot who plunged the US into a complete quagmire in the Middle East. Even he has nothing on the potential of Trump.

 

 

'A few years down the line'

 

'He's going to threaten or piss off every major country on the planet'

 

I'd love to have the benefit of your foresight.

 

Just outline to me how exactly it would have been different under Clinton?

 

 

 

How do you think it would have gone? Just for comparison to JackCarters response

 

 

In the bigger picture, without all the media noise and other tweet-related soundbites, very similar.

 

If the war machine wants a big shoot em up they'll get one regardless of which puppet is sat in the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We're reaching a stage in society now where, for example, anyone who says anything about Trump or Brexit that isn't negative is denounced as being a fascist or xenophobic or racist, even thought these events were voted in by a majority.

 

I can certainly see why people would like to remain anonymous, especially if they had a business for example whose reputation could be ruined by a few idiots who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

Rubbish. It's expression of free speech for people to disagree which is all we are doing. Same as Brexit which was almost 50/50. There is no clear (overriding) majority in either vote and if you look at Trump now it's maybe no different to Hitler in 1933. He might be good for America (as Hitler was in rebuilding Germany after the failure of the Weimar Republic) but a few years down the line the threats and the global instability is going to be extreme. He's going to threaten or piss off every major country in the planet in an attempt to make America great again. George W Bush was a fucking idiot who plunged the US into a complete quagmire in the Middle East. Even he has nothing on the potential of Trump.

'A few years down the line'

 

'He's going to threaten or piss off every major country on the planet'

 

I'd love to have the benefit of your foresight.

 

Just outline to me how exactly it would have been different under Clinton?

Under warmonger Clinton, we'd already be at war and after 8 years we'd have be dragged into a lot more wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And the thread slides into off topic in just over 2 and a bit pages...

 

Lines are being drawn, labels dusted off, factions made.

 

This is a typical response. You may think you're being smart but it just looks juvenile. It looks as if it stems from an outlook that has very little experience of how the world works but has a very definite idea of how you would like it to look, as well as the need to create a 'side' internally and pick one. Classic divide and rule and you're walking right into it.

 

Taking an assumed position of authority

 

Liberals do that automatically without even thinking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And the thread slides into off topic in just over 2 and a bit pages...

 

Lines are being drawn, labels dusted off, factions made.

 

This is a typical response. You may think you're being smart but it just looks juvenile. It looks as if it stems from an outlook that has very little experience of how the world works but has a very definite idea of how you would like it to look, as well as the need to create a 'side' internally and pick one. Classic divide and rule and you're walking right into it.

 

Taking an assumed position of authority

 

Liberals do that automatically without even thinking about it.

 

 

Like clockwork..."Liberals"...those proving the point I made...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...