This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
US politics
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
| W12 26 May 22 3.25pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Did you write that after reading the NRA website? It's straight out of their playbook. It's complete nonsense. Should we ever face a "tyrannical regime" do you seriously think the forces of law and order will support them, or the people? I am speaking of the west, and not any tinpot dictatorship, or Putin's Russia. In the UK that's guaranteed because they don't respond to the government. They act on behalf of the Queen. In the USA, should someone like Trump decide to use military power to thwart democracy and, some at least, decided to follow his orders, then just as many armed citizens would back him, as fight him. There would be a civil war, made much worse by the widespread availability of automatic rapid fire weapons. I can, just about, see the logic in people carrying hand guns in rural areas where access to law enforcement takes time, and the threats from the wildlife is real. Elsewhere, it's b*llocks.
The huge number of people that have now watched the recently released 2000 Mules documentary by Dinesh D'Souza (which, in my opinion, not only explains how the 2020 election was stolen by the Biden administration, but shows clearly how it was done using geofencing and video surveillance) would prove to me that these people know they are living in a banana republic or a "tinpot dictatorship" - it's no accident that every tragedy used as a justification to remove power from citizens and increase the power of the government. The fact you use words like "playbook" shows me you are just repeating what you have been told.
|
|
 cryrst  The garden of England 26 May 22 7.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
The huge number of people that have now watched the recently released 2000 Mules documentary by Dinesh D'Souza (which, in my opinion, not only explains how the 2020 election was stolen by the Biden administration, but shows clearly how it was done using geofencing and video surveillance) would prove to me that these people know they are living in a banana republic or a "tinpot dictatorship" - it's no accident that every tragedy used as a justification to remove power from citizens and increase the power of the government. The fact you use words like "playbook" shows me you are just repeating what you have been told. Like dinesh, been off the radar as the dems would like to jail him again!
|
|
Lombardinho  London 27 May 22 12.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Like dinesh, been off the radar as the dems would like to jail him again! Here it is
|
|
| W12 27 May 22 8.52am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Like dinesh, been off the radar as the dems would like to jail him again! Would be interested to get a few peoples thoughts on this documentary (people who actually watch it I mean).
|
|
 georgenorman 27 May 22 9.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Would be interested to get a few peoples thoughts on this documentary (people who actually watch it I mean). I thought if was a load of f'in nonsense that only gullible people would swallow.
|
|
| W12 27 May 22 10.07am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
I thought if was a load of f'in nonsense that only gullible people would swallow. Nuanced reply I think that's what is called "unsubstantive" Edited by W12 (27 May 2022 10.08am)
|
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 27 May 22 10.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Would be interested to get a few peoples thoughts on this documentary (people who actually watch it I mean). It's available free on YouTube. '2000 Mules'. I've read the 'reviews' but they are all pretty much as I expected. They violently scream from the page whether it be one side or another. I'll watch later may be interesting.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| georgenorman 27 May 22 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Nuanced reply I think that's what is called "unsubstantive" Edited by W12 (27 May 2022 10.08am) Says Putin's arse-licker in chief and champion of the 'right' of nutcases in the US to own machine guns.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 22 10.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Would be interested to get a few peoples thoughts on this documentary (people who actually watch it I mean). Forty percent of the vote was from mail in ballots. To believe that it was all valid you have to believe that Joe Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever. I'm not that gullible. However, you have to ask yourself what was the scale and was it only one side. I don't know the answer to that. Just how objective is this documentary? I'll leave it to others to watch as I find the whole issue depressing. Where I think the election interference was obvious was in the media and corporate behaviour. The Hunter Biden laptop memory holing and Facebook/Twitter bans for Trump and conservative activists are highlights in general. Antifa and BLM acting as the enforcement and rioting arm of the Democrats. I could go onto the behaviour of the institutions like the CIA and FBI but it's well documented.....I still find it hard to believe that 51 intelligence officials, both current and retired, allegedly from both parties were willing to write and sign a letter stating that they believed the Hunter Biden laptop story was 'Russian disinformation'......it wouldn't have been hard for them to know the laptop story was real and that they were lying through their teeth to the American people they were meant to serve. Joe Biden even said so on the debate stage calling the allegations 'utter garbage' and referring to the intelligence officials, none of whom had actually seen or examined the laptop, as proof that the story was made up and planted by Russia. Was the election stolen? Well, was it an honest and accurate choice? I don't think it was....but I'm bored with it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 22 11.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Forty percent of the vote was from mail in ballots. To believe that it was all valid you have to believe that Joe Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever. I'm not that gullible. However, you have to ask yourself what was the scale and was it only one side. I don't know the answer to that. Just how objective is this documentary? I'll leave it to others to watch as I find the whole issue depressing. Where I think the election interference was obvious was in the media and corporate behaviour. The Hunter Biden laptop memory holing and Facebook/Twitter bans for Trump and conservative activists are highlights in general. Antifa and BLM acting as the enforcement and rioting arm of the Democrats. I could go onto the behaviour of the institutions like the CIA and FBI but it's well documented.....I still find it hard to believe that 51 intelligence officials, both current and retired, allegedly from both parties were willing to write and sign a letter stating that they believed the Hunter Biden laptop story was 'Russian disinformation'......it wouldn't have been hard for them to know the laptop story was real and that they were lying through their teeth to the American people they were meant to serve. Joe Biden even said so on the debate stage calling the allegations 'utter garbage' and referring to the intelligence officials, none of whom had actually seen or examined the laptop, as proof that the story was made up and planted by Russia. Was the election stolen? Well, was it an honest and accurate choice? I don't think it was....but I'm bored with it. To believe it wasn't you would have to believe that those overseeing the election, many of whom were Republicans, were either all corrupt or sufficiently naive to be unaware of tampering. This constant preoccupation with the "Hunter Biden laptop" story is what is depressing. It's the biggest non-story it's possible to imagine even if, which I continue to regard as unlikely, it's all true. Hunter Biden isn't POTUS. Joe Biden is. That some people might have sought access to a prominent politician via a vulnerable family member is nothing new. Nor is that a dad would try to protect his vulnerable son. It's just mud-slinging of the most odious kind, which denigrates serious politics and which we can least afford in these challenging times. Compared to the very real character flaws that led to Trump's actual behaviour, this is nothing.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 22 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Would be interested to get a few peoples thoughts on this documentary (people who actually watch it I mean). Before watching any documentary, especially when on a political theme, I think it's wise to know about the background, world-view and history of who has made it. This can put it is perspective and answer the "why was it made" question, which is every bit as important as what it purports to say. When the maker is a known conspiracy theorist, who has promoted wild and completely debunked ideas in the past, it rather undermines any confidence in anything new he might say.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| W12 27 May 22 1.17pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Before watching any documentary, especially when on a political theme, I think it's wise to know about the background, world-view and history of who has made it. This can put it is perspective and answer the "why was it made" question, which is every bit as important as what it purports to say. When the maker is a known conspiracy theorist, who has promoted wild and completely debunked ideas in the past, it rather undermines any confidence in anything new he might say. That's called playing the man and not the ball and you are deluded enough to think that Wikipedia is unbiased.
|
|
| W12 27 May 22 1.19pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Says Putin's arse-licker in chief and champion of the 'right' of nutcases in the US to own machine guns. Not got an argument or opinion then.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 22 1.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
This from the guy who told you to watch his links and ignore the political background of the source. Point me to where I have ever said exactly that? I have always argued that context is an essential part of judging validity. If a source is tainted by lies that have been demonstrated factually as lies, then it is sensible to approach anything new from the same source with a large degree of scepticism, rather than a large degree of gullibility. When even the platform used has a bad odour, that is doubly so. Now I know all of that will be dismissed by those with far right sympathies, both here and elsewhere, but for the more moderate and objectively-minded among us, it may be a healthy warning.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 22 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Point me to where I have ever said exactly that? 'Exactly that', what word for word? Typical response from someone like you. You know what you wrote and I'm not going to waste my time searching endless posts looking for what I knew I read. No amount of wiggling can save you from that hypocrisy.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 22 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
'Exactly that', what word for word? Typical response from someone like you. You know what you wrote and I'm not going to waste my time searching endless posts looking for what I knew I read. No amount of wiggling can save you from that hypocrisy. No, the general sentiment will do. Whenever I send a link, it is from a source that is generally regarded as reputable. One that has serious journalists who undertake proper research and who have editorial and legal oversight. What comes back from people like you is precisely the opposite. It originates from sources with opinions as their sources, no oversight, no checking for validity. So when I say "read the content and forget the source", it is only directed at those who seek to try to suggest that organisations like the BBC are the equivalent of some keyboard warrior with a chip on his shoulder, and want to dismiss their journalism as biased and worthless. When things arrive from those with the kind of resources at their disposal that the BBC has, it demands to be taken seriously, whatever its conclusions might be. So if Mr D'Souza got published by the BBC it might have to be. Via BitChute, not so.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.