Is Trump going to make president?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Trump going to make president?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 39 of 66 < 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 >

steeleye20 Croydon 06 Feb 17 4.58pm
Couldn't help noticing that Trump stays in a lot. Never mind about Muslims is there another Oswald out there. You can't lock someone up for being an embittered white male loner with legal access to firearms in the USA.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 06 Feb 17 4.58pm

Couldn't help noticing that Trump stays in a lot.

Never mind about Muslims is there another Oswald out there.

You can't lock someone up for being an embittered white male loner with legal access to firearms in the USA.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.01pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The price of security, should never be freedom. We've become a bigger threat to our own defining civil liberties, than any terrorist group ever could be. Now every dead IS member is acceptable to me, but we have a greater responsibility to ensure that those we kill, maim and disappear are actually the right people - We have a greater responsibility than IS, because we are not 'the evil' in the equation, they are. We are a civilised nation of law that prizes freedom and values well above those of these murderous hordes. A nice idea, but we nave never used "good" to defeat "evil". It don't work. Our victories over the bad guy have come though ruthless measures. The fire bombing of German cities for example.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.01pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The price of security, should never be freedom. We've become a bigger threat to our own defining civil liberties, than any terrorist group ever could be.

Now every dead IS member is acceptable to me, but we have a greater responsibility to ensure that those we kill, maim and disappear are actually the right people - We have a greater responsibility than IS, because we are not 'the evil' in the equation, they are. We are a civilised nation of law that prizes freedom and values well above those of these murderous hordes.

A nice idea, but we nave never used "good" to defeat "evil".
It don't work.

Our victories over the bad guy have come though ruthless measures. The fire bombing of German cities for example.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Feb 17 5.02pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So what do we do? Its the long game. We have to stop picking sides based on our economical advantage. Whether its Saudi or Israel. We also need to pressure those states of the middle east to move away from systems of monarchy and dictatorship, whilst improving the lives and opportunities of their people. And we have to stop meddling and tipping the balance, for the outcomes that benefit the west, and start including those that benefit the people in general of those nations. Whilst we see Islamic Terrorism as a 'threat to the west' in truth, the vast majority is aimed at oppressive regimes of varying degrees across the middle east. The US and UK have attracted conflict by becoming engaged in those conflicts directly. But it can't be quick, and it has to be 'by the majority' in those countries, not by the richest elite who we do business with. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 06 Feb 17 5.02pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So what do we do?

Its the long game. We have to stop picking sides based on our economical advantage. Whether its Saudi or Israel.

We also need to pressure those states of the middle east to move away from systems of monarchy and dictatorship, whilst improving the lives and opportunities of their people. And we have to stop meddling and tipping the balance, for the outcomes that benefit the west, and start including those that benefit the people in general of those nations.

Whilst we see Islamic Terrorism as a 'threat to the west' in truth, the vast majority is aimed at oppressive regimes of varying degrees across the middle east. The US and UK have attracted conflict by becoming engaged in those conflicts directly.

But it can't be quick, and it has to be 'by the majority' in those countries, not by the richest elite who we do business with.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.02pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Couldn't help noticing that Trump stays in a lot. Never mind about Muslims is there another Oswald out there. You can't lock someone up for being an embittered white male loner with legal access to firearms in the USA. lol
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.02pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Couldn't help noticing that Trump stays in a lot.

Never mind about Muslims is there another Oswald out there.

You can't lock someone up for being an embittered white male loner with legal access to firearms in the USA.

lol

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 06 Feb 17 5.06pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It was a hypothetical question. It required a straight answer. The fact that you haven't provided one rather answers my question just the same. Thanks for taking part. Your family are in more danger from drunk locals, sex criminals, muggers or burglars than they are from Islamic terrorists. Should we ban everyone from coming within 100m of them? Just to be sure they are safe. It's a hypothetical question but please do answer it all the same. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 06 Feb 17 5.06pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It was a hypothetical question. It required a straight answer.
The fact that you haven't provided one rather answers my question just the same.

Thanks for taking part.

Your family are in more danger from drunk locals, sex criminals, muggers or burglars than they are from Islamic terrorists. Should we ban everyone from coming within 100m of them? Just to be sure they are safe.

It's a hypothetical question but please do answer it all the same.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.07pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Its the long game. We have to stop picking sides based on our economical advantage. Whether its Saudi or Israel. We also need to pressure those states of the middle east to move away from systems of monarchy and dictatorship, whilst improving the lives and opportunities of their people. And we have to stop meddling and tipping the balance, for the outcomes that benefit the west, and start including those that benefit the people in general of those nations. Whilst we see Islamic Terrorism as a 'threat to the west' in truth, the vast majority is aimed at oppressive regimes of varying degrees across the middle east. The US and UK have attracted conflict by becoming engaged in those conflicts directly. But it can't be quick, and it has to be 'by the majority' in those countries, not by the richest elite who we do business with. Sound like a plan but it seems unlikely, based on apparent previous policy, that the US will favour or have the capacity for long termism.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.07pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Its the long game. We have to stop picking sides based on our economical advantage. Whether its Saudi or Israel.

But it can't be quick, and it has to be 'by the majority' in those countries, not by the richest elite who we do business with.

Sound like a plan but it seems unlikely, based on apparent previous policy, that the US will favour or have the capacity for long termism.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Feb 17 5.08pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger A nice idea, but we nave never used "good" to defeat "evil". It don't work. Our victories over the bad guy have come though ruthless measures. The fire bombing of German cities for example. The stakes were different. The response must be firm, and proportional. The fire bombing of Dresden didn't help us win the war, it was more about 'they did it first'. There is also the difference between fighting for existence of their home and country (which our grandparents were) and fighting people who pose no existential threat to the nation. Its not that kind of war. We're not fighting nations and national interests. I'm not a believer that we can achieve any kind of victory without eliminating the people who fund, incite and command acts of terror. But we should stop crowing about it. If you're going to become evil, become the boogyman. Don't create martyrs, create ghosts. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 06 Feb 17 5.08pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

A nice idea, but we nave never used "good" to defeat "evil".
It don't work.

Our victories over the bad guy have come though ruthless measures. The fire bombing of German cities for example.

The stakes were different. The response must be firm, and proportional. The fire bombing of Dresden didn't help us win the war, it was more about 'they did it first'. There is also the difference between fighting for existence of their home and country (which our grandparents were) and fighting people who pose no existential threat to the nation.

Its not that kind of war. We're not fighting nations and national interests. I'm not a believer that we can achieve any kind of victory without eliminating the people who fund, incite and command acts of terror.

But we should stop crowing about it. If you're going to become evil, become the boogyman. Don't create martyrs, create ghosts.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Feb 17 5.09pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It was a hypothetical question. It required a straight answer. The fact that you haven't provided one rather answers my question just the same. Thanks for taking part. Technically, its a rhetorical question, because the only answer that can be given directly, based on the wording of the question, is the answer you want. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 06 Feb 17 5.09pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It was a hypothetical question. It required a straight answer.
The fact that you haven't provided one rather answers my question just the same.

Thanks for taking part.

Technically, its a rhetorical question, because the only answer that can be given directly, based on the wording of the question, is the answer you want.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.14pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Your family are in more danger from drunk locals, sex criminals, muggers or burglars than they are from Islamic terrorists. Should we ban everyone from coming within 100m of them? Just to be they are safe. It's a hypothetical question but please do answer it all the same. Another thing you have to learn is that relative risk means little in real world comparisons. It is the cumulative risk that is significant. If you smoke, drink and eat bacon, it is more risky than just eating bacon. Equally you wouldn't smoke on the basis that it was not as potentially harmful as the other two combined.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.14pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

It's a hypothetical question but please do answer it all the same.

Another thing you have to learn is that relative risk means little in real world comparisons. It is the cumulative risk that is significant. If you smoke, drink and eat bacon, it is more risky than just eating bacon.
Equally you wouldn't smoke on the basis that it was not as potentially harmful as the other two combined.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Feb 17 5.15pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Technically, its a rhetorical question, because the only answer that can be given directly, based on the wording of the question, is the answer you want. There are two answers.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Feb 17 5.15pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Technically, its a rhetorical question, because the only answer that can be given directly, based on the wording of the question, is the answer you want.

There are two answers.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 06 Feb 17 5.18pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Technically, its a rhetorical question, because the only answer that can be given directly, based on the wording of the question, is the answer you want. Impressed
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 06 Feb 17 5.18pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Technically, its a rhetorical question, because the only answer that can be given directly, based on the wording of the question, is the answer you want.

Impressed

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 06 Feb 17 5.23pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Another thing you have to learn is that relative risk means little in real world comparisons. It is the cumulative risk that is significant. If you smoke, drink and eat bacon, it is more risky than just eating bacon. Equally you wouldn't smoke on the basis that it was not as potentially harmful as the other two combined. So, if you took away everything in your life that is fairly risky what would you be left with? You'd have to have fresh air. No more high pollution. That means moving to the coast or countryside. But then you'd end up in a village or small town and they still drive so you'd have to extra careful to only go out when there is less chance of traffic. One of the locals is bound to be violent or dodgy in some other way so best you don't socialise. Too risky. Or...you could just live your life where you are and stop fretting about Islamic nutters' acts which are highly less likely to rain down on you or your family than the other things I have already mentioned are. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 06 Feb 17 5.23pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So, if you took away everything in your life that is fairly risky what would you be left with? You'd have to have fresh air. No more high pollution. That means moving to the coast or countryside. But then you'd end up in a village or small town and they still drive so you'd have to extra careful to only go out when there is less chance of traffic.

One of the locals is bound to be violent or dodgy in some other way so best you don't socialise. Too risky.

Or...you could just live your life where you are and stop fretting about Islamic nutters' acts which are highly less likely to rain down on you or your family than the other things I have already mentioned are.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 39 of 66 < 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is Trump going to make president?

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors