This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
Of course it's for power Stirling, it's politics after all. You've run a bit deeper than I have in your analysis of it however I would say the propaganda and attraction strategy of it is rooted in targeting those I described. I find it far more satisfying in my position as hoi polloi to run with lines such as: 'take control of your own lives people as opposed to being riled up by these types, offering you excuses and ideals to cling to, using you with false promises of a neverland utopia for their own gain'. You have the Jordan Peterson approach. In my view, the Jordan Peterson stuff....while 90 percent correct and largely common sense....is fine if we were living back in the 80s or 90s. As you correctly say the people we are talking about here represent and only care about power. They control the institutions....In the UK they have their hate speech and even thought (intent) laws on the books....In America they are pushing censorship every day and attacking the first amendment anyway they can. They don't care about 'common sense' or any of the rest of it....The kind of people running the Tavistock institute are well paid activists and wear their mental illness like a badge. Strange days indeed....most peculiar. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Mar 2024 1.54pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You have the Jordan Peterson approach. In my view, the Jordan Peterson stuff....while 90 percent correct and largely common sense....is fine if we were living back in the 80s or 90s. As you correctly say the people we are talking about here represent and only care about power. They control the institutions....In the UK they have their hate speech and even thought (intent) laws on the books....In America they are pushing censorship every day and attacking the first amendment anyway they can. They don't care about 'common sense' or any of the rest of it....The kind of people running the Tavistock institute are well paid activists and wear their mental illness like a badge. Strange days indeed....most peculiar. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Mar 2024 1.54pm) Very strange yes. Unfortunately many of those who get roped in by these people end up being their victims of course, Tavistock being an example of this. I'm not too familiar with Jordan Peterson or those seeking to herd the masses in all honesty however my concentration is often on the man in the street. There almost seems to be a culture at the moment whereby having some sort of grievance against society (victimhood), or sections of it, is considered the norm if not necessary for identity (a word commonly employed and promulgated). A united culture will always be far more beneficial for the masses than one that is forever fracturing and animosity thrives. Continued/mass immigration, attempts to make people feel without power and rally them for the benefit of the few, constant highlighting of inevitable human defects to sew division etc. Keeps the few in power and the many fighting amongst themselves. I could be wrong however, perhaps we are in the worst period in history for Racism, Fascism, Misogyny, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Antisemitism, ableism etc. and I'm not enlightened enough to spend the majority of my resource fighting all these things and despairing at them? Doubt it. From what I've seen, many politicians are more than happy to at least present as backing such things, will get them the votes.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
There are no reports on any of that here. Is that going to be a legally binding vote? That anyone can just turn up and vote, basically? If it is voted in that is. As you walk in to vote in these primaries you have to declare your party upfront and then get a specific ballot form to complete. This one had 65 questions to complete from party candidate, governor to random questions on legalizing cannabis and rigidity of voting rights (which is a first for me)! I live in a red state (thank god) but would assume these questions are all across the US to gauge sentiment and open up the potential for illegals to vote with no ID!
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yep, there are unfortunately quite a few of them....and also unfortunately organisations like the ADL and SPLC are richly funded and run by people who agree with him. Nevertheless maybe Moorer should be watching videos like this when he formulates his opinions. [Tweet Link] Looking forward to some journalist with ‘balls’ writing a headline: Three Three Palace Fine, after Palace secure Premier League safety with a 3 - 3 draw…
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Houston Eagle
As you walk in to vote in these primaries you have to declare your party upfront and then get a specific ballot form to complete. This one had 65 questions to complete from party candidate, governor to random questions on legalizing cannabis and rigidity of voting rights (which is a first for me)! I live in a red state (thank god) but would assume these questions are all across the US to gauge sentiment and open up the potential for illegals to vote with no ID! Thanks - sounds crazy. Were these points debated or is anything legally binding? Or are they just questions your party is asking? Or are they questions the government are asking? Are these actual votes for these things? Sorry to ask - just never knew of this.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
A valid point which is why the public officials in Colorado involved in this should resign. They must have known that this was purely a party political stunt with no basis in law. They are claiming that Trump has abused his position which is exactly what they are doing. A unanimous verdict from a court that normally splits on party lines tells you just how bad their action was. Wasting public money with a partisan action that puts them on a par with the elections in Iran and Russia. It was a cop out to avoid the SC having to rule on whether Trump is an insurrectionist and thereby expose them to the accusation of becoming involved in politics. The liberal Justices are so furious that there is a serious risk of the Court splitting, primarily because the decision says that such things can only be determined at Federal level and not by individual States. This to them, and to me, goes against the whole underlying principle of their system. It must surely be for the individual States to decide who can be a candidate for President in their State and not to have that imposed on them.
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Oh the irony.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It was a cop out to avoid the SC having to rule on whether Trump is an insurrectionist and thereby expose them to the accusation of becoming involved in politics. The liberal Justices are so furious that there is a serious risk of the Court splitting, primarily because the decision says that such things can only be determined at Federal level and not by individual States. This to them, and to me, goes against the whole underlying principle of their system. It must surely be for the individual States to decide who can be a candidate for President in their State and not to have that imposed on them. Sorry, disagree. The President is a national position not a local state position. Under your proposal a group of (let’s say the southern) states could decide not to put a candidate on their ballot paper thereby resulting in a split country situation. You’d soon be back to the original American Civil War situation with states wanting to split away from the current USA.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Sorry, disagree. The President is a national position not a local state position. Under your proposal a group of (let’s say the southern) states could decide not to put a candidate on their ballot paper thereby resulting in a split country situation. You’d soon be back to the original American Civil War situation with states wanting to split away from the current USA. That though is how they do things. You can argue that the electoral college is a crazy system and I would agree. I think all the votes for the President should be counted nationally and not State by State, but they don’t. Each State decides who they support and if they do then they ought also to decide who they permit to stand.
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That though is how they do things. You can argue that the electoral college is a crazy system and I would agree. I think all the votes for the President should be counted nationally and not State by State, but they don’t. Each State decides who they support and if they do then they ought also to decide who they permit to stand. Civil War would still likely happen. Americans have the right to take up arms to overthrow what they see as a government against its people. You deny people the right to vote for a certain candidate and there’s the excuse…
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That though is how they do things. You can argue that the electoral college is a crazy system and I would agree. I think all the votes for the President should be counted nationally and not State by State, but they don’t. Each State decides who they support and if they do then they ought also to decide who they permit to stand. They can't though can they? As shown by the fact their attempt to do so was overturned. What kind of democracy are you advocating when voters are unable to vote for their preferred candidate?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Incredibly it looks like Biden will be the Democrat nominee, running mate will be important as can't see him lasting 4 years
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.