snowychap Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, PieFacE said: I wonder if anyone can actually find said story from Fox news, or I wonder if that's a lie too? It was a piece about a film (?) done by a bloke called Ami Horowitz. I think it's this: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 What the hell do Fox care about Sweden? Their demonization of Muslims knows no borders. I hope they know they have and are influencing policy, the cretins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) On 19/02/2017 at 17:28, NoelVilla said: Everything is safe. The king got our back. Get back in your hole Sweden , Edited February 20, 2017 by Brumerican 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 There shouldn't be any future wars . Any future disagreements should be settled by dropping the respective heads of state on an island , armed to the teeth . Just one huge battle involving royals . I'll think of a name for it later. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Avoiding the obvious one...royal rumble in the jungle would be my pitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 On 19/02/2017 at 11:08, Chindie said: time in memorial. He's too stupid ;-) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chindie Posted February 21, 2017 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Probably the best place for this and not worthy of it's own thread... Alt-right poster boy (and therefore uber word removed and supreme waste of oxygen and global resources) Milo Yiannopolous has come unstuck finally as footage of him justifying paedophilia has emerged. It appears the clearing in the woods has finally found the point at which even the world's real words removed won't support his moronic views. He's lost a book deal, been binned from speaking at a conference and even Breitbart looks like it's about to purge him. Good. Hopefully the rest of his ilk can follow him off a cliff. Edited February 21, 2017 by Chindie 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Chindie said: Probably the best place for this and not worthy of it's own thread... Alt-right poster boy (and therefore uber word removed and supreme waste of oxygen and global resources) Milo Yiannopolous has come unstuck finally as footage of him justifying paedophilia has emerged. It appears the clearing in the woods has finally found the point at which even the world's real words removed won't support his moronic views. He's lost a book deal, been binned from speaking at a conference and even Breitbart looks like it's about to purge him. Good. Hopefully the rest of his ilk can follow him off a cliff. He tried to explain it away and even tried to blame 'leftists' for misrepresenting him and that he was talking about himself as a 17 year old. The dude is on video, and he clearly said 13 year olds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 21, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21, 2017 He gives absolutely no mercy to the innocent people he attacks, so he should expect none. The word removed compared Leslie Jones to a gorilla, repeatedly, he attacks transgender people, he's pointedly picked out normal people in his talks for ridicule and bile... **** him. He punches down on the vulnerable, lets have a few blows hit him. Preferably until he's no longer of any relevance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 That's what the right gets for celebrating someone purely because of who he attacks (feminists, liberals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peterms Posted February 21, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2017 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 That's why this whole anti PC movement has gained traction so fast and completely changed society. People were tired of saying racist shit and then being shunned by society. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too, ie: be bigoted and still have all their credibility in tact. I guess pedophilia is where we draw the line today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Daniel Larison: Trump’s Foreign Policy Incoherence Zbigniew Brzezinski and Paul Wasserman make a similar complaint [to one calling Trumps' foreign policy incoherent] in an op-edthis morning, and urge Trump to provide “a bold statement of his vision, including his determination to provide America’s leadership in the effort to shape a more stable world.” I don’t deny that Trump’s foreign policy is unusually incoherent even for a novice, and I don’t fault these people for wishing that it were not so, but there is no reason to think that this is going to change in the years to come. For one thing, articulating a coherent foreign policy vision of the sort that Brzezinski and Wasserman want seems to hold no interest for Trump or his closest advisers. They are asking for something more than a bumper sticker-level of thought from an undisciplined president who doesn’t understand these issues very well, and they simply won’t ever get it. For one thing, Trump claims to prize being unpredictable, and he bluffs his way out of tough questions by saying that he doesn’t want to let our adversaries know what the U.S. is going to do. He seems to think this is a clever use of ambiguity, but it is not. As we are seeing, it creates needless confusion and misunderstanding. That requires his VP and Cabinet officials to spend their time putting out fires that he started for no apparent reason. Mattis and Pence feel compelled to “reassure” allies that have been put off by Trump’s rhetoric, and Mattis tells the Iraqis that the U.S. is not, in fact, going to seize their oil despite Trump’s frequent references to doing just that. Trump’s dismissive remarks about a two-state solution prompt an affirmation of the same from his U.N. ambassador. Trump blundered into questioning support for the “one China” policy before conceding that he still supports it. All of this is made worse by administration dysfunction and the lack of coordination with Cabinet members. Any one of these episodes might be unimportant on its own, but together they form a pattern in which the president says whatever happens to come into his head and the administration is stuck either defending or walking back the random thing that he said. So we don’t need Trump to give a new foreign policy speech, since that would probably just muddy the waters even more. Trump’s incoherence on foreign policy was one of the few things we could be sure to expect from his administration. His positions have ranged from one extreme to the other. He has expressed support for forcible regime change in the past, and then as a candidate he expressed his supposed hostility to the very concept of regime change. He claims to want to “get along” with Russia, but he mocks the “reset” and criticizes New START in the same terms as a typical Russia hawk. On some issues, he can stake out opposing, irreconcilable positions in the course of the same interview or even the same paragraph. The only reliable constants have been Trump’s conviction that the U.S. is always and everywhere being ripped off in bad deals, an abiding hostility toward Muslims here and abroad, and an almost cartoonish enthusiasm for Israel. On everything else, he tends to follow the lead of his advisers, who are hard-liners on the issues they care most about. Insofar as his advisers have a more coherent view of the world than he does, it tends to be one that exaggerates foreign threats and commits the U.S. to more aggressive policies almost everywhere. In practice, that means that the administration is reliably belligerent but otherwise unreliable, which is a truly awful combination. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-foreign-policy-incoherence/ *************************************************************** On a more positive note, it looks like Trump's new National Security Advisor is comparatively smart and well-qualified for the role, so that's one small mercy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Straggler Posted February 21, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2017 A bit more analysis on what Trump said about Sweden. It's not so much about how batshit crazy Trump is, but what the guys interviewed in the documentary said about the interview process. They are claiming that the docu maker has asked one set of questions to generate the answers they gave and then changed them to ones based on immigration as part of the edit. They have gone on to describe the journo as a madman. This work of "journalism" has gone on Fox with no critical analysis and then has been lapped up by Trump and formed part of a stump speech. The idea that I would ever have to write about the dangers of the POTUS taking Fox news as gospel blows my mind, but here we are. The lack of critical thinking or evaluation of source material is staggering. Just as a quick example on source evaluation. For this post on Villa Talk, I watched the video embedded below. I thought it was interesting, but I know the channel is a proud progressive channel and whilst spends a great deal of time trying to appear as neutral as possible it is without a doubt not unbiased. That said I have not found them lying, it is more of an editorial spin that would concern me. So off I went to try and corroborate what they have said from other sources. I have found the quotes from the Swedish policemen reported word for word in most of the worlds news and I have read the original article that is the source. It seems legit so, I'll roll with it. I have also seen that the Ami Horowitz (the documentary maker) has said that the policemen are under political pressure to change their story. So who do I believe, the cops or the journo. There is a reasonable chance that the cops didn't know the impact their words would have and would row back on them hard under pressure, so it is worth looking at who I believe. Source material on the two police is harder to find, they are not well known outside of this issue and all the evidence I have is contradictory. They appear to say one thing in one interview and another almost completely opposite thing in the next. I can evaluate the rest of what Horowitz has said. Rather than go on about it, I have found that the analysis of the statistics that is in the video below is reasonable and do not back up what Horowitz has said in the documentary (I even looked up the crime statistics from the Swedish govt to confirm that they were using a legitimate source). As such I can safely say that in respect to the statistics Horowitz has been found to not be credible and casts a serious doubt over anything else he may present. I could do a great deal more research, but I really can't be bothered, all I am really doing is demonstrating that with the 10/15 minutes I put into researching this Swedish documentary I have found enough evidence to conclude that I should not trust the source and should seek out a more complete view before presenting my understanding as the true picture of Swedish immigration as it relates to crime. It also shows that I put more care into my posts on Villa Talk that the POTUS does into his fricking job as leader of the Western world. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, Straggler said: A bit more analysis on what Trump said about Sweden. It's not so much about how batshit crazy Trump is, but what the guys interviewed in the documentary said about the interview process. They are claiming that the docu maker has asked one set of questions to generate the answers they gave and then changed them to ones based on immigration as part of the edit. They have gone on to describe the journo as a madman. This work of "journalism" has gone on Fox with no critical analysis and then has been lapped up by Trump and formed part of a stump speech. The idea that I would ever have to write about the dangers of the POTUS taking Fox news as gospel blows my mind, but here we are. The lack of critical thinking or evaluation of source material is staggering. Just as a quick example on source evaluation. For this post on Villa Talk, I watched the video embedded below. I thought it was interesting, but I know the channel is a proud progressive channel and whilst spends a great deal of time trying to appear as neutral as possible it is without a doubt not unbiased. That said I have not found them lying, it is more of an editorial spin that would concern me. So off I went to try and corroborate what they have said from other sources. I have found the quotes from the Swedish policemen reported word for word in most of the worlds news and I have read the original article that is the source. It seems legit so, I'll roll with it. I have also seen that the Ami Horowitz (the documentary maker) has said that the policemen are under political pressure to change their story. So who do I believe, the cops or the journo. There is a reasonable chance that the cops didn't know the impact their words would have and would row back on them hard under pressure, so it is worth looking at who I believe. Source material on the two police is harder to find, they are not well known outside of this issue and all the evidence I have is contradictory. They appear to say one thing in one interview and another almost completely opposite thing in the next. I can evaluate the rest of what Horowitz has said. Rather than go on about it, I have found that the analysis of the statistics that is in the video below is reasonable and do not back up what Horowitz has said in the documentary (I even looked up the crime statistics from the Swedish govt to confirm that they were using a legitimate source). As such I can safely say that in respect to the statistics Horowitz has been found to not be credible and casts a serious doubt over anything else he may present. I could do a great deal more research, but I really can't be bothered, all I am really doing is demonstrating that with the 10/15 minutes I put into researching this Swedish documentary I have found enough evidence to conclude that I should not trust the source and should seek out a more complete view before presenting my understanding as the true picture of Swedish immigration as it relates to crime. It also shows that I put more care into my posts on Villa Talk that the POTUS does into his fricking job as leader of the Western world. That's what Ami Horowitz does, he's extremely dishonest. Fox know exactly what they're doing which is why I'll have no sympathy for them when the President eventually attacks them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, Keyblade said: That's what Ami Horowitz does, he's extremely dishonest. Fox know exactly what they're doing which is why I'll have no sympathy for them when the President eventually attacks them. I had never heard of him prior to this weekend. It really didn't take long to work out that he is not credible though. What worries me more than anything is that Trump seems to instinctively believe anything that he is told that he likes. Equally he classifies anything that he disagrees with or doesn't like as lies. This inability or unwillingness to apply any critical thinking to what he hears leads to "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, Straggler said: I had never heard of him prior to this weekend. It really didn't take long to work out that he is not credible though. What worries me more than anything is that Trump seems to instinctively believe anything that he is told that he likes. Equally he classifies anything that he disagrees with or doesn't like as lies. This inability or unwillingness to apply any critical thinking to what he hears leads to "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes." He is a reflection of his voter base. Sad! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 It says it all that pretty much the only media outlet he hasn't accused of being fake news is Brietbart, the biggest purveyors of outright malicious lies and bullshit. It feels like an elaborate prank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 It's no surprise though. This is a man who believed for years that Obama was born somewhere other than America, despite not having a single shred of credible evidence to support that belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted February 21, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21, 2017 36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: It's no surprise though. This is a man who believed for years that Obama was born somewhere other than America, despite not having a single shred of credible evidence to support that belief. Like the majority of things that come out of his mouth, he didn't believe that for a minute. It was just expedient for him to pretend he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts