The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

There you go, at least Trump is showing there are no hard feelings with the Swedes. Lots of work for their friendly refugees in packaging the kits - and lots of classic IKEA headaches for the poor Mexicans given the task of assembling the sections.

So just like Brussels, Trump is vindicated...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/swedish-police-investigate-riot-predominantly-immigrant-suburb/

Send that to the Swedish official head-scratchers who seem to need foreigners to tell them what's happening in their own country

"What?" "Where?" "Who?" "Why?" "When?"

Vindicated?

Only if you are also an immigrant hating racist.

Anyone else can see Trump played fast & loose with the facts, as with most of his 'FAKE NEWS' diatribe, and got caught out.

What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

Racist my ass.

P.S. Trump married an immigrant.

the-goon wrote:Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years.

Not in that recent quote he didn't. He made up an incident that didn't occur. Apparently making stuff up is perfectly acceptable to Trump supporters when he does it, but is morally repugnant when the media do it. Surely it should be just as wrong whoever does it?

As for Sweden, there are varied and on-going debates as to their immigration policies. It's very rare that any government gets policies that work 100% without any problems.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon wrote:Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years.

Not in that recent quote he didn't. He made up an incident that didn't occur. Apparently making stuff up is perfectly acceptable to Trump supporters when he does it, but is morally repugnant when the media do it. Surely it should be just as wrong whoever does it?

As for Sweden, there are varied and on-going debates as to their immigration policies. It's very rare that any government gets policies that work 100% without any problems.

Precisely.  So back to Trump's policy of creating a more strict vetting system for people coming in as refugees to his Country, a vetting system to his liking not one followed by his predecessors - as is his right as President and chief policy maker.

And back too to making stuff up - I'm sure there are grades.  So let's wait and see what potentially seismic 'made-up' stuff comes out over the next few years.  If even a smidgen of the things I'm keeping check on become more public and are validated in court or elsewhere then a lot of people who now bow before their 'moral' and 'honest' media are going to feel a little lost and cheated.
The CIA hate/fear Trump for more reasons than that he didn't accept their advice that he was an illegitimate President.     The Deep State boys are suddenly finding themselves exposed rather than pampered and cossetted.  The President has let them know he isn't about to become their puppet or advance their usual agenda of usual allies and usual enemies.  And he's the one pointing the finger at them and telling the American people that they are not a myth, that they actually do exist.
The last person to so openly go to war with the background power boys who feel they are more important than an elected President was Bobby Kennedy.  And we all know what happened him.  Trump hoists the middle finger regardless of the consequences.  They've tried to intimidate him, throw veiled threats his way, goad him and sneer him but they haven't made him roll over and obey.

Sure, the President can create whatever systems he wants, as long as they are legal in the US. Doesn't mean everyone has to accept them without protest or comment. Nor should he try to silence protest or comment.

There has never been an 'honest' media. Even in my lifetime we've had Tiny Rowland, Murdoch, Maxwell etc.

But there are many journalists out there who are certainly more honest than Trump, who to me appears to be one of the most morally questionable Presidents in my lifetime.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Sure, the President can create whatever systems he wants, as long as they are legal in the US. Doesn't mean everyone has to accept them without protest or comment. Nor should he try to silence protest or comment.

There has never been an 'honest' media. Even in my lifetime we've had Tiny Rowland, Murdoch, Maxwell etc.

But there are many journalists out there who are certainly more honest than Trump, who to me appears to be one of the most morally questionable Presidents in my lifetime.

To me, he isn't close.  The problem people have with Trump is that he's off-the-cuff and much of the time not controlled by speechwriters or autocues - therefore, no slick-willy pen pushers who have graduate degrees in diplomatic speech conventions are formulating his beliefs or philosophies; and people who have grown up with those conventions and the repeated etiquette are shocked by Trump's down'n'ordinary guff.  
But it's a joke that adults, who feel they've done any living, or who have followed world events through their lives, believe that Trump is the most morally questionable President.  He's barely a month in office; he speaks like a guy in a bar - he doesn't quote poets or philosophers, he doesn't hide behind weasel words of comfort in public as he plots the vicious stuff behind the scenes.

And when you talk of 'honest' media or the lack thereof - it's you who delivered the line "Surely it should be just as wrong whoever does it."

Like I said, we'll see if anything comes out over the next few years (Trump's people can now call on the 'classified' info) that would implicate the majority of the media in covering up known truths and instead providing scripted performances of Shadow/Deep Government lies.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Sure, the President can create whatever systems he wants, as long as they are legal in the US. Doesn't mean everyone has to accept them without protest or comment. Nor should he try to silence protest or comment.

There has never been an 'honest' media. Even in my lifetime we've had Tiny Rowland, Murdoch, Maxwell etc.

But there are many journalists out there who are certainly more honest than Trump, who to me appears to be one of the most morally questionable Presidents in my lifetime.

To me, he isn't close.  The problem people have with Trump is that he's off-the-cuff and much of the time not controlled by speechwriters or autocues - therefore, no slick-willy pen pushers who have graduate degrees in diplomatic speech conventions are formulating his beliefs or philosophies; and people who have grown up with those conventions and the repeated etiquette are shocked by Trump's down'n'ordinary guff.  
But it's a joke that adults, who feel they've done any living, or who have followed world events through their lives, believe that Trump is the most morally questionable President.  He's barely a month in office; he speaks like a guy in a bar - he doesn't quote poets or philosophers, he doesn't hide behind weasel words of comfort in public as he plots the vicious stuff behind the scenes.

And when you talk of 'honest' media or the lack thereof - it's you who delivered the line "Surely it should be just as wrong whoever does it."
ll quote about
Like I said, we'll see if anything comes out over the next few years (Trump's people can now call on the 'classified' info) that would implicate the majority of the media in covering up known truths and instead providing scripted performances of Shadow/Deep Government lies.

I didn't say he was 'the most'. Your statement is almost a cliché of the conspiracy theorist, who patronises others with the "I'm so smart and knowledgeable, you're so dumb and ignorant" line. You are so sure of yourself that you sometimes remind me of the Bertrand Russell quote about fools and wise men.

Yes, I'm sure most politicians have done things that I would find morally questionable, although obviously I haven't had the chance to question them on why they took the road they did.

And I'm sure the majority of the media will have, at times, covered up truths for governments both left and right in many democracies.

None of that should deflect from Trump's obvious character flaws. Being refreshingly off the cuff does not justify sexism or racism etc. One of the responsibilities of any world leader is to lead by public example. One of the main problems with Trump is that by openly lying, making up events, being sexist (albeit in the past), introducing policies that are borderline racist, or failing to act on racist events etc. he legitimises it for other people. By appealing to the lowest common denominator, he lowers things to that level, when he should be trying to inspire people to rise higher. He has no seeming desire to actually unite the country in the way he says he wishes to, he simply wishes to wallow in the adoration of his fan base.

All of which contributes to his being morally questionable in his acts of office. (Unlike, say, Bill Clinton and his morally questionable acts in the office.)

JuliusHMarx wrote:

I didn't say he was 'the most'. Your statement is almost a cliché of the conspiracy theorist, who patronises others with the "I'm so smart and knowledgeable, you're so dumb and ignorant" line. You are so sure of yourself that you sometimes remind me of the Bertrand Russell quote about fools and wise men.

You don't like looking in the mirror, do you, Julius?  

Here we go again...personal fury directed at an opinion/opinions you can't seem to handle.  

We were having a discussion about the American President and where his morality begins and ends as compared to when the morality of his detractors and enemies begins and ends.  And yes, I have a dog in that race and I'll defend my opinion of him and them each and every time you or anyone else says something I can challenge.  That's not going to stop simply because you don't like hearing the alternative view put so forcefully.

I say go look in the mirror.  You and the others here aren't short on the presumption that "I'm so smart and knowledgeable, you're so dumb and ignorant". Who does the personal put downs here? Not me - but I'll go collect quotes from people here if you want me to.

I'm talking on the subject.  I'd ask you to keep to it and stop always trying to make it a personal 'Fly' v 'the rest' issue.

Fury? What an odd way of thinking you have, to ascribe such an emotion to me.

Collect away, but please only quote myself. I have no responsibility for what others say, nor do I necessarily always agree with it.

However, I'm glad that calling my opinion a joke, telling me that I'm furious and that I can't handle opposing opinions is not a personal put down.

the-goon wrote:So just like Brussels, Trump is vindicated...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/swedish-police-investigate-riot-predominantly-immigrant-suburb/

Oooo! High quality article. Nothing in it to suggest it was actually immigrants involved but hey, why not make assumptions?

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

Trump didn't know what he was saying, hence the stupid attempts at explaining thereafter.

SecretFly wrote:...And back too to making stuff up - I'm sure there are grades.  So let's wait and see what potentially seismic 'made-up' stuff comes out over the next few years.  If even a smidgen of the things I'm keeping check on become more public and are validated in court or elsewhere then a lot of people who now bow before their 'moral' and 'honest' media are going to feel a little lost and cheated.
The CIA hate/fear Trump for more reasons than that he didn't accept their advice that he was an illegitimate President.     The Deep State boys are suddenly finding themselves exposed rather than pampered and cossetted.  The President has let them know he isn't about to become their puppet or advance their usual agenda of usual allies and usual enemies.  And he's the one pointing the finger at them and telling the American people that they are not a myth, that they actually do exist.
The last person to so openly go to war with the background power boys who feel they are more important than an elected President was Bobby Kennedy.  And we all know what happened him.  Trump hoists the middle finger regardless of the consequences.  They've tried to intimidate him, throw veiled threats his way, goad him and sneer him but they haven't made him roll over and obey.

Come on Fly; you're getting all tin-foil again. It's far more likely that Trump's goose is cooked - hopefully just a matter of time as to when and, no, he won't be able to take many (any?) down with him.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fury? What an odd way of thinking you have, to ascribe such an emotion to me.

Collect away, but please only quote myself. I have no responsibility for what others say, nor do I necessarily always agree with it.

However, I'm glad that calling my opinion a joke, telling me that I'm furious and that I can't handle opposing opinions is not a personal put down.

Grand.  I'll play your game then.  I do hate doing it because to me, it's peevish.

So quotes.  Tell me where I alluded to your specific opinion being a joke?  Be careful... a quote that could hold up in a court of law, in the same vein as 'one of the most' ain't 'the most'.

"But it's a joke that adults, who feel they've done any living, or who have followed world events through their lives, believe that Trump is the most morally questionable President."

No allusion to you.   It is (in my opinion - remember I said I wouldn't be using that in every sentence to placate the masses)  - it is in my opinion a joke that people - adults - that have lived and followed to some degree the events of this world for even a few decades, believe Trump is so morally questionable.  He's only started and there have been a plethora of Presidents that have had four or eight year terms of serious documented moral ambiguity and implied seriously dubious motivations during their terms - that's two Bushes, one Clinton and one Obama to do only four of them.

So you can believe Trump is a joke.  You can think him an idiot, a dangerous idiot, a morally corrupt idiot...you can think what you like - and I'll continue to think and type that I think the opinion of people who want to paint him as ONE of the most morally questionable Presidents, is a joke.

If you want to keep going at the peevish 'that's not what I exactly said' thing then I will join you there and believe me, I'll go over everything you say with a fine tooth comb and pinpoint each and every 'casual' version you give of any quote of mine you print.  I can do that game.  You've played it now a few times and I'll play ball if it's what you really want to engage in.

I'd prefer debate Trump with a degree of humour and banter and, yes, word play and colourful allusions etc.  That's how I write, I won't be changing it.  But if you prefer a more legal usage of language, I'll go there too.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...And back too to making stuff up - I'm sure there are grades.  So let's wait and see what potentially seismic 'made-up' stuff comes out over the next few years.  If even a smidgen of the things I'm keeping check on become more public and are validated in court or elsewhere then a lot of people who now bow before their 'moral' and 'honest' media are going to feel a little lost and cheated.
The CIA hate/fear Trump for more reasons than that he didn't accept their advice that he was an illegitimate President.     The Deep State boys are suddenly finding themselves exposed rather than pampered and cossetted.  The President has let them know he isn't about to become their puppet or advance their usual agenda of usual allies and usual enemies.  And he's the one pointing the finger at them and telling the American people that they are not a myth, that they actually do exist.
The last person to so openly go to war with the background power boys who feel they are more important than an elected President was Bobby Kennedy.  And we all know what happened him.  Trump hoists the middle finger regardless of the consequences.  They've tried to intimidate him, throw veiled threats his way, goad him and sneer him but they haven't made him roll over and obey.

Come on Fly; you're getting all tin-foil again. It's far more likely that Trump's goose is cooked - hopefully just a matter of time as to when and, no, he won't be able to take many (any?) down with him.

Come on navy................you don't believe Robert Kennedy's hole in the head was because of food poisoning?  I'm detecting a lot of voices Hoping that he goes quickly (one way or another) before he is able to take many down with him. Subtle difference of emphasis there.

Meanwhile, what's the latest on Ted Heath - ex-Prime Minister?  Was it on the BBC?

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fury? What an odd way of thinking you have, to ascribe such an emotion to me.

Collect away, but please only quote myself. I have no responsibility for what others say, nor do I necessarily always agree with it.

However, I'm glad that calling my opinion a joke, telling me that I'm furious and that I can't handle opposing opinions is not a personal put down.

Grand.  I'll play your game then.  I do hate doing it because to me, it's peevish.

So quotes.  Tell me where I alluded to your specific opinion being a joke?  Be careful... a quote that could hold up in a court of law, in the same vein as 'one of the most' ain't 'the most'.

"But it's a joke that adults, who feel they've done any living, or who have followed world events through their lives, believe that Trump is the most morally questionable President."

No allusion to you.   It is (in my opinion - remember I said I wouldn't be using that in every sentence to placate the masses)  - it is in my opinion a joke that people - adults - that have lived and followed to some degree the events of this world for even a few decades, believe Trump is so morally questionable.  He's only started and there have been a plethora of Presidents that have had four or eight year terms of serious documented moral ambiguity and implied seriously dubious motivations during their terms - that's two Bushes, one Clinton and one Obama to do only four of them.

So you can believe Trump is a joke.  You can think him an idiot, a dangerous idiot, a morally corrupt idiot...you can think what you like - and I'll continue to think and type that I think the opinion of people who want to paint him as ONE of the most morally questionable Presidents, is a joke.

If you want to keep going at the peevish 'that's not what I exactly said' thing then I will join you there and believe me, I'll go over everything you say with a fine tooth comb and pinpoint each and every 'casual' version you give of any quote of mine you print.  I can do that game.  You've played it now a few times and I'll play ball if it's what you really want to engage in.

I'd prefer debate Trump with a degree of humour and banter and, yes, word play and colourful allusions etc.  That's how I write, I won't be changing it.  But if you prefer a more legal usage of language, I'll go there too.

You can do whatever you want, if you have the time and the inclination. Go ahead, play ball, go over everything I say and quote my mistakes. If you feel that I've misrepresented you, then say so, and I'll do the same. I don't think calling anyone's opinion a 'joke' is helpful to any debate with a 'degree or humour and banter', but I don't mind you doing it as long as you don't mind if I reply. And by all means, project upon me whatever emotions you think I'm feeling. It doesn't matter to me (or you, I would hope) that you're totally wrong.

I don't have the time or inclination - you're the one that wants to play that game. You're the one wanting to be fastidious with the meaning of words. If you want to play it - play it. And from here on in, if you choose to keep playing it, I'll try to match the fastidiousness.

We'll get nowhere in debating terms and we'll drive everyone else nuts but it's your call. You're the one that keeps popping in the assumed grammatical corrections. If you want to keep going there, I'll follow.

Back to Heath and what the police officer said a few days ago. Seriously, I didn't watch much BBC this week. Was it mentioned?

.... Or back to Trump if nobody wants to talk about such delicate not-to-be-mentioned things....

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...And back too to making stuff up - I'm sure there are grades.  So let's wait and see what potentially seismic 'made-up' stuff comes out over the next few years.  If even a smidgen of the things I'm keeping check on become more public and are validated in court or elsewhere then a lot of people who now bow before their 'moral' and 'honest' media are going to feel a little lost and cheated.
The CIA hate/fear Trump for more reasons than that he didn't accept their advice that he was an illegitimate President.     The Deep State boys are suddenly finding themselves exposed rather than pampered and cossetted.  The President has let them know he isn't about to become their puppet or advance their usual agenda of usual allies and usual enemies.  And he's the one pointing the finger at them and telling the American people that they are not a myth, that they actually do exist.
The last person to so openly go to war with the background power boys who feel they are more important than an elected President was Bobby Kennedy.  And we all know what happened him.  Trump hoists the middle finger regardless of the consequences.  They've tried to intimidate him, throw veiled threats his way, goad him and sneer him but they haven't made him roll over and obey.

Come on Fly; you're getting all tin-foil again. It's far more likely that Trump's goose is cooked - hopefully just a matter of time as to when and, no, he won't be able to take many (any?) down with him.

Come on navy................you don't believe Robert Kennedy's hole in the head was because of food poisoning?  I'm detecting a lot of voices Hoping that he goes quickly (one way or another) before he is able to take many down with him.  Subtle difference of emphasis there.

Meanwhile, what's the latest on Ted Heath - ex-Prime Minister?  Was it on the BBC?

Specifically what news item about Edward Heath are you talking about?

Ent wrote:

Specifically what news item about Edward Heath are you talking about?

Did you watch BBC news these last few days? This could be interesting if that's your question.

I think the question was "Specifically what news item about Edward Heath are you talking about?"

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think the question was "Specifically what news item about Edward Heath are you talking about?"

Specifically the news that he was indeed able to drive a car?

Hmmm? Would that do or would an answer to a question be better before another one is asked?

SecretFly wrote:I don't have the time or inclination - you're the one that wants to play that game.  You're the one wanting to be fastidious with the meaning of words.  If you want to play it - play it.  And from here on in, if you choose to keep playing it, I'll try to match the fastidiousness.  

We'll get nowhere in debating terms and we'll drive everyone else nuts but it's your call.  You're the one that keeps popping in the assumed grammatical corrections.  If you want to keep going there, I'll follow.

If I say one thing, and you say that I said something else, how will that help the debate go anywhere? I then first have point out your misrepresentation/misunderstanding simply in order to clarify things. I don't consider that being fastidious, or playing a game. You type in your fashion, and I'll type in mine.

No I haven't seen any news items about Edward Heath being able to drive a car of late - I think he died in 2005.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think the question was "Specifically what news item about Edward Heath are you talking about?"

Specifically the news that he was indeed able to drive a car?

Hmmm?  Would that do or would an answer to a question be better before another one is asked?

So this week we learned that Ted Heath could drive a car? Not sure why that would be newsworthy. Please expand.

I'll assume.... through inference, which is allowable in court but not necessarily acceptable as evidence.... I'll assume from the silence and/or the obtuseness of the replies, that the BBC didn't feel the need to inform its Nationwide audience about a news item that involves a past notable Prime Minister?

But I'm a reasonable man, I'll wait for the confirmation to the contrary.

It is a simple question - to which news item about Edward Heath are you referring?

I don't read every item of new on the BBC web-site. Perhaps you could provide a link the where the news appeared. That would be quite helpful in moving the debate forward and won't drive everyone else nuts.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think the question was "Specifically what news item about Edward Heath are you talking about?"

Specifically the news that he was indeed able to drive a car?

Hmmm?  Would that do or would an answer to a question be better before another one is asked?

So this week we learned that Ted Heath could drive a car? Not sure why that would be newsworthy. Please expand.

Well yes and no.

Yes, it wasn't fully known that he could drive a car or at least it was at one time purported that he couldn't drive/or didn't drive.

Yes, it's not terribly newsworthy on its own, and therefore, my frustrating abstract style being such that it is, I chose to use it only to be as oblique as you.

Ent wrote:It is a simple question - to which news item about Edward Heath are you referring?

The earlier question - mine - was even more simple. Did you watch the BBC news these last few days?

SecretFly wrote:

Meanwhile, what's the latest on Ted Heath - ex-Prime Minister?  Was it on the BBC?

SecretFly wrote:Back to Heath and what the police officer said a few days ago.  Seriously, I didn't watch much BBC this week.  Was it mentioned?

.... Or back to Trump if nobody wants to talk about such delicate not-to-be-mentioned things....

Which story regarding Edward Heath are you referring to? It is a very simple question - one cannot confirm or refute it's reporting by the BBC or any news organisation if one does not know which story you are referring to.

Thanks Ent for reminding me of a question that hasn't be answered yet.  

Meanwhile, what's the latest on Ted Heath - ex Prime Minister?  Was it on the BBC?

I believe my question was first on the list.

The BBC is the specific question - tax payers money organisation. (I already know the 'or any other organisation' answer)  Was there anything 'the latest' about him on the BBC News these last number of days?  Anything?

..or back to Trump... It don't matter, it's only news.....

SecretFly wrote:Thanks Ent for reminding me of a question that hasn't be answered yet.  

Meanwhile, what's the latest on Ted Heath - ex Prime Minister?  Was it on the BBC?

I believe my question was first on the list.

The BBC is the specific question - tax payers money organisation. (I already know the 'or any other organisation' answer)  Was there anything 'the latest' about him on the BBC News these last number of days?  Anything?

You'd need to either a) ask someone who has watched the BBC news avidly. That person may not exist on the site, so it may be a long wait, or b) search the BBC web-site, using their search functionality.
I hope that answers your question. It's the best answer that I can provide.

Unlike your answer, which is deliberately not answering the question, in your time-honoured and traditional fashion

JuliusHMarx wrote:

You'd need to either a) ask someone who has watched the BBC news avidly. That person may not exist on the site, so it may be a long wait, or b) search the BBC web-site, using their search functionality.
I hope that answers your question. It's the best answer that I can provide.

Unlike your answer, which is deliberately not answering the question, in your time-honoured and traditional fashion

Thanks, Julius. So you didn't watch the BBC News anyway. That's one Off Topic 606er released from jury duty after about an hour of trying to get a simple answer from him.
It's like pulling teeth this legalese approach but it's a great way for evading issues in court.

Jesus, come to think of it, we're probably close to being back to Hillary Clinton and the belief that lawyers are paragons of unimpeachable virtue.

SecretFly wrote:Thanks Ent for reminding me of a question that hasn't be answered yet.  

Meanwhile, what's the latest on Ted Heath - ex Prime Minister?  Was it on the BBC?

I believe my question was first on the list.

The BBC is the specific question - tax payers money organisation. (I already know the 'or any other organisation' answer)  Was there anything 'the latest' about him on the BBC News these last number of days?  Anything?

What is the latest on Edward Heath? I do not know what you are referring to and as such cannot answer the question if the BBC have reported it.

What it comes down to is this:

you can either tell me which story you are referring to and I can answer your question (this would seem to be incredibly simple to me but you have spent several hours Frak about instead of just telling me so who knows)

or

you can continue this inane drivel of yours and have your question unanswered.

Ent wrote:

What is the latest on Edward Heath? I do not know what you are referring to and as such cannot answer the question if the BBC have reported it.

I did warn Julius that pompous legalese would annoy people.


But in the interests of pursuing my business and attempting to lead witnesses into traps they don't want to fall into, I must insist that questions are answered rather than that more questions advanced.

"I do not know what you are referring to" has potentially a significant impact on the nature of the charge I put before this thread.  Can I presume you did not watch BBC News these last few days? Or is it the case that you may have indeed watched the BBC news but can't recall seeing or hearing any section devoted to Ted Heath?

Nevermind.... back to Trump.  

I'll label the other stuff 'To be Continued.... ' and put it in a box in the loft along with the guy who was involved in that massacre.

Al Capone is in your loft?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Al Capone is in your loft?

He's a nicer man than he's been given credit for. Someone has to home the refugees. I asked Meryl did she have room for him in one of her properties but she said she already had a man in her loft that is wanted by American authorities. So she's doing her bit.

I think if people had heard the stories about Heath it would be obvious to what Secret is referring. Although it has been reported in mainstream news outlets, including the BBC.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Al Capone is in your loft?

He's a nicer man than he's been given credit for.  Someone has to home the refugees.  I asked Meryl did she have room for him in one of her properties but she said she already had a man in her loft that is wanted by American authorities.  So she's doing her bit.

It's better to have loft and lost than never to have loft at all.

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

the-goon wrote:P.S. Trump married an immigrant.

So did Nigel Farage. What's your point?

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon wrote:So just like Brussels, Trump is vindicated...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/swedish-police-investigate-riot-predominantly-immigrant-suburb/

Oooo! High quality article. Nothing in it to suggest it was actually immigrants involved but hey, why not make assumptions?

In fairness to him/it, it's not the biggest stretch is it....??

SecretFly wrote:I don't have the time or inclination - you're the one that wants to play that game.  You're the one wanting to be fastidious with the meaning of words.  If you want to play it - play it.  And from here on in, if you choose to keep playing it, I'll try to match the fastidiousness.  

We'll get nowhere in debating terms and we'll drive everyone else nuts but it's your call.  You're the one that keeps popping in the assumed grammatical corrections.  If you want to keep going there, I'll follow.

You clearly do, or you wouldn't regularly reply with chapters of waffley prose that dances around an issue with scant relevance or attempt to make & justify a firm point. Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?