Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

The Rage Corner


Doro
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doro said:

Is anyone else getting glitches when Twitter links are added to posts here? Every page that has one refuses to scroll down to the bottom for me, and jumps about when I'm trying to look through posts. I've had to type this on a different page entirely.

I experience this as well but only in Explorer.

When it happens I move to Chrome and there is no problem there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cossieuk said:

This time lapse video shows the picture to be pretty accurate

actually that time lapse photo serves to prove my point.

the difference between the NY Times photo & the very fast moving time-lapse pic (from 42 seconds to 50-ish seconds is the time to watch) that changes speeds & zooms during the key parts, makes it hard to grab a frame that matches the live broadcasts, but i think i managed to grab the closest possible comparison shot:

TRUMPING_zpsdnhy25bo.jpg

now you may call me pedantic, but the difference between the NY Times tweet photo & the 47 second mark of the time-lapse vid is at least 25,000 people more & it is the closest match to actual live video footage from the mall section of the crowd.

if i had to do some raw math, i'd guesstimate the mall section had between 160,000 - 180,000 (220,000 is the capacity) at the peak, which is nigh impossible to grab a still of due to the speed and zoom changes in the time-lapse.  not as full as Obamas 2009 mall section, but fairly close Obamas to 2013 mall crowd.

16 hours ago, Doro said:

And that's despite 6 out of 14 of the entry points being blocked by a bunch of SJWs throwing a tantrum. Something the media isn't making too much about, instead focusing on an empty lawn pre-inauguration.

and that is why the NY Times snap is so dishonest.  the delays all the gating caused & the fencing set-up where a major factor in arrivals.  as i said above there is a difference of at least 25,000 people... probably closer to 40,000 in actual peak crowds for that section of the mall everyone is so focused on.

& why from Trumps perspective it did indeed look full, even if it was shy 40,000 (or slightly more) people.  this is what he saw:

C2vvEdJVIAAetJD_zpsu2vzoj1a.jpg

and even though the media tent eats up a ton of space...  it only holds about 500 press inside, but it certainly adds to the visual white-space.

18 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

Aside from the fact that you are comparing a forward facing picture with a top down one. It was mostly the manner of the press conference delivery that made me laugh, it was so unnecessarily defensive 

yes perspective does matter.  but that NY Times tweet was STILL dishonest by a good 25,000 (at least) or more.

as for Sean Spencer...  i actually thought it was spot on (transit figure gaff aside) it had just enough "go fuck your narratives" to be the perfect blast they earned, IMO.

his official press conference today was absolutely on point as well:

i think the guy is an ace, who over time will do a fantastic job.  any media that isn't hard core committed to partisan opposition narratives, will have no issues with him.  he gave them a ton of leeway & time today.

1 hour ago, Doro said:

Is anyone else getting glitches when Twitter links are added to posts here? Every page that has one refuses to scroll down to the bottom for me, and jumps about when I'm trying to look through posts. I've had to type this on a different page entirely.

load times can vary depending on actual demand, (from twitter) but if there is no traffic issues, the tweets generally load fairly fast in firefox.

nothing ever as severe as you describe though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2017 at 10:42 PM, LasraelLarson said:

as for Sean Spencer...  i actually thought it was spot on (transit figure gaff aside) it had just enough "go fuck your narratives" to be the perfect blast they earned, IMO.

his official press conference today was absolutely on point as well:

i think the guy is an ace, who over time will do a fantastic job.  any media that isn't hard core committed to partisan opposition narratives, will have no issues with him.  he gave them a ton of leeway & time today.

load times can vary depending on actual demand, (from twitter) but if there is no traffic issues, the tweets generally load fairly fast in firefox.

nothing ever as severe as you describe though.

In the press conference Spicer said, "No one had numbers. Because the National Park Service, which controls the National Mall, does not put any out." Later in the press conference, he said, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period!" Presenting something as truth that has no factual evidence to back it up has been a disturbing trend this election season with several candidates. I just hope people are smart enough to find the information and make their own decisions.

I have no idea why Trump and his staff are making this into something. It's pretty obvious to anyone watching the time lapse that Obama's first inauguration drew a larger crowd, and Reagan's inauguration was larger than either of the two. The fact that Trump tried to present his inauguration as the largest ever concerns me. Nobody would have paid any attention to his own inauguration numbers if he hadn't claimed it as the largest, coming off petty and egocentric instead of presenting what most would consider to be a presidential manner since nobody cares about inauguration size unless the president does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eredor said:

In the press conference Spicer said, "No one had numbers. Because the National Park Service, which controls the National Mall, does not put any out." Later in the press conference, he said, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period!"

he actually said:

Quote

 

Trump's inauguration had the largest audience in history "both in person and around the globe."

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period."

 

 

12 hours ago, Eredor said:

It's pretty obvious to anyone watching the time lapse that Obama's first inauguration drew a larger crowd, and Reagan's inauguration was larger than either of the two.

yes Obamas 2009 inauguration (physically at the capitol area) crowd was the largest ever, (by a good 300,000 people would be my guess.)  Reagans was not.  Reagans Inauguration had the largest US Television audience ever.  US Nielsen estimates:

- 1981 Reagan = 41.8 million.

- 2009 Obama = 37.8 million.

- 2017 Trump = 31 million.

- 2013 Obama - 20.6 million

OK, so for Trump... so far not the largest audience ever...  until we get to live streams:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/23/trumps-inauguration-broke-live-video-streaming-records/

Twitch, youtube, twitter & other streaming services is where the:

and around the globe."  "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period." comes in.

i know myself, i watched on youtube on a secondary affiliate of Fox with close to 300,000 others & the main Fox had more, as did all the other youtube networks streaming.  then factor in all the other forms of streaming (independents factoring in larger here as well.)

when you add in live streams, yes i do believe that in fact Trump did net the largest audience EVER!.

& as i have shown in my previous post, the New York times did in fact use an image that:

Quote

Spicer said some photos were "intentionally framed" to downplay Trump's crowd.

the difference between the time-lapse & the New York times tweet photo is at the VERY least 25,000 people less (closer to 40,000.)  & even that PBS time-lapse has questionable zooms, speed changes & a lack of frames at the key peak moments that make it difficult to match with the actual official start of the inaugural event, (shown below) but the still i captured at the 47 mark is the actual start of the inauguration in the time-lapse.  people were still arriving at the mall right into Trumps speech & those frames are missing from the time-lapse, but would only add at best an additional couple thousand more.

but hell watch the actual event yourself & see first hand that that New York Times photo is a damned lie:

 

13 hours ago, Eredor said:

I just hope people are smart enough to find the information and make their own decisions.

indeed.  and comprehension about what is actually being said would also hugly benefit.  bigly huge!

13 hours ago, Eredor said:

I have no idea why Trump and his staff are making this into something.

let me help you with that as well.

instead of exclusively focusing on coverage of the dumpster fire that was the womens march...

or the other global marches.  most of the media switched to Sean Spencers live blasting of the press & then fixated on debunking said blasting...  for days.

soo many still don't get why Trump is effective, & will gleefully continue to dismiss him at every turn & somehow he manages to continue to win.

 

oh he'll never do all the things he promised...

Facebook-e96df2.png

Trump did have the largest inauguration audience in person & around the globe. PERIOD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

 

Trump did have the largest inauguration audience in person & around the globe. PERIOD!

That's incorrect phrasing then. You can't say both when only one category has a possibility of being correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

you seem to be confusing "&" with "or" which leaves one response when you say this:

8vgCEM5(1).gif

Actually he's correct, the correct phrase should be the largest combined audience if that's what he is trying to say. 'and' implies that both sides of the condition are true, yet by your own admission the left side of the condition is false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

Actually he's correct, the correct phrase should be the largest combined audience if that's what he is trying to say. 'and' implies that both sides of the condition are true, yet by your own admission the left side of the condition is false. 

neither side is false, they are ALL variables.

prior to 1925 when Radio was added, there was only in person.  1949 the first Televised broadcast.  in 1997 the first Internet broadcast & as best i can tell in 2012 Tablet & Mobile device streaming data took off.  i can find no data on radio, but for the later comparisons, i don't believe it will be of much significance.

Ronald Regan's 1981 had a first place record estimated Nielsen US TV audience of 41.8 million viewers, but his in person crowd was small, estimated at only 10,000 (you can see the mall section is completely empty, though honestly 10,000 seems quite low, looks to be at least double that, however the crowd is quite thin near the water on the Capitol building side.)  it looked like this:

article-0-02DBF74B000005DC-180_468x305.j

 

the first internet stream happened during Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration & though i can find no recorded numbers for the stream, he had a Nielsen estimated US TV audience of 21.5 million viewers and the in person crowd was estimated at 250,000 (total 21,750 million + unknown internet figures) and looked like this:

pict444-obama-maison-blanche.jpg

 

Clinton's 1993 Inauguration had both a larger estimated Nielsen US TV audience of 29.7 million and an in person crowd estimated at 800,000 (total 30,500,00 & though there is no internet streaming yet i am going to go ahead and assume the 1997 net numbers won't be big enough to add up to 1993 audience totals.) it looked like this:

1993BillClintonIng_zpsxhb0hdsh.jpg

the tents you see above in the mall section are from the previous days celebrations, (for both photos above) but the crowd doesn't even reach back to 4th street. where the first tent is located in each photo.  this particular audience may be the widest in the Capitol Building section as there are a couple buildings not yet built that allowed for slightly wider audience arrangement that doesn't exist in all years following. even accounting for that, the 800,000 estimate seems a tad high, (by a couple hundred thousand.)

 

next i'll go with Obama's 2013 Inauguration which was not his record year.  ignoring Trump for now it is estimated that this was the 3rd largest in person crowd to the 2013 date at 1 million people.  the Nielsen estimated US TV numbers were 20.6 million viewers.  now this particular year had the combined internet usage that included streaming over Internet for PC, Tablet & Mobile but the boom on the later 2 devices was only really getting started.  all loose data i can find suggests a much MUCH smaller footprint than Trumps 2017 data streamed numbers... though i can find no hard concurrency numbers for Obama's 2013 inauguration & i didn't actually watch any streams, so i can't even attempt a memory recall.  estimates of the 1,000,000 in person attendees and the 20.6 million Television viewers is considerably lower than Reagan's 1981 record breaking audience.  regardless, here is what Obama's 2nd. looked like:

Inauguration-White-House-Photo-by-Chuck-

the above IMO for in person audience was the closest match for Trumps in person crowd which a rather uncomfortable large portion of media is actively denying, trying to frame otherwise, but here is Trumps 2017 in person crowd:

Inaug-Trump.jpg

the above two are VERY similar in person crowds in size, & small differences in density don't actually add up to much as each has places filled where the other lacks.  but for in person crowds, these are the 2 that really should have the most comparisons. front shots, back shots, monument included shots, side shots, etc.  even the media tent which is a smaller model in Obama's 2013 photo, (2009 doesn't have as best i can tell) & it is in the exact same location on 12 Street in the Mall section.

instead they chose to focus on the record breaking in person crowd from 2009 & to be honest that crowd does have the most available photos (including the best one of all, a satellite image, which because of the overcast in both above images, isn't available for 2013 & 2017 & i believe it would give the best indication of Trumps actual in person crowd size.  but for instance you can't find any back view of 2013 to match up with 2017...  it is all 2009 comparisons.

anyway, in person Obama did have the largest in person crowd at his 2009 Inauguration & here is what that looked like:

inauguration_2008.jpg

the above doesn't really do this justice, but i will include a huge satellite at the end of this post that gives the clearest picture of the extent of this record breaking in person crowd 2009.

anyway to clarify about the in person crowd,  what really ground my gears was the NY Times tweet photo, as it is a flat out lie. an image soo many retweeted as fact & even used to edit it in split shots, that further misrepresented the size even further with split shots showcasing the false numbers as peak & using Trumps left frame Vs. Obamas right, as example:

Trump-Obama-Inauguration-Crowd-Compariso

not only does it take an inaccurate snapshot (Fucking NY Times!) from Trump, but it purposely compares Trump's left (the emptier side) mall to Obama's right & the scale and focus is off.  Trumps photo is out of focus and compressed slightly & the actual image of the media tent is off, as if they purposefully edited it to look like more white space, instead of a structure.  here is a shot from the back that is close enough to reality, (from TIME of all places, Reuters also had accurate shot) that had this one been predominantly used  i would have far less contentions:

obama-wd-trump-inauguration-crowd-compar

the scale & alignment, clarity in focus (& most importantly) accurate reflection of crowd size at the very start of the inauguration would have been an honest comparison.  here is the Reuters one:

16114805_10154857353398418_3095435222732

though i really would have liked to see 2013 Vs. 2017...  the above is close to accurate (though missing a section from the Washington Monument)

ok, now for last just numbers comparison:

                         "In Person estimate"     "US Television Estimate"     "Stream over PC"     "Stream over Tablet /Mobile"      "total"

Bill Clinton 1993:         800,000                     29,721,041                             ---                                     ---          30,521,041

Barack Obama 2013   1,000,000                  20,600,000                            ???                                   ???         21,600,000+(?)

Ronald Reagan           10,000                       41,800,260                             ---                                     ---           41,800,270

Barack Obama 2009    1,800,000                 37,800,000                            ???                                    ---           39,600,000+(?)

Donald Trump 2017        ???                        31, 000,000                           ???                                   ???         ????????????

Trump i'd guesstimate  (900,000 - 1,100,000)    ^^^    record numbers>4.6 M (minimum)<huge record numbers  (37 M  - 50 M)

now with Barack Obama 2009 internet numbers i think he would pass Reagan.

the hard numbers i have, plus if i am correct about in person crowd i am absolutely confident Trump had 37 million at the VERY least, (it was way more!)  Mobile & Tablet growth (&streaming accordingly) have exploded in growth since 2012.  confirming Akami user usage data reporting & hard streaming concurrency numbers from major networks confirm Trumps 2017 data streaming footprint was record-breaking, by A LOT!

so no Trump's in person crowd wasn't as big as Obama's 2009 in person crowd & here is the satellite image from 2009 i promised:

obama_4403_17681689.jpg

all my clarifications above ...

"in person" AND "around the globe", Trumps 2017 Inauguration Audience was the biggest to date!

#1 TRUMP 2017

#2 Obama 2009

#3 Reagan 1981

# 4 Clinton 1993

#5 Obama 2013

but yes Obama 2009 had an entrance-gate-blocking protestor-free, satellite-photo-sunny, cloudless day that was the #1 "IN PERSON" crowd.

also it is funny no one disputed Sean Spicer's 3 inauguration section "we know holds" numbers, which were also flat out made up & would have made Obama's 2009 numbers impossible.

now why would i point that out?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.

Just to be clear, I couldn't actually give a shit about who had the most popular inauguration, petty squabbling about popularity and numbers is I suspect going to be a feature of the next 4 years, I'll leave that to the people that want to squabble about it. My post was just pointing out that Eredor was in fact correct with how he described the use of the word 'And'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

Ok.

Just to be clear, I couldn't actually give a shit about who had the most popular inauguration, petty squabbling about popularity and numbers is I suspect going to be a feature of the next 4 years, I'll leave that to the people that want to squabble about it.

normally i'd be right there with you in not caring either.  why is this time different?

i think Bill Maher said something along the lines of... and i paraphrase,  "in the past we have expressed partisan disapproval across party lines & as a Democrat, i gave the Bushes & Reagan a hard time.  i fought against McCain & Romney and we've received it back for our candidates, but this time ...  this time is different."

and from my perspective as a political centrist, i can't recall ever seeing the left lose it's mind quite like this (in my lifetime anyway) & i honestly think the shifts away from more traditional left positions, to the more radical, Marxist elements...  the reaction has been absurd.  peaceful protest now includes civil disobedience, in some cases to the point of domestic terrorism.  & suppression of political speech is now A-OK, even to the point of physical violence.  the left is increasingly Fash-ing out.  but that is the new state of things, at least for a little while longer.

anyway, if the Dems don't start thinking about running strong candidates & building that platform (the last DNC Chair Leadership Conference was a train-wreck) it'll be more than 4 years.  but they still seem to be so off track.

that or they'll have to actually ship people out of strong Blue States to register to vote (once) in a secondary state (giving up their main state vote) to shift electoral college votes.  because they have no presence in the seats of power to actually make any electoral college changes & if they can't better distribute that majority (which IMO is the size it is due to some voter fraud) they will lose again.

18 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

My post was just pointing out that Eredor was in fact correct with how he described the use of the word 'And'

and again, you are still wrong.  allow me to demonstrate with something symbolic that isn't related.

lets establish one operand as "represented individual oranges."  a banana is NOT an orange.  an apple is NOT an orange. a tomato is not an orange.  so if we are establishing represented individual oranges; only an orange is an orange is true. a banana is not an orange & would be false.

lets establish a second "different" operand as "represented individual pieces of fruit."  an orange is a piece of fruit, a banana is a piece of fruit, an apple is a piece of fruit &... is a tomato a piece of fruit? unless we are being incredibly pedantic... a tomato can be a piece of fruit. 

OK so those are the 2 separate operands.

Reggie Rawperformer has 1 orange AND 410 bananas in his basket.

Willie Corruptor has 80 oranges AND 300 bananas in his basket.

Black Orangutan has 180 oranges AND 370 bananas and 6 apples in his basket.

Dominic Toupee has 95 oranges AND 310 bananas and 46 apples and 100 tomatoes in his basket.

Black Orangutan has the most oranges "IF" represented individual oranges is the operand.

"IF" individual pieces of fruit is the operand then it is TRUE that Dominic Toupee has THE MOST individual pieces of fruit in his basket.

therefore, "in person" AND "around the globe" with regard to audience numbers, both operand ARE TRUE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly muddled analogy but you are also correct. 'And' can be used to indicate addition as in your analogy where you are adding oranges and bananas, we can also use logical And as Eredor did where we are testing that both sides of the condition are true.

You and Eredor are both correct. As I said, Eredor wasn't wrong. He did interpreted it differently to you though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2017 at 1:35 AM, Laurinaohtar said:

Slightly muddled analogy but you are also correct. 'And' can be used to indicate addition as in your analogy where you are adding oranges and bananas, we can also use logical And as Eredor did where we are testing that both sides of the condition are true.

You and Eredor are both correct. As I said, Eredor wasn't wrong. He did interpreted it differently to you though.

fair enough.

so i have recently come across more photos and whilst not all of them scaled exactly due to slightly different angles; and some size sources were so vastly different that scaling to match, clarity was lost, but thought i'd upload them regardless.

even though it is missing the back monument section, i though this was an accurate comparison:

   Obama 2009 <--->Trump 2017

TrumpObamaActual_zpsjkxuplu7.jpg

i recently found the back portion for Trumps, so here it is & yes i believe it to be accurate ;)

TrumpObamaMissingMonty_zpscbxsbkhj.jpg

as you can see, Trumps monument section is next door to vacant.  & since the photo is actually taken from the top of the Washington Monument it can only show so much.  the satellite for Obamas 2009 shows what can't be captured from the camera on the Monument:

geoeye-wash-mon.jpg

so that 2009 Obama crowd was the record breaker at an estimated 1,800,000 or so.

the second place goes to Lyndon B. Johnson (1965 & a Democrat) at an estimated 1,200,000.

3rd is Obama second inauguration, estimated 1,000,000.  & i thought this was the fairest to compare Trumps recent to & i have found a back image for Obama's 2013 as well; mocked up a comparison composition:

2013Vs2017_zpsf6rxphcf.jpg

& now that i have seen the back facing image for 2013 & can see that Obamas Monument section is also empty...  his 2013 inauguration still holds 3rd. spot for "in person" crowd size.

previously Bill Clinton had 4th. spot in 1993 with an estimated 800,000 & i have seen several photos of that one from different angles & it is quite plain that crowd does not extend into the mall past 4th street.  Obamas 2013 crowd extends all the way back to 12th street.  in front of Trumps media tent located the backside of 12th. to 10th street is fairly sparse for Trump, but he clearly has people (though less dense than Obamas crowd) in the sections from 10th. to 4th.  here is a street map:

20100709210843!National_Mall_map.png

... 

so we know what 1.8 million is supposed to look like & what 1 million is supposed to look like & what 800,000 is supposed to look like & the areas they occupy & if those values are to be maintained as accurate?  i think it is safe to say Trump has the 4th largest "in person" inauguration crowd in history. & having seen more photos i'd put it slightly North of 900,000.  100,000 more people would easily fill up those white spaces.

& just to clarify, if Bill Clinton can fit 800,000 from the Capitol "speakers podium" to "4th street."  here are more views, just to show density...

INAU17.gifINAU16.gifINAU19.gif

yeah, Trump gets 4th spot to date...

& one last pic of (according to the media) Trumps poor turn out (because he lacks support)

636210589629747867-AP-Trump-Inauguration

4th largest "in person" turn out just isn't good enough... 

when you are dedicated to a narrative anyway.

given Washington DC physical location on the east coast in the midst of traditional blue states...  for a Republican candidate, whose turn-out would not be a local phenomena & all the other top crowds are on the Democrat side...  Trumps in person crowd was very good.  in fact a clear sign he does have support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Not that I watch The Brit Awards, but it came up in the new today about how it's so progressive so it caught my attention.

Apparently, last year there was a major ruckus about it being too many white people. So this year they've decided to make it more equal. Let's see what they did with the nominees!

  • British Female Solo artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Male Solo artist - 1 white, 4 blacks
  • International Female Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • International Male Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Group - 5 whites, no blacks (how controversial!)
  • International Group - 3 whites, 2 blacks

Yup, their version of equality was to just over-represent blacks in their awards. With mixed races included, blacks only make up 5% of the UK population. Yet here they are, making up a whopping 50% of the nominees. They're now 10x more represented than they should be, but this was required to stop all the tantrums from the previous year.

Looks like all of these inane awards are just another platform for leftist bullshit and the spread of their racist agendas (which is ironic for people who claim to hate racism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Doro said:

Not that I watch The Brit Awards, but it came up in the new today about how it's so progressive so it caught my attention.

Apparently, last year there was a major ruckus about it being too many white people. So this year they've decided to make it more equal. Let's see what they did with the nominees!

  • British Female Solo artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Male Solo artist - 1 white, 4 blacks
  • International Female Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • International Male Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Group - 5 whites, no blacks (how controversial!)
  • International Group - 3 whites, 2 blacks

Yup, their version of equality was to just over-represent blacks in their awards. With mixed races included, blacks only make up 5% of the UK population. Yet here they are, making up a whopping 50% of the nominees. They're now 10x more represented than they should be, but this was required to stop all the tantrums from the previous year.

Looks like all of these inane awards are just another platform for leftist bullshit and the spread of their racist agendas (which is ironic for people who claim to hate racism).

And? Your point?

There should be no merit based reward system... everyone gets a trophy!

And "real" trophies go to... well... not you white boy!

Self flagellate and beat the white privilege out... 

Progressives ... have established racism in Canadian law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladue_report

Read it and weep...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doro said:

Not that I watch The Brit Awards, but it came up in the new today about how it's so progressive so it caught my attention.

Apparently, last year there was a major ruckus about it being too many white people. So this year they've decided to make it more equal. Let's see what they did with the nominees!

  • British Female Solo artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Male Solo artist - 1 white, 4 blacks
  • International Female Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • International Male Solo Artist - 2 whites, 3 blacks
  • British Group - 5 whites, no blacks (how controversial!)
  • International Group - 3 whites, 2 blacks

Yup, their version of equality was to just over-represent blacks in their awards. With mixed races included, blacks only make up 5% of the UK population. Yet here they are, making up a whopping 50% of the nominees. They're now 10x more represented than they should be, but this was required to stop all the tantrums from the previous year.

Looks like all of these inane awards are just another platform for leftist bullshit and the spread of their racist agendas (which is ironic for people who claim to hate racism).

No fucks given. It's an award show for music that is generally shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doro said:

Oaks grow from acorns. This sort of shit won't stop here.

My thoughts exactly... but different. :P 

I have posted several times here about "riots" and "violence". IMO the pendulum has began to swing (edit: "turn" not "swing" is what I meant) and those indoctrinated into the progressive mindset, and unable to break free of that inertia, will, if history teaches, resist to the point of violence to the forces of change. I see the same turbulence of the 60's looming if Trump succeeds in implementing his agenda and if Europe continues on it's current pendulum swing as well.

I welcome this shift... but I see, potentially, perilous times ahead... who will win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
24 minutes ago, LordVorontur said:

Meanwhile, in a supposed civilized country, which has a Prime Minister that has stated that it's a country that has to work for everyone in it:

http://www.thecanary.co/2017/03/07/more-people-come-forward-in-the-dwp-kill-yourself-scandal/

I'm really not surprised about this behaviour from the DWP. I was on JSA for a while after a redundancy, and having to deal with the people in the Jobcentre was infuriating. Patronising, spiteful, and clueless are words that spring to mind regarding their staff. I can't imagine how much worse it is for people who are actually suffering and faced with what amounts to a tax-paid firing squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Doro said:

I'm really not surprised about this behaviour from the DWP. I was on JSA for a while after a redundancy, and having to deal with the people in the Jobcentre was infuriating. Patronising, spiteful, and clueless are words that spring to mind regarding their staff. I can't imagine how much worse it is for people who are actually suffering and faced with what amounts to a tax-paid firing squad.

This kinda shit is the vast majority of the calls I take from day to day.

Issues with benefits, sanctions for no good reasons, mandatory reconsiderations and appeals. We have a Representative at my bureau who does ESA and PIP tribunals(and sometimes Child DLA), and she is in the 90s on percentage of winning appeals and overturning decisions by the DWP. It's very very rare that she loses a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
46 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Parliament terror...

Stiff upper lip, lads.

Find those responsible and give 'em some Rule Britannia right up the ass... Allahu Akbar indeed...

 

 

One of them died, thankfully. Sadly, he was treated by medics, they should've just let the cunt bleed out.

Sad for the other 3 who died.

 

The guy has already been named by non-media types as a Hate preacher. No need to guess which religion he purports to represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LordVorontur said:

One of them died, thankfully. Sadly, he was treated by medics, they should've just let the cunt bleed out.

Sad for the other 3 who died.

 

The guy has already been named by non-media types as a Hate preacher. No need to guess which religion he purports to represent.

Rare for the hate preacher to actually commit the atrocities themselves. Usually they just get some other insane idiot to do what they tell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LordVorontur said:

One of them died, thankfully. Sadly, he was treated by medics, they should've just let the cunt bleed out.

Sad for the other 3 who died.

 

The guy has already been named by non-media types as a Hate preacher. No need to guess which religion he purports to represent.

The name being mentioned is for a man who is in jail, so not likely to be him.  

So far we know nothing about the suspect nor their motives, best not to jump to conclusions like Channel 4 news did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...