06 Sep 2016 17:34:02 Desperately disappointed with both Richie and Ken. Ken didn't give a straight answer to a single question, but I think Richie gave a much more sympathetic interview to Max than Ken, and was constantly interrupting him. Max was just as angry as Ken, but Richie saying, 'you're a very angry man Ken', was unnecessary, and he was clearly trying to antagonise Ken.
We still don't know what's going to happen to the money, which would have been good to know. I think Ken is totally burnt out, and he sounds like he needs to step back and realise his plan was flawed from the start, and make plans to return the money. But I'm not convinced he is a shill just yet, or behind a pyramid scheme. I do however think he is a complete arsehole.
This is a pathetic spat between two former best friends who are behaving like children. But I have lost a lot of respect for Richie Allen. There was no journalistic detachment. He was anything but neutral. The sarcasm, and the claim that 'I have no dog in this fight', despite the fact he clearly had his mind made up from the get go. And at other times he is so sycophantic when he is interviewing a guest he admires.
The real winner is the mainstream media, who can rightly point at these two interviews and say look, they're all bonkers.
04 Sep 2016 21:57:06 I suppose it's possible to reasonably accurately calculate the speed. If it is Mach 4 that is just nuts. The SR71 needed to be 85000' amsl to achieve Mach 3, which in itself is spectacularly fast. It wouldn't do half that at sea level.
The more I look at this, the more questions I have. The airspace around Cape Canaveral is controlled with an almost paranoid zeal. If you fly even close to it you will get a warning. Whilst I cannot accurately estimate the size of this high speed craft, it seems to be at least several feet wide. NASA are either complicit in this, or it had the ability to avoid radar detection.
04 Sep 2016 13:52:51 Thanks Big Al, I don't doubt his brilliance for a moment, and I do think his rocket was blown up too. I guess the big question is who did it. The small fast object was uncannily similar to the one on 9/ 11 as one of you mentioned, and who would have that kind of tech?
31 Aug 2016 12:24:00 If Hillary Clinton gets in she will support any Israeli aggression towards Iran.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
All that will be required during her presidency would be a false flag whereby Iran is blamed for an attack on Israel. In HC's warped view eyes that would legitimise an attack on Iran.
Before that, expect the US/ Russia proxy war in Syria to escalate even further, increased NATO buildup on the Estonian/ Russian border, and tension to increase in Ukraine. The strategy at the moment is to stretch the Russian army in as many directions as possible.
29 Aug 2016 01:32:06 I was wondering when you'd chip in TTTS. I'm not a big fan of McGuinness, there are a lot of things about him I can't stand. He is full of contradictions.
Franko, Scapp, Fr. Denis all interesting discussion points that have no easy answers, but worthy of discussion nonetheless.
28 Aug 2016 13:38:21 I though the appetite for chipping waned when they realised we couldn't last 5 minutes without our mobile phones, which do the same job and then some :)
28 Aug 2016 13:34:56 Once again you're completely incapable of backing up your dubious and fanciful claims. You claim to have a source. It's probably the Times and the Telegraph.
You started this thread asking for people's views on the Saville report, and then you use it as a Martin McGuinness bashing exercise, trotting out some of the very old establishment propaganda about him. There are many more and if you ever want to explore all the claims and counter claims in the future I'll happily chat with you.
As for the Saville report it would have been interesting to stay on that topic, as I think some visitors here might have been encouraged to delve into the story a bit. It's a tragic story, but also useful as a starting point to explore the complexities of the Troubles. And it is an incredibly complex period, full of tragedy, and worthy of serious and respectful comment.
Every comment you have ever made about Northern Ireland on this site, and some go back a year or more, demonstrate that you have an extreme bias that is matched only by your complete lack of knowledge of the subject, and yet you decide to bail on this topic by making me out to be a biased individual.
Let's be honest, we all bring bias to any discussion. You have a fixed and incurious mind when it comes to Northern Irish politics, a subject you say you have little interest in, yet paradoxically have such strong views on. Your bias is there for all to see. Feel free if you want to be the pot to my kettle.
But what has become increasingly apparent to me since you started posting on this site, is that you absolutely cannot stand being questioned, and I bet I'm not the first person to say that to you!
Bonnes vacances KP, I hope you and your husband have a lovely time, and if you ever make good on that trip to Dublin, I'll be only too happy to buy you a pint and show you around.
26 Aug 2016 11:12:33 You should focus more on the 'murderous thugs' to use your phrase, who shot 14 innocent people in cold blood. For someone who claims to have little interest in Northern Ireland you have very strong views on Martin McGuinness. Here's a very short clip of one of the paras talking about what he saw that day. Enjoy your trip to France.
25 Aug 2016 12:31:42 Previous posts you've made suggest you are interested, but you've made some odd comments. The one about the Nobel peace prize winners was strange, and you didn’t clarify when I asked.
Bloody Sunday was planned in advance, sanctioned by Ted Heath, and the paras fired the first shot. It's predictable that the British establishment would to try to demonise Martin McGuinness for his role that day, but if you believe that, you're only seeing it through a very distorted and politically motivated lens. It was cold blooded murder by British soldiers on 14 innocent people who were all unarmed, and many were shot in the back whilst trying to run away. 7 of the dead were teenagers. It's sickening when people (not you) try to score points over who did what, while the murderous bastards that shot and killed 14 innocent people on Bloody Sunday just carried on and got promotions and pensions, while families in Derry were destroyed by the loss of their innocent loved ones.
I always enjoy reading your posts, predominantly your observations are steeped in common sense, you’re clearly well read, and you have a good overview of world events. I often find myself agreeing with your sentiments, but on the subject of Northern Ireland I’m afraid I haven’t yet.
23 Aug 2016 23:30:55 If you mean the paedophile murderer who got Britain into the EEC then EH, you're right. No doubt he authorised it, but we'll never be able to prove it.
23 Aug 2016 13:40:25 I've never seen anyone react in such a paranoid way to a post that was about an organisation thousands of miles away that they're not connected to.
You start blabbering on about rules of engagement, completely missing the point and then ruining the thread because you have a persecution complex the size of a small town, and you became intensely paranoid thinking you were under attack. You weren't.
You think you're the only one here who can understand the complexities of rules of engagement and you claim to be an expert on the subject. A self proclaimed expert is someone who thinks they cannot learn anything new on their chosen subject. Some who has a completely closed off mindset. Someone who can only be right and never be wrong. Maybe that dogmatic self aggrandising mindset worked when you were trying to impress teenage recruits, but all you've done here is show yourself to be incapable of exploring a subject with even the tiniest bit of intellectual curiosity.
23 Aug 2016 11:03:34 Well it's not that recent KP, it took 10 years from start to finish, and the report was published in 2010. Like most people, I was very happy with it. Saville showed no apparent bias, and when David Cameron delivered his apology on behalf of the British government in the house of commons, it was a huge moment, and very welcome.
Rian · 06 Sep 2016 17:00