08 Nov 2016 10:43:41
Of course I've done my research on her, every criminal thing she's been accused of is either unsubstantiated nonsense or has been investigated and found that she has nothing to answer for. Wanting her to be guilty is not the same as her actually being guilty.
There's a reason everyone is against Trump and it's nothing to do with corruption, bias or liberalism, it's because he's the worst candidate to stand for President in generations and to most people that's very clear.
muscatred’s profile
muscatred
Published posts and replies
08 Nov 2016 11:11:48
Kim that's fine but it's not the point. Let's say you're right, that every poll company is corrupt and is purposefully misleading the people and that we should ignore what they're saying, where's the contradictory evidence that Trump isn't behind? Is it based on how many people attend his rallies? If so that can be immediately discounted, for all his sins Trump is box office, his rallies are far more exciting than the norm and people are attracted by a good show. The problem is no matter how many people attend his rallies it's still a tiny proportion of the electorate.
The only thing that will prove exactly what the people think is the election result. If trump wins I'll be amazed but I'll accept that the majority of Americans want him as President. The problem is that if Clinton wins you guys won't do the same.
Read discussionKim that's fine but it's not the point. Let's say you're right, that every poll company is corrupt and is purposefully misleading the people and that we should ignore what they're saying, where's the contradictory evidence that Trump isn't behind? Is it based on how many people attend his rallies? If so that can be immediately discounted, for all his sins Trump is box office, his rallies are far more exciting than the norm and people are attracted by a good show. The problem is no matter how many people attend his rallies it's still a tiny proportion of the electorate.
The only thing that will prove exactly what the people think is the election result. If trump wins I'll be amazed but I'll accept that the majority of Americans want him as President. The problem is that if Clinton wins you guys won't do the same.
08 Nov 2016 08:07:23
My point is not that the polls are necessarily accurate but that all relevant information points to Clinton leading. This argument that 'Trump will probably win the popular vote' is based on nothing at all. It is simply seeding the ground so that you can cry foul when Clinton does win.
Read discussionMy point is not that the polls are necessarily accurate but that all relevant information points to Clinton leading. This argument that 'Trump will probably win the popular vote' is based on nothing at all. It is simply seeding the ground so that you can cry foul when Clinton does win.
07 Nov 2016 21:36:25
Has it crossed any of your minds that she might simply be innocent? There is not one legitimate piece of evidence condemning her. As for Trump, he's been behind in the polls from day one, the most likely outcome is he's lost, the only question is how badly.
Read discussionHas it crossed any of your minds that she might simply be innocent? There is not one legitimate piece of evidence condemning her. As for Trump, he's been behind in the polls from day one, the most likely outcome is he's lost, the only question is how badly.
04 Nov 2016 14:37:33
Fair enough Ed, I was just being a pedant ;-)
Read discussionFair enough Ed, I was just being a pedant ;-)
04 Nov 2016 11:58:20
Can we all agree that if Texas doesn't go Democrat then this guy should be ignored from this point forward.
Read discussionCan we all agree that if Texas doesn't go Democrat then this guy should be ignored from this point forward.
31 Oct 2016 12:31:55
I think Churchill's reputation is more to do with what he represented than what he did. He was the personification of Britain's determination when it looked like we were out for the count and I bet most people felt reassured and confident after his speeches. Was he the reason we won the war? Probably not but then I don't think that's the point.
Read discussionI think Churchill's reputation is more to do with what he represented than what he did. He was the personification of Britain's determination when it looked like we were out for the count and I bet most people felt reassured and confident after his speeches. Was he the reason we won the war? Probably not but then I don't think that's the point.
17 Oct 2016 01:25:42
Fine Rian, I'll change my view to what he said in this particular video was monumentally stupid. Is that better?
Read discussionFine Rian, I'll change my view to what he said in this particular video was monumentally stupid. Is that better?
16 Oct 2016 13:21:02
Every society or social group in existence has a government and pays a form of tax, it's all just a matter of scale. He's not anti government, he's anti centralised government despite the fact that centralised government is demonstrably superior to his alternative.
Read discussionEvery society or social group in existence has a government and pays a form of tax, it's all just a matter of scale. He's not anti government, he's anti centralised government despite the fact that centralised government is demonstrably superior to his alternative.
16 Oct 2016 09:15:35
This man is an idiot. Firstly, in a society where everyone is responsible for their own security that in itself is not the problem, the problem is that the strongest can do whatever they like and nobody else can do anything about it.
Second of all his island scenario is ridiculously wrong. Government exists in that situation, a leader will either be chosen or will naturally take over, they become that communities government. Tax also exists in that scenario. If anyone does any work that isn't solely for their own benefit (e.g. catches some fish and shares the food) then they are being taxed.
Read discussionThis man is an idiot. Firstly, in a society where everyone is responsible for their own security that in itself is not the problem, the problem is that the strongest can do whatever they like and nobody else can do anything about it.
Second of all his island scenario is ridiculously wrong. Government exists in that situation, a leader will either be chosen or will naturally take over, they become that communities government. Tax also exists in that scenario. If anyone does any work that isn't solely for their own benefit (e.g. catches some fish and shares the food) then they are being taxed.
13 Oct 2016 16:49:00
There's a direct flight from Santiago in Chile to Sydney in Australia that takes just under 13 hours. On a flat earth these are two cities are on opposite sides on the disc approximately 28,000km apart (compared to to 11,300km on a globe) . For that flight to be possible on a flat earth the plane would have to fly far further than the published range of any commercial aircraft and reach speeds close to Mach 2, its route would also take it close to the North Pole instead of across the South Pacific. You can be pretty confident the world's not flat.
Read discussionThere's a direct flight from Santiago in Chile to Sydney in Australia that takes just under 13 hours. On a flat earth these are two cities are on opposite sides on the disc approximately 28,000km apart (compared to to 11,300km on a globe) . For that flight to be possible on a flat earth the plane would have to fly far further than the published range of any commercial aircraft and reach speeds close to Mach 2, its route would also take it close to the North Pole instead of across the South Pacific. You can be pretty confident the world's not flat.
13 Oct 2016 12:50:36
The sovereignty of the Falklands (or the Malvinas if you prefer) is in interesting one to study and certainly not straightforward. There are two claims, Britain's and Argentina's, all other nation's involved in the Falklands history have renounced their claims.
Argentina in it's current state has existed since 1816 but can trace its claim back to 1764. That year a French colony was established on East Falkland, this colony was handed over to Spain in 1766. Spain remained on the island and maintained governance till 1811. In 1816 The United Provinces of South America (a forerunner of the current Argentine Republic) declared independence from Spain and claimed all it's Latin American territories. In the 1820s Argentina made three attempts to colonise the Falklands, the first two failed but the third stuck and a colony was established. This colony was hardly successful and mutiny, murder and American attacks followed. In 1833, a British Ship arrived and ordered the Argentinian governor to leave and took over the governance of the colony.
Britain's claim can be traced back to 1690 (a Brit was the first recorded visitor to the islands) but formally starts in 1766 when a British Colony was established on Saunders Island. In 1776 the British Colony left under pressure from Spain but left a plaque asserting their sovereignty. In 1831 America attacked the Argentinian colony and arrested it's leaders before declaring the islands were free from governance. Argentina responded by sending a garrison to the Falklands in 1832 but the garrison mutinied and murdered it's commander. Britain took advantage of this period to reassert it's claim to the islands, in 1833 a British ship arrived, ordered the Argentinian flag to be lowered, expelled the governor and took over control of the settlement. In 1840 the Falklands were declared a Crown Colony.
The strongest claim to the Falklands is Spain's but Spain gave up its claim long ago. Argentina believes that it inherited sovereignty of the islands when it became independent from Spanish rule but this claim is disputed, partly because there has never been a Latin American population on the islands (the 1828 colony was an economic venture with only a handful of Argentinian 'gauchos' involved) . Britain believes that it's claim predates Argentina's giving it legitimacy. Geographical arguments are largely irrelevant (does Canada have a claim on Alaska because it's closer than mainland USA? ) . The reality is that two countries had competing claims over a deserted island and one of them did better in asserting those claims, the nature of politics then was that gunboat diplomacy was legitimate and the nature of politics now is that the population have the right to self-determination.
Read discussionThe sovereignty of the Falklands (or the Malvinas if you prefer) is in interesting one to study and certainly not straightforward. There are two claims, Britain's and Argentina's, all other nation's involved in the Falklands history have renounced their claims.
Argentina in it's current state has existed since 1816 but can trace its claim back to 1764. That year a French colony was established on East Falkland, this colony was handed over to Spain in 1766. Spain remained on the island and maintained governance till 1811. In 1816 The United Provinces of South America (a forerunner of the current Argentine Republic) declared independence from Spain and claimed all it's Latin American territories. In the 1820s Argentina made three attempts to colonise the Falklands, the first two failed but the third stuck and a colony was established. This colony was hardly successful and mutiny, murder and American attacks followed. In 1833, a British Ship arrived and ordered the Argentinian governor to leave and took over the governance of the colony.
Britain's claim can be traced back to 1690 (a Brit was the first recorded visitor to the islands) but formally starts in 1766 when a British Colony was established on Saunders Island. In 1776 the British Colony left under pressure from Spain but left a plaque asserting their sovereignty. In 1831 America attacked the Argentinian colony and arrested it's leaders before declaring the islands were free from governance. Argentina responded by sending a garrison to the Falklands in 1832 but the garrison mutinied and murdered it's commander. Britain took advantage of this period to reassert it's claim to the islands, in 1833 a British ship arrived, ordered the Argentinian flag to be lowered, expelled the governor and took over control of the settlement. In 1840 the Falklands were declared a Crown Colony.
The strongest claim to the Falklands is Spain's but Spain gave up its claim long ago. Argentina believes that it inherited sovereignty of the islands when it became independent from Spanish rule but this claim is disputed, partly because there has never been a Latin American population on the islands (the 1828 colony was an economic venture with only a handful of Argentinian 'gauchos' involved) . Britain believes that it's claim predates Argentina's giving it legitimacy. Geographical arguments are largely irrelevant (does Canada have a claim on Alaska because it's closer than mainland USA? ) . The reality is that two countries had competing claims over a deserted island and one of them did better in asserting those claims, the nature of politics then was that gunboat diplomacy was legitimate and the nature of politics now is that the population have the right to self-determination.
12 Oct 2016 18:22:06
This isn't about freedom of speech, this is about this site taking responsibility for the opinions it airs.
Read discussionThis isn't about freedom of speech, this is about this site taking responsibility for the opinions it airs.
12 Oct 2016 12:05:21
Ed, surely you should be vetting articles like these before you post them. By simply sharing them with no disclaimer you're endorsing their views. As the editor of this site you have a responsibility for what is posted.
Read discussionEd, surely you should be vetting articles like these before you post them. By simply sharing them with no disclaimer you're endorsing their views. As the editor of this site you have a responsibility for what is posted.
12 Oct 2016 12:02:47
Aggressor Squadrons have existed for decades all around the world, this isn't new. It's standard practice to paint them differently to make them more resemble enemy aircraft.
Read discussionAggressor Squadrons have existed for decades all around the world, this isn't new. It's standard practice to paint them differently to make them more resemble enemy aircraft.
23 Aug 2016 12:14:26
Rian, your last post was tantamount to putting up a white flag and announcing you've got nothing to say for yourself. I'll put you out of your misery, I won't post on this thread again.
Read discussionRian, your last post was tantamount to putting up a white flag and announcing you've got nothing to say for yourself. I'll put you out of your misery, I won't post on this thread again.
23 Aug 2016 10:33:14
Rian, you're either trolling me (in which case bravo, I've bitten) or you're doubling down on an argument that we're having in your head. You've accused me of a number of things (without attempting to counter any point I've made) so let's take a look at your contribution to this dialogue:
1. Your first post was confusing, it seemed to be a sarcastic reply to a point that hadn't been made in the OP or my reply. As it didn't make much sense I asked you to clarify if it was aimed at me.
2. You then decided to make it about me saying that I believed Rules of Engagement (RoE) propaganda. As my only statement on the subject up to that point was that the IDF had them this was an unusual comment to say the least, unless you think the statement 'IDF have RoE' is propaganda.
3. Out of the blue you escalate to Bloody Sunday which, again, isn't really relevant to anything that's been said so far. Then, instead of recognising that being ex-forces literally makes me a professional on matters of RoE and their application you dismiss any oppinion I have. At this point I have been polite and conversational in our exchanges, you have stated that I believe propaganda and that I've been brain-washed, I think it's understandable that in my next post I condescended to you.
4. At this point you're all fired up saying that you're au fait with RoE (without attempting to qualify that statement) . You then continue talking about Bloody Sunday and how RoE were 'deliberately ignored' despite there being no evidence or insinuation that there was anything deliberate about it. You then accuse me of not investigating illegal departures from Rules of Engagement by the IDF despite the fact that I've made no statement on the activity or morality of the IDF. Lastly you double down on my professional qualification on rules of engagement reflecting negatively on my knowledge of the subject. All you have done in this post is (incorrectly) make a point about a matter irrelevant to anything I've said, accuse me of not investigating a subject that I have made no statement on and claim I know nothing about Rules of Engagement despite my years of training on the matter.
5. At this point I've realised you are arguing at me not with me so I attempted to clarify the points I've made. You then try to dismiss your personal aspersions on me as 'healthy sarcasm'. After that you say I can't control this thread despite the fact I haven't tried to, I've just commented on the inaccuracies of it. You say I 'quickly slipped into condescension' despite the fact that you had insulted twice before I said anything negative to you. You then again accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about without ever having attempted to pointthe inaccuracy of anything I've said. My favorite bit is that with absolutely no irony you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about despite the fact that I was agreeing with you.
6. I'm not sure if you've just given up with your last post but you still seem to be convinced we're in an argument despite the fact that at no point have either of us made statement contrary to the other's oppinion.
Rian, in conclusion, you have insulted me without provocation, you have dismissed expert opinion out of hand, you have made statements with no qualification, you have failed to make a counter point to anything I've said and you have remained confrontational despite the fact that I've demonstrated agreement on matters you've raised. You're not very good at this.
Read discussionRian, you're either trolling me (in which case bravo, I've bitten) or you're doubling down on an argument that we're having in your head. You've accused me of a number of things (without attempting to counter any point I've made) so let's take a look at your contribution to this dialogue:
1. Your first post was confusing, it seemed to be a sarcastic reply to a point that hadn't been made in the OP or my reply. As it didn't make much sense I asked you to clarify if it was aimed at me.
2. You then decided to make it about me saying that I believed Rules of Engagement (RoE) propaganda. As my only statement on the subject up to that point was that the IDF had them this was an unusual comment to say the least, unless you think the statement 'IDF have RoE' is propaganda.
3. Out of the blue you escalate to Bloody Sunday which, again, isn't really relevant to anything that's been said so far. Then, instead of recognising that being ex-forces literally makes me a professional on matters of RoE and their application you dismiss any oppinion I have. At this point I have been polite and conversational in our exchanges, you have stated that I believe propaganda and that I've been brain-washed, I think it's understandable that in my next post I condescended to you.
4. At this point you're all fired up saying that you're au fait with RoE (without attempting to qualify that statement) . You then continue talking about Bloody Sunday and how RoE were 'deliberately ignored' despite there being no evidence or insinuation that there was anything deliberate about it. You then accuse me of not investigating illegal departures from Rules of Engagement by the IDF despite the fact that I've made no statement on the activity or morality of the IDF. Lastly you double down on my professional qualification on rules of engagement reflecting negatively on my knowledge of the subject. All you have done in this post is (incorrectly) make a point about a matter irrelevant to anything I've said, accuse me of not investigating a subject that I have made no statement on and claim I know nothing about Rules of Engagement despite my years of training on the matter.
5. At this point I've realised you are arguing at me not with me so I attempted to clarify the points I've made. You then try to dismiss your personal aspersions on me as 'healthy sarcasm'. After that you say I can't control this thread despite the fact I haven't tried to, I've just commented on the inaccuracies of it. You say I 'quickly slipped into condescension' despite the fact that you had insulted twice before I said anything negative to you. You then again accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about without ever having attempted to pointthe inaccuracy of anything I've said. My favorite bit is that with absolutely no irony you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about despite the fact that I was agreeing with you.
6. I'm not sure if you've just given up with your last post but you still seem to be convinced we're in an argument despite the fact that at no point have either of us made statement contrary to the other's oppinion.
Rian, in conclusion, you have insulted me without provocation, you have dismissed expert opinion out of hand, you have made statements with no qualification, you have failed to make a counter point to anything I've said and you have remained confrontational despite the fact that I've demonstrated agreement on matters you've raised. You're not very good at this.
22 Aug 2016 22:57:05
Mate, you wrote some guff about believing propaganda and you think I was the one being condescending? I then try and put a stop to the argument and clarify my point, even going so far as to point out that I agree with you on the matter of illegal engagements and you reply with the above. What is wrong with you?
Read discussionMate, you wrote some guff about believing propaganda and you think I was the one being condescending? I then try and put a stop to the argument and clarify my point, even going so far as to point out that I agree with you on the matter of illegal engagements and you reply with the above. What is wrong with you?
22 Aug 2016 16:07:45
Rian, let me dial this back, I started by saying that the 'robo-killers' of the original post were actually human operated weapon systems governed by rules of engagement, that statement is true. I gave a flippant response to your point about 'rules of engagement propaganda' partly because you were being strangely aggressive and partly because I don't know what rules of engagement propaganda is, it seemed entirely irrelevant to what I posted. Since then it's become clear that you want to make a point about soldiers not following rules of engagement, whether it be in Hebron or on Bloody Sunday. Surely the point is that on these occasions these soldiers were subject to rules of engagement that they then didn't follow (hence my point about individual errors as opposed to policy) . Either way it doesn't really relate to my original post which was neither pro IDF nor anti, it was simply about the misleading title of the article.
On a personal note I get the feeling you think I'm defending occasions where soldiers break rules of engagement, you couldn't be more wrong. Rules of Engagement are there for very good reasons and are very clear. When soldiers break them they should be punished. One of my biggest criticisms of the army is the way it closes ranks when a soldier screws up and tries to protect them. This undermines the army's mission, tarnishes its reputation and damages public trust. Bloody Sunday was a huge screw up where, as you point out, innocent people lost their lives because the rules weren't followed, it was a disgrace and I would support the prosecution of those involved if they were found guilty in court.
On a last point please read and understand the point people are making before wading in on the attack. All it does is lead to pointless arguments.
Read discussionRian, let me dial this back, I started by saying that the 'robo-killers' of the original post were actually human operated weapon systems governed by rules of engagement, that statement is true. I gave a flippant response to your point about 'rules of engagement propaganda' partly because you were being strangely aggressive and partly because I don't know what rules of engagement propaganda is, it seemed entirely irrelevant to what I posted. Since then it's become clear that you want to make a point about soldiers not following rules of engagement, whether it be in Hebron or on Bloody Sunday. Surely the point is that on these occasions these soldiers were subject to rules of engagement that they then didn't follow (hence my point about individual errors as opposed to policy) . Either way it doesn't really relate to my original post which was neither pro IDF nor anti, it was simply about the misleading title of the article.
On a personal note I get the feeling you think I'm defending occasions where soldiers break rules of engagement, you couldn't be more wrong. Rules of Engagement are there for very good reasons and are very clear. When soldiers break them they should be punished. One of my biggest criticisms of the army is the way it closes ranks when a soldier screws up and tries to protect them. This undermines the army's mission, tarnishes its reputation and damages public trust. Bloody Sunday was a huge screw up where, as you point out, innocent people lost their lives because the rules weren't followed, it was a disgrace and I would support the prosecution of those involved if they were found guilty in court.
On a last point please read and understand the point people are making before wading in on the attack. All it does is lead to pointless arguments.
22 Aug 2016 14:03:01
Ed, one of my jobs was training recruits. It would be a pretty clever cover up if the people doing the brainwashing didn't know they were doing it. But then again, being one of the controllers, of course I'd say that.
Read discussionEd, one of my jobs was training recruits. It would be a pretty clever cover up if the people doing the brainwashing didn't know they were doing it. But then again, being one of the controllers, of course I'd say that.