Taking one incident, or even a dozen, to smear millions of decent people who share the same skin color, religion or beliefs is the absolute definition of bigotry
Indeed. And the result is incidents like the attack reported in this article, where a particular religion has been so smeared (over the acts of a tiny fraction of a percent of its followers) by the American and European right that some people get it into their heads that all Muslims are terrorists and it's okay to attack them for no other reason than their headwear.
I would think therefore, given your definition of bigotry, that you would join myself and the other posters here in condemning this act of bigotry. I am puzzled therefore to instead find you obfuscating and whatabouting about "violence on the left".
6 ( +6 / -0 )
Good job, that will made America safer than ever
America isn't safe, and Trump isn't changing that. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis; the Boston marathon bombers originated from Russia. All the other very frequent mass murders in the US have been carried out by nutcase Americans. Nothing Trump is doing would've stopped any of it.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
how many Chinese hotels have anti-Japanese propaganda in their rooms?
In my fairly substantial experience, none. Anti-Japanese propaganda is certainly an issue in the PRC, but not something one sees in hotels.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Was it an intentional massacre or was it a mop-up mission that got out of hand, that should be the debate
Not really. Whatever you call what happened in Nanjing, and however many died there, it was part of an illegal and unprovoked invasion of China, an act of naked and totally unjustified aggression by Japan which resulted in tens of millions dead, perhaps the single bloodiest invasion of one country by another in human history. Whether 300,000 were killed in and around the city of Nanjing, or whether it was "only ten thousand" (as per Ishihara), and whether some of them had guns, really is not the point at all.
If the owner of ANA wants to convince me that Japan didn't do anything wrong in China, he's going to have to convince me that 1937 to 1945 didn't happen. There is a monumental amount of evidence for him to disprove if he's going to do that.
There really is no proof that it ever happened
There is plenty of evidence. Japan most definitely invaded China in 1937 without justification and killed a huge number of people, many of them in and around Nanjing.
5 ( +9 / -4 )
now that wasn't so hard now was it?
Obviously, as I never said it. Straw man arguments get you exactly nowhere.
No one really cares what Streisand or Streep or DiCapario thinks
You appear to care rather a lot; you're still whining about it.
Except Breitbart died four years before pizzagate, his comment re Podesta was about ACORN
No Podesta hysteria, no Pizzagate self-investigators. The latter evolved from the former.
We discussed it and I said something like 'who is this Greg Phillips
That's exactly the point. He's a random guy who invented the 3 million claim based on zero evidence, which was picked up by Trump and went viral thanks to confirmation bias.
The news is coming from True the Vote
Post-truth right there. Trump's claim precedes True the Vote's response to his claim, so that doesn't work. Furthermore True the Vote give zero evidence for anything. Furthermore True the Vote didn't make the 3 million claim, Trump appears to have got it from this Greg Phillips. There is still no evidence for this 3 million claim, and you still haven't given any, and you aren't going to be able to because it's clearly bunk.
And also I debunked the snopes link you just posted
You totally failed to do so, producing zero evidence and no sound logical demonstrations.
Breitbart sets out in detail why the attempts to brand their article 'fake' are fake in themselves, including the point you are attempting to bring up. Ignoring their answer and just repeating your claim doesn't prove your claim.
Breitbart headline: NYE in Dortmund: 1000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Church Alight
Dortmund Police: that didn't happen.
The very definition of fake news.
So you're backing off your claim that True the Vote is not an organization?
A very odd straw man; I made no such claim. I merely pointed out that the 3 million claim came from an individual, not from True the Vote. The 3 million claim didn't come from them.
And your claim that Breitbart are birthers?
They printed a picture of Harambe the gorilla under 'Birther Bait and Switch'.
You should just admit you've been consuming and forwarding fake news
I've been forwarding fake news? Haha. News to me; I haven't been forwarding any news at all, fake or otherwise. I've simply been demonstrating that you have. That's some marvellously mendacious cheek there pal, I like it. Where have I have forwarded anything? Meanwhile you link to Breitbart dozens of times per day; do they pay you for backlinks or something?
Was it HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, or a combination pushing this stuff?
Pushing what stuff? you think the NYT is pushing your lack of an argument? What are you even talking about? The falsehood of the Breitbart NYE article was shown by the Dortmund Police; are the Dortmund Police fake news too?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
...which was the genesis for Pizzagate. Yes, it really 'broke' in 2016 when that moron went 'self-investigating' with his gun, but it was years in the making and Breitbart played its part (along with many others, chiefly of course the nuts on 4chan and Reddit). But Bannon and Breitbart know very well what buttons they're pushing.
Not true. Breitbart, at the link I provided you: "A video uploaded to the RN live blog of the night clearly shows a large mob of people recklessly releasing fireworks at buildings and each other.
Okay... so one more step now... did the video show that the mob set fire to a church while chanting Allu Akbar as reported by Breitbart? No, it didn't, because they didn't. Breitbart made that up. Fake news, which you are trying to spread. Busted.
True the Vote offer no evidence whatsoever for 3 million illegal votes. Absolutely none. Not on their website, not in the Breitbart report. Furthermore, the True the Vote statement you refer to was released after Trump made his claim and was therefore not the genesis for his claim. His original claim and Breitbart's promulgation of it stems from one guy (some Greg Phillips) making evidence-free tweets, as I know you are well aware because we discussed it at the time.
You're going to oh-so-predictably make an ad hominem attack against Snopes as an organisation rather than deal with the content; but what you actually need to deal with is the complete and total lack of factual evidence that 3 million voted illegally. There isn't any because it didn't happen. Fake news, and you are trying to spread it. Busted.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Trump has every right to respond and attack her back
you just fail to see that, he has every right to respond appropriately
Those are either intentional straw man arguments, or you gents have simply failed to grasp the point. I'm not saying and have not said he has no right to defend himself. I'm saying that his ad hominem attack is a complete failure of a defence. Attacking her for who she is (or blathering on about how good or not she is at her job) in no way refutes anything she said (although clearly it plays well to a base who don't care about logic)
I didn't, but please continue
You quite clearly did contradict yourself. You gave a statement saying Trump should have ignored Streep and another that he was right to attack her.
Breitbart refuted the claims that the story was false
No, Breitbart reported that a mob set fire to a church. What actually happened was a firework set fire to a church, and in a completely separate incident a mob gathered and did very little. Breitbart's report was a mendacious conflation of two unrelated events. Their "refutation" gives zero evidence whatsoever for their original claim that the mob started the fire, but merely focuses on whether the mob were migrants or Muslims, which is totally irrelevant to the fakeness of their original report. Nice try Breitbart but jog on.
Breitbart reported on an organization's claim of "3 million illegal votes"
"An organisation"? And what organisation was that? It was one guy tweeting with zero evidence; in reporting it as though true or even remotely credible, Breitbart was generating fake news. Likewise the birther claims; Breitbart may or may not have generated any claims, but continuously reporting a non-story for which there is zero evidence, is itself fake news.
nothing promoting pizzagate as true
They didn't pass judgment on it. Should they not cover that story? Are you saying they shouldn't cover news that doesn't agree with you?
The exact same goes for Trumpian "fake news" attacks on "the MSM". Whether an outlet reports a story should be determined by whether they have evidence that there is a story; Breitbart just reports stuff which is totally bogus.
So again, if your agenda is "anti-fake news" you're not doing a very good job.
Is she still "literally shaking"?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Then you really must hate the MSM! Good, me too!
I don't consider it to be a single entity. But no I don't like the outlets I think you're probably referring to with that convenient label.
I still believe that Trump mocks pretty much everyone and NOT just this one individual because of his handicap
Ok, but the point you've shot yourself in the foot over is that he does this fro, his bully pulpit where they can't defend themselves; by your own logic, cowardly. Yet you give a free pass and support while whining about Streeps attack on him when he couldn't defend himself. The very definition of "selective hypocrisy".
And now then, what fun. You've just utterly contradicted yourself in the space of 2 posts. You've said the complete opposite not 2 hours apart:
No, I would have done the same and good on him, hope he does it again if they get in his face like that.
Personally, I don't think Trump should give Streep the time of day and just completely ignore the woman, she's insignificant and not worth his time, let her ramble on
Hopeless. you've just defeated your own argument with a blatant self-contradiction worthy of DJT himself.
I have a different opinion, when I pay money, I don't care about your political personal stance, it's bothering me and most other people that paid to see a good game
Irrelevant to the fact you started with a false claim.
As for your schadenfreude, its wasted on me. I'm not a Democrat or an American. But you really are going to need something more substantive, and very soon.
That you don't agree with what they say doesn't make them mendacious
Straw man. What makes Breitbart mendacious is its constant spreading of falsehoods and misrepresentations. Last week they posted a fake story about a group of Muslims setting fire to a church in Germany chanting Alluh Akbar. Completely made up; German police say no such thing happene in Germany last week. That's what makes them mendacious. And the Obama birth certificate stuff, and the "3 million illegal votes" BS, and Pizzagate. This garbage is what fake news actually means, so if your agenda is anti-fake news you need to be turning your sights on Breitbart. But you won't. Busted.
Why are you repeatedly asking the question?
Because your answers were bunk. Trump told a direct lie that he personally saw thousands and thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey. If your agenda is anti-fake news, you should be condemning this. But you won't. Busted.
The event she's complaining about was more than a year ago, Nov. 2015
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I will submit to you, in situation if that happens, two wrongs don't make a right
So quit attacking her for using her platform and defending him for using his (and a note here: I'm not criticising him for using his platform to make points, I'm criticising him for the nature of the points made i.e. personal bullying, ad hominem attacks, lies and disinformation)
"if" that is indeed the case
There is no "if" about it. There is a video of him attacking the reporter in question, plus all the videos of him attacking a whole bunch of other people from his bully pulpit. No "if" whatsoever.
I did answer, but for some odd reason, you're glossing over it
No, I'm just refusing to accept dodging as an answer.
I don't think Trump should give Streep the time of day and just completely ignore the woman
That clearly would have been a far, far better way for him to have dealt with it. You can see that and I can see that, but the man himself either could not or is emotionally incapable of doing it, and so it's become a huge talking point instead. Think that one over.
if I'm paying money, get your behind on the field and play ball!
He didn't not get on the field, did he? There was no disruption to the game; your belated widening of your point to make it vague and general doesn't mask the original false claim you made. I'd just stop digging if I were you.
So now what? Should we lock Trump up, should he be hung, drawn and quartered? Oh, what on Earth should we do now?
You should probably be asking yourself if this man as president is really such a good idea. Once you get over your schadenfreude and glee at the Democrat loss, you're going to have to deal with the Trump presidency and all the absurdity, corruption, mendacity, BS, and foreign meddling that's coming with it. You should be concerned, if you're able to think about it objectively.
No matter what vile vitriol she and the Hollyweird ilk spew
Haha, "vile vitriol, spew"... an amusing spin on her actually quite eloquently phrased points.
So Streep can be stressed for the next 8 years as the rest of Hollywood, good!... Next Saturday can't come soon enough. Lol
What, no ROFL or LMAO? Just an Lol? My only surprise here is that it took you this long to resort to the schadenfreude you so often indulge yourself in. Another thing you need to realise about next Saturday is that after that you're going to have to come up with something more substantive than the schadenfreude and "I hate Obama and Hillary" lines that constitute your entire input to these discussions.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Nowhere in that big block of text have you addressed my point; you are attacking Streep for criticising Trump from a platform where he couldn't defend himself, but when Trump attacks someone from a platform where they can't defend themselves you defend him against criticism.
You have no answer to this; it's blatant bias on clear display.
I was just saying that Streep is a selective hypocrite
And I note that you select not to criticise Trump for using his platform to attack people, while you select to attack Streep for using her platform to criticise Trump. And you're calling her a selective hypocrite?!
It says that Kaepernick’s protest has “threatened our harmonious working relationship” with the 49ers
Indeed. That's exactly my point; it does not say that he disrupted the game, which was your original demonstrably false claim.
this is the main reason why he tweets and I don't blame him.
Good, I think you've answered your own original question about why she used an award speech to criticise a politician. Because that is the platform available to her, just as the bully pulpit and Twitter are Trump's platforms. Note I never said he shouldn't be able to do so; I was employing a rhetorical device to get you to answer your own question, which you have now done.
this inflated Russian fabricated story
Which Trump last night acknowledged was in fact true; when asked last night who did the hack, he responded "I think it was Russia". Direct quote.
she can attack Trump and the has to be quiet
Straw man. I did not say he has to be quiet. I very clearly said something quite different - that his ad hominem attack on Streep utterly fails to address or counter the points she raised. You have no sound response to that, hence the straw man argument.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
it's the fake news outlets repeating related claims
So stop linking to Breitbart, the prime example of a peddler in fake news and mendacity.
It's an anti-fake-news narrative
...in which you defend Trump's spreading of fake news? Some "anti-fake news narrative" that is. Trump was spreading falsehoods about (quote) "thousands and thousands of people" celebrating in New Jersey. If your agenda is "anti-fake news", why do you defend rather than condemn Trump's mendacious spreading of falsehoods?
You are utterly busted on this, in a deep hole of your own digging with not a leg to stand on.
Did she really nurse a grudge all that time
She explicitly stated that she was talking about what was, for her, the most shocking moment of the year.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I must say I'm very impressed with how you've twisted the debate away from Streep and Trump to your anti-Muslim narrative, and it was impressive how you had all those links lined up and ready to go. Very good work.
But you have utterly failed to demonstrate that Trump wasn't lying about 9 11. Did he conflate what he saw in the ME with what he saw in NJ? Perhaps; if he did so intentionally then he's a liar, and if he did so by mistake he's a complete moron. Neither is a good thing in a president.
Bafflingly my reply to you was removed for being impolite. It didn't contain any offensive or impolite language at all, but perhaps an idiom I used was misconstrued so I'm reposting with that switched for an alternative phrase. I hope it passes the mods because I want to know your response:
I haven't been silence on anything
You were silent on my post until called out. Thank you for at least attempting to address it, though the attempt merely highlights what a hole you've dug yourself into over Streep & Trump.
It says that Kaepernick’s protest has “threatened our harmonious working relationship” with the 49ers
But not that he disrupted the game.
How am I engaging, I just call it out for what it is.
I clearly explained how you were engaging in hypocrisy. You are calling Streep a coward for 'attacking' (actually, criticising) Trump in a situation where "he cant defend himself", yet you are defending Trump for mocking someone in a situation where they couldn't defend themselves. That is hypocritical and has nothing to do with your attempted response of:
So Trump allegedly mocking a journalist is more important than a young handicapped boy that gets beaten up, mocked and brutalized by 4 black thugs is not as important trump mocking someone
...which is both a straw man argument and an irrelevant piece of obfuscation to dodge explaining your hypocrisy over Streep & Trump.
So I ask you again, how do you explain your hypocritical attack on Streep for her words from the stage but your defence of Trump for his mockery from the podium? You've run rings around yourself on this one I'm afraid, Bass.
I see, but why use the awards make a protest
Why use Twitter or the political podium to attack people?
If Streep can attack Trump, then Trump has every right to respond and attack her back just as hard as she did him
She criticised him for something he did. His response was an ad hominem attack on who she is. There is a difference. Attacking her privileged position in no way constitutes a counter-argument to any point she made, it merely highlights the lack of a counter-argument by Trump or yourself or any of his other defenders on this board.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Trump said he saw thousands and thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey. That he said that is a matter of record. None of your links demonstrate that he wasn't lying his behind off.
"Some Jersey City Muslims" is a very different claim from "thousands and thousands".
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Your continuing silence in response to my last two posts addressed to you is noted and speaks volumes.
disrupting the game?
He didn't disrupt the game.
she couldn't tell Trump to his face
Once again, how are you so worked up about this yet defending Trump to the hilt for ridiculing, mocking and attacking people from the lofty safety of his podium? "Hypocrisy, hypocrisy", you cry, while engaging in it.
why didn't she bring up...
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout? Fact is that those people are not going to be the president, and have rightly been arrested and charged for their behaviour.
By all accounts, she most definitely is
She herself acknowledged her position of privilege within the text of her speech. Attacking her over her privileged position in no way constitutes a counter-argument to any points she made; ad hominem and irrelevant, straight out of the DJT playbook.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Trump may have conflated thousands celebrating around the world with the reports of those celebrating in New Jersey
No, he flat out lied that he personally saw thousands in New Jersey. I've quoted it verbatim. You can keep on digging, but there's nowhere to go.
In the absence of any attempt by you to support the claim that he did, or to counter the evidence showing he didn't
The evidence that he did is the video we've all seen of him doing it. Your 'evidence' that he didn't isn't 'evidence' of anything, it's pathetic attempts to explain away the video of him doing it.
That's my take away from the Obama years. I won, so the rest of the nation can stuff it!
Obama made clear attempts at bipartisanship; his efforts were rejected by the Republicans who chose obstructionism.
I note you didn't reply to my last post addressed to you; your silence speaks volumes.
just calling out liberal hypocrisy once again
Well now, you didn't reply to my last post addressed to you in which I called out your own hypocrisy; silence speaks volumes, so I invite you once again to respond: you rail against Streep for "ridiculing" (actually, criticising) Trump "where he can't defend himself" because it's "cowardly"; yet you defend Trump to the hilt for ridiculing people from his podium where they can't defend themselves, like the coward that he is. Your hypocrisy is blatant and there for all to see; seeing as you seem to hate hypocrisy so much, I wonder how might try to explain that for us?
Hollywood didn't hold Obama responsible for the massive wars he led in Afghanistan and Syria?
Nice try; those two countries were invaded in 2001 and 2003, preceding the Obama presidency by years, as you are well aware.
allowing himself to be pushed around by Putin
Putin hates Obama precisely because he could not push him around; he loves Trump because he knows he can play him like a fiddle.
let's not forget, who's watch ISIS started on
Indeed. ISIS started on George W's watch, as a direct result of the Republican hawks' illegal invasion of Iraq. Again, nice try but this sort of mendacity is debunked by a cursory glance at the dates.
@all of the above posters
Why are you guys going so blue in the face over this one? I thought the appeal of DJT was that he says what he thinks, doesn't care about being PC, and that this is refreshing? So why go to such lengths to defend him and play down his offensiveness?
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Haha, sure. Keep digging, Turbo.
What failed fact check, by the way? Trump did lie that he saw:
"New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering"
"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down.”
This is a matter of record.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Trump should just allow her to troll on and cast aspersions, ridicule him and not expect him to say or respond to any unjust verbal attacks
She didn't ridicule him. She criticised him for ridiculing someone else like a schoolyard bully instead of acting like a 70-year old man and presidential candidate (as he was at the time)
She didn't make an unjust verbal attack. She made an eloquent and perfectly just criticism of his bullyboy behaviour
if she did it to his face... but behind his back where he can't defend himself is cowardly
You are well aware of course that that's exactly how Trump mocked the reporter; not criticised, but imitated and mocked, behind his back where he couldn't defend himself, like a cowardly bully. Your double standards and hypocrisy are breathtaking, and you're the one whining on about hypocrisy all up and down the board. Such mendacity is worthy of Trump himself.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Donald Trump is pathetic.
His response totally fails to deal with her points, resorting to lame knee-jerk ad hominem attempts to dismiss because of who she is.
Note that all posts in his defence in this board follow the same pattern.
That video just shows Trump, and not the reporter
It shows Trump mimicking a disabled person like a high school bully
She actually thinks that the ultra-rich like her in Hollywood are the real oppressed in America
She clearly doesn't; in her speech she acknowledged how privileged they all are.
I wonder how many speeches Streep has made to Goldman Sachs?
Well then why don't you find out and tell us. I'm betting the answer is zero, if that's wrong i'd be interested to know.
Sure sign of someone who's just had their internet non-argument dismantled
14 ( +14 / -0 )
Well, they didn't even try to do anything about it
Other than apply sanctions which caused the rouble to lose half of its value practically overnight. Obama's "economic war" according to some posters, though of course it was a response and not an aggression.
yet, Putin felt that he had absolutely nothing to fear in taking it while Obama is the WH
And clearly he is going to have even less to fear with Trump in the White House; he can probably look forward to a few green lights.
Obama got played by the Iranians and as far as Cuba goes... what's wrong with Trump trying the same thing?
For starters, he isn't trying the same thing. Obama never invited Iran to hack the US or suggested he would green light Iran in annexing part of Iraq. But to your actual point, your logic is that you're trying to say that the Dems are hypocrites for being soft on one, hard on the other; yet the Republicans (well, the Trump wing anyway) by the same logic are also hypocrits for being soft on one, hard on the other. A baffling position.
As far as making America great again, since the election the Dow is 14 points away of hitting 20,000, so I would say, he's off to a Darm good start.
A strong stock market is more important to you than not selling your allies down the river and handing Europe and the ME to Russia on a silver platter? That's "great"?
Good grief man, do you actually think that the contents of the classified intelligence briefing received by Obama and Trump was based on information publicly available on CNN? Obviously not; it's a tiny facet of the story you're fixating on, and your claim based on that alone that Russia is a pawn being played by the US Democrat party is ridiculous.
Putin got the best Christmas present he could have wished for; a useful idiot in the White House. And there's an army of them online too.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
You're making it sound like the Democrats were cheering on Russia's annexation of Crimea. They were quit clearly opposed to it; check the pro-Russian comments on this here board for whining about Obama's "economic war on Russia". The problem isn't that the Democrats are hypocrits, flipping between being soft and hard on Russia; it's that they want to be firm on Russia, and they see that Trump is going to be anything but. Do you not see that? Drop your anti-Democrat monomania for a second, if indeed you possibly can do such a thing, and just honestly look at what stance you think Trump is going to take towards Putin and ask if that's really "making America great again".
"Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout!"
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Obama has sold more war weapons than any president bodies him
Completely irrelevant and off-topic.
All warmongers must be called out
And Putin is the leading active global warmonger as things stand.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
I downvoted turbostat's post on the grounds of this absurd statement:
"Russia is just a pawn in the Dem's rage-filled post-loss end game."
Russia "just a pawn"? Right. Poor little Russia getting used by the "rage-filled Dem's"!
As for the Breitbart link; it insinuates that the FBI's conclusion (doesn't mention the CIA) is invalid because they apparently got it entirely from a Google-funded company, which supports Hillary Clinton. I would like to know how Breitbart knows this, given that the methods used by the intelligence agencies are not known to anyone other than the intelligence agencies, Obama, and Trump (and note that Trump is no longer claiming they are incorrect since having the methods explained to him). The CIA and FBI say they used their own in-house expertise (not simply relied on Crowdstrike as claimed by the ever-disingenuous Breitbart). I know from your posting history and our past conversations that you take things very much from an evidence-based perspective (and rightly so), so surely you see the gaping hole there in Turbostat's (via Breitbart) position?
7 ( +8 / -1 )
The point you missed there:
The establishment and there MSM lackeys
Putin is the establishment in Russia, and RT are his MSM lackeys.
Taking all the CNNMSNBCFOX
You list 4. It would be a lot worse if the US only had one of the above; e.g. if FOX was the only outlet, with no alternative. It would be a lot like Russia in that case.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Obama has waged an economic war and a propoganda war against Russia for years
...but 'Grandmaster Putin' is above such tactics?
remember how 4 or 5 news magazines all published...It really boggles the mind how people can be so easily fooled
Haha. Two words: Russia Today.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
only ‘stupid’ people or fools” would dismiss closer ties with Russia
It's a nice idea in theory, but only an idiot (or a self-serving narcissist) would bend over and accept those ties entirely on Putin's terms, as you appear to be gearing up to do.
the next day you are upset that Trump wants better relations with Russia
That isn't the problem. The problem is only achieving better relations by serving up Putin everything he wants on a plate and giving him a free pass for his meddling and military adventurism. That isn't 'better relations', that's bending over for a complete scumbag while displaying a copmplete lack of moral spine.
By any measure, Obama has increased tensions with Russia
Odd perspective; I would say that Putin has increased tensions with America, very much despite Obama's initial efforts to reach out to him. Obama found that he couldn't reset relations without giving Putin all he wants; Trump appears ready to give Putin all he wants. That is a steep price to pay to be able to say "oh look I've made us friends again". Trump's a baby seal next to a shark like Vlad.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
actual amount 250 instead of 350 mil
Not sure where you get 250m from; the figure calculated by the BBC is 160m.
I want to know why a UK govt 2 or 3 years hence is going to be totally unable to allocate more money to the NHS
Well, if Brexit leads to a roaring economy then they would be able to; but if Brexit leads to economic stagnation or worse then they won't be able to, regardless of the figure on the bus.
Furthermore the UK govt 2 or 3 years hence is going to be the Tories; whatever that bus said and whatever mendacity the Tories came up with during the campaign, the Tories are licking their chops at the prospect of privatisating the NHS.
What Ukip think about the NHS has very little relevance as things stand.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The issue with the bus, Jeff, as I'm sure you're already well aware, was the mendacious figure quoted upon it.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I am sure Yoshitune could have a laugh at the myriad examples of that if he learnt to read the wider picture instead of boiling his argument down to whatever 'Aunt Sally' would suit his argument (can't you come up with something more adult than that lad? Lots of people may well be laughing all the way to the bank....so what?
You've missed my point. Rupert Murdoch, through his ownership of a newspaper that has spent the last two decades campaigning for Brexit, is one of the major architects of Brexit. The man isn't British and doesn't give a hoot about Britain or sovereignty or any of the other patriotic-but-empty tosh The Sun spews out; he wanted Brexit so he could a) make more money and b) get away with more in the UK and make himself more powerful to c) make more money. The man is well and truly laughing all the way to the bank, at the UK's expense. Hardly the stuff of "taking back control" or "putting the 'great' back into Britain", etc etc
Sneering at people making money now are we?
Sneering? You what? There's a lot of sneering going on right now alright, as well as plenty of snarling and gnashing, and it's being aimed at the "liberal metropolitan elite", whatever the hell that is even supposed to mean. Meanwhile, the actual scumbag elite which has been shafting the little man the whole time - an elite of which Rupert Murdoch is very much representative - is now just going to do it harder than ever before.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Rupert Murdoch is laughing all the way to the bank.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Travelled through Guizhou last year and saw this bridge under construction; both the bridge and its surroundings are spectacular. In fact most of Guizhou is pretty spectacular, it could be a massive tourist draw but they need to sort a few things out (very few hotels are licensed for foreign guests, for example, and I trekked around a bunch of hotels and ended up being taken by the police to the only one in the area that could take me, which was a) way more expensive than i wanted or needed and b) very badly located for public transportation access to the places I wanted to visit, including a famous canyon near the above bridge... CCP's need for control trumping common sense, as per usual)
4 ( +4 / -0 )