puck2

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, the same-same argument? Not buying, thanks. And there was nothing said about Fox, or any specific media outlet. Have fun ranting.

If you are not able to understand that Fox is a synonym for biased

"information" in the USA,  it's your problem.

BTW, ranting - but no substance in your answer.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The Iranian people do not enjoy the same accesses to information or the same freedom of expression as people in the USA do. There is nothing in the USA approaching the level of control on media and power to shape public views which exists in Iran.

Yes. It's a pity that Iranian people cannot watch „Fox“. Polls in the West? Experts say, give me the desired result, then you'll get your poll.

Morch, think twice about your comment. The people in the USA have the freedom of chosing their medias, that's right. But who controlls fake and manipulated news? The Iranians have their mullah-regime, the USA have a much, much more complicated system controlled and influenced (advertising!!!) by the BIG MONEY. The Iranians would like to have a relative free press system, but are not able to use it as the people in the West. The West - and specialy the USA – have a free system, but a big part of the populace doesn't have time, the will or the intelligence to read/understand  biased press properly.

Why is Fox treated like a „government“ channel by an incompetent, sick liar? The connection to your comment: dou you believe the grewing number of Fox viewers are better informed than the Iranians? In general, the result of this poll shows that the Iranians are able to recognise manipulated news in contrast to a lot of the „freely“ informed.

15 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Most people die immediately after getting bitten , not many live to tell the tale 

????????????????

From:

https://www.orkin.com/other/centipedes/poisonous-centipedes/

Are Centipedes Dangerous to Humans?
Smaller variants of centipedes produce nothing more than a painful, localized reaction, not unlike a bee sting. Larger species, however, administer more venom through a bite and can produce more extreme pain. While centipede bites can be extremely painful, they are not generally fatal to humans. Pain from a centipede bite may last up to several days. However, an experiment conducted in the 1920s concluded that the pain most commonly subsides after a number of hours. There can be swelling around the bite, and some victims may experience nausea, sweating and the swelling of lymph nodes following an attack.

<------->

Individuals with other insect allergies should observe their symptoms closely in the event of a centipede bite. Beyond the initial pain caused by an attack, possible side effects include severe swelling, chills, fever and weakness. In the event of a severe allergic reaction, emergency medical services should be contacted immediately.

21 hours ago, thaiguzzi said:

They'd be better off  going back to the Drachma and giving up on the Euro...

In this thread the old wisdom is demonstrated: the bigger the blatant ignorance about facts – the bigger the open mouth.

Fact is

• when Greece ask for the EU-membership it didn't fulfill the EU-conditions (the last 3 years budget deficit shouldn't exceed 3%). The Greeks manipulated this „serious“ problem with the secret and not declared support of Goldmann Sachs. They booked Goldman Sach's 2.8 billion „Euro-financing“ (currency-SWAPs-2%), 15 years) not into the budget. Problem criminally solved.

• That means, before entering the EU the Greeks lived beyond their means

  • unreliable budget policy; very high state deficits over the years

  • lack of competitiveness; the money paid for productivity was to high

  • high standard of nepotism and cronyism

  • corruption and shadow economy

  • inefficient and uncontrolled financial and tax policy

The Greeks got used to this status of spending more money than having earned. And therefore they „enjoyed“ the intended financial support of the EU. BTW, partly paid by the UK, too. So, they could have a better life outside of the EU than receiving EU(RO)-Money? You are joking.

Everybody knows, returning form a higher standard of living to a lower one is very hard for the people.

I guess Tsripas would like to give some money back to the people, mostly hit by the crisis – as it's  „normal“ for the next re-election. The current better economical conditions in Greece are related to Erdogan's autocratic policy, especially in the tourist sector. Result, a big number of European vacationers switched from Turkey to Greece and Spain.

I can trust our dog, but never this LOTUS (Liar Of The United States), averaging 5 lies per day - as improved by a German magazine.

11 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

Which pensions of EU citizens do we need to pay?

 

Our own ex-politicians (like Kinnock) - will no longer be a burden on Europe. So we don't have to pay his pension. 

 

What about the UKs share of the assets the EU owns? Do you know the value of those?

 

Perhaps you could outline the specific payments you think should be made. After all, my own 'bugger all' was presented itemized and in full. Yours lacks detail to the point of being less than vague.

The people living in the UK will will recognise value of the EU„assets“ after Brexit. The EU wasn't a one-way street in the market and money area.

It seems you and your Brexit friends don't know or realize the positive aspects of the EU membership. „Maybe“ it was worthwhile for GB to pay for the membership. The Brits already have got their money back in many different systems, among them free trade.

Now I ask you: „do you know the value of this?“ Let's talk talk about this a few years after Brexit.

It disappoints me very much that a lot of contributions to the Brexit debate is dominated by Britain's loss of money and sovereignty. Thatcher's „I want my money back“ comes to my mind. Imagine, all EU members – and especially the paying members - would be dominated by the same idea.

Since WW II and China's Deng Xiaping's reform the world has changed 'a little bit'. Britain, France. Germany, Spain, The Netherlands etc. are dwarfs as single states against the USA, (Russia?) and the new world power China. Wouldn't it be useful to have a mighty bloc as an equivalent instead of stubborn single states? The EU as block has a quality and strength as equivalent to the new world powers, as single powers they are a laughing stock, a pawn in the hands of the powerful.

It's an historic wisdom that unions force some states to swallow bitter pills as an equivalent to a better future. Even if you believe in the bible, the world hasn't been made within one day. Look at the history of the USA. So give the union (EU) a chance to eliminate the flaws, although losing some sovereignty. It's worthwhile.

BTW, Brexit was only the result of the majority of the voters, not the people! Sometimes – and especially in this case – it's better to have a parliament to vote about such a difficult decision. Why? The members of the parliament in general are a little bit more intelligent than the voting sheep. You don't believe it? Make a referendum: Do you want a 50% tax cut? The majority of the voting sheep will answer YES.

That's what happened in Britain; brain and sanity down, temporarily influenced emotion high. All this is now reflected in the Brexit negotiations. And the EU should reward this? Brexiteers, think about what England would do, if Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would like to leave GB - after a positive referendum. Shaking their hands and open the wallet? I don't believe.

4 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

"Nepotism isn't a crime, its a given right to certain ruling members?"   Indeed it is..............

 

 

Now I know why and  where

learned it from

China is going to be more likeable, day by day - at least at the ports of arrival.

Procedure  and treatment -  a real horror in the USA.

Before 9/11 they arrogantly didn't worry about security, now they learned a little bit from "1984" ( Big-Brother).

Yes, a blonde-haired chameleon is waiting ......  now going to eat boiled crow.

One sentence (from Karl Marx, 5555) explans it all:

religion is the opium of the people.

• or better -

religion is something you cannot improve, only believe in.

The brain is closed. Experience, science intelligence and in many cases normal sense stay outside of the door/brain. Psychology is used to control you- and that's the opium for good and bad intentions, dos and don'ts. And it's often against human nature. All members of one religion are ordered to swim in the same direction, otherwise you will be punished by the proxies of the special religion.

Look around in the world and you will recognize you believe what you have been told in your early years, when logic doesn't exist or prevail. But it sticks in the brain and dominates you when getting older. Then the opium is working, unless you are able to get rid of it. And that doesn't happen with the majority of the believers, for many reasons.

I could give you examples over many, many pages, it's an endless stuff. That some shouldn't think I'm raving only a few examples

• the world is made within 6 days (by god)

• you go to heaven or hell after dying. But where is their position in the universe?

• You will be reborn once in the unknown future

• god comes to the people or comes from them through the air, light or ???? - without aerospace vehicle (in that past time).

• All the fairy tales concerning Noah's ark, Moses, Jesus a.s.o.

• Every religion has a moral codex. So, why do we not have exactly the same in all of them? That means, the religious conditions are made by different human  prophets, priests etc.

• which religion is the real, the true one? Can there be 20 or 50 different truths?

Result:

there are and have been good and bad people (including fanatics) everywhere in the religious world. Be it Jews, Buddhist, Christians, Muslims with all the plenty of sections.

Thailand is not different.

One of some Tory failures within the last time: Johnson, the chief diplomat, has to be stopped by a "normal" diplomat. Congratulation to the British diplomat in Myanmar for his courage against his boss - and shame on Mr. Flibbertigibbet.

Madame May, you are second behind Trump for choosing "excellent" ministers. Maybe you are replaced by Mr. "Moggmoment" (Jacob Rees-Mogg), a man from the 18th century.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

How can the EU get involved in a dispute between US government and a Canadian company? You still have not answered that question.

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Why don't you stop trolling and do a bit of basic research on this issue and it's relevance to the UK? Hint: it's in the thread op. You know? This thread in which you keep posting your daft responses? And if you still need help, go and mither someone else.

You don't stop asking the same (stupid) question tree times (ore more). A question with wrong fundamentals.

To enlighten you

It's said already many times here that nobody is able to answer a question of this (nonsense) style:

Why doesn't the EU support the UK against the USA when CAN had built a licensed factory on the moon/in the UK? Bombardier is a Canadian Co., not belonging to the EU. You are contradicting your own ideas: The UK should design and resolve its own affairs. That's already a view into the Brexit future (you like and prefer so much !).

If the US action is against the EU law, why didn't your Brexit darlings. TM + BJ + NF, ask the EU for support against the US tax intentions?

The EU has represented the Airbus concerned EU countries against Boeing. That includes the UK. You see, the „bureaucracy monster“ (favorite word of Brexit lovers) has fought for the UK, too.

On 25.9.2017 at 7:12 AM, craigt3365 said:

Can we pass a new law prohibiting Trump from using Twitter?  Maybe from even talking? LOL

The best way to solve the problem would be

(......... in theory)

from www.spiegel.de

1. This thread is opened by Reuters „news“, copied by many, many medias. Believing in every point of those agencies doesn't mean that they are correct by 100%. Sometimes you detect they are missing and ignoring important points.

2. Threatening the Jews is not the main agenda of this reactionary movement. The Reuters point that „official data show anti-Semitic crimes reported to the police rising 4 percent to 681 in the first eight months of 2017 against the same period last year.“ is incorrect in this form.. Not all of these crimes don't have a connection to the AfD. In the „Zeit“ journal you can read that there is a higher rise of Anti-Jews crime in English speaking countries than in Germany.

E.g. Reuters forgot to mention the AfD as well as the left-wing Linke have been elected in this poll as a protest against the ruling parties CDU and SPD. This means the protest voters haven't been satisfied by the politics of the 2 coalition parties. And that has nothing to do with Jews. That is one point Reuters didn't name.

3. Correct is that most of these voters didn't like the well-meant attitude of Mrs. Merkel. The state and the bureaucracy haven't been prepared for a controlled immigration of this migrant/refugee wave and was too reluctant to push the economic migrants back.

4. The German government of those days didn't think enough about the real problems that automatically come with the (Muslim) refugees. Among them housing (for more than 1m, suddenly), religion, many children, the majority of male people, standard of education, how the mainly Muslim refugees have to adjust in Germany. And that Germany isn't Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan or Sudan.

5. Although I can understand the sorrows of the Jews (history), there is no verifiable trend of a changing attitude. In Germany there is still a reliable third power in the state, the law abiding one. It seems the AfD will have problems with the existing law.

20 minutes ago, Roadman said:

Perhaps its the comments made from within their hierarchy that Germans should be proud of what they did during the two WW's. The consensus taken from that is that one should be proud of gasing Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. 

Are you able to improve this?

2 hours ago, Naam said:

BRAVO! let's kill and maim innocent people as it was and is always done and then call it collateral damage.

 

Yes, the 9/11 bombers have had the same idea and didn't worry about "collateral damage".

 @sweatalot's , think about the reaction in the US (and the world) to only (sorry)~ 3,000 people  and compare it the with possible collateral damage in NK alone.

Concerning your following comment

34 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

kill thousands of people to save millions  .... (dimensions up to you)

are you sure it would "save" the life of millions - and not destroy another "million" of innocent people?

@craigt3365

This thread is about US military budget and not about that of Russia or China.

On 19.9.2017 at 1:49 PM, craigt3365 said:

Always with the anti-US comment.  You're like a broken record.  How about trying to deal with this?

<---->

Although I like many of your comments it is disgusting using the „hammer“ when you are not able to differ between criticism and „anti-US comments“. It seems you cannot handle US-criticism, for whatever reason.

When the US intervene e.g.in Yemen to support their „lovely “friends" of Saudi Arabia then this costs money, taken from the military budget. The list goes on and on. Result, The USA is meddling in things and events it shouldn't meddle in, as mentioned before.

Therefore it would be very, very sane to think about the opposite – how to reduce the „war“-budget in favor for a useful policy, useful for the not so privileged US people and/ or infrastructure. BTW a welcome Trump idea, but at now forgotten. Spending big money for the military budget, forgetting the the miserable situation in the hurricane hit S.states.

Especially under the new LOTUS (Liar Of ….) the US want to meddle in affairs – and waste money for them – they should refrain from. The history AFTER WW 2 is full of unlawful US meddling with giant sums of wasted war-budget-money. And this doesn't include losses you cannot measure by money! Deaths, seriously hurt soldiers, damage  in civil war areas cannot be "budgeted".

30 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Please stop posting this slurry, it will make you very ill. 

People who are not able to deliver some (opposite) facts like to answer in your noble style.

12. Is inward investment into the UK reliant on EU membership? Answer – no. Inward investment into the UK continues to grow after the Brexit vote.

Inward investment continues? That's the reason why so many companies are reluctant to invest or start changing to the EU mainland (irony). Maybe tax reduction to 10 – 15% will be attractive. But the termination of „passporting“ will not enjoy the banks and financial industry. Only one example. So there will be more „outward“ investment than inward.

12. Do we need the EU to alleviating a skills shortage in the UK? Answer – no. Our current immigration laws allow people with skills to enter and work in the UK. The EU just allows a million low skilled workers to come to the UK to take low paid jobs.

The UK should not do what is normal for the USA. Cherry picking the skilled workers. The UK has profited from colonies and occupied areas. Giving something back shouldn't be impossible.

11. Do all MS obey the EU laws, or are punished for not doing so? Answer – no. The migrant crisis: We watch as the French fail to apply EU laws as the laws don't suite them at the moment. The French allow migrants to set up camp to daily try to force their way into a sovereign territory that has rejected their 'application to enter' instead of processing them as require by EU law. Other MS simply wave them through, contrary to EU law. Other MS refuse to share the burden and erect razor wire border fences. Germany has run an illegal trade surplus for many years, other countries run up illegal deficits, all ignored of course.

There are two sides of the coin in the case of migration. Law and humanity. It is right that most states don't abide by the law because of national interests and other selfish reasons. It's easy for the UK island to claim adhering to the law, on the continent not. On the other side, the UK will have a problem, if the EU adheres to the law concerning the borderline between EU and UK in Ireland. It would be nonsense and awful for the people there to follow the „law“. Law nowhere is perfect for all people. France already is the home of many Maghreb people.

However I agree that the EU cannot be the home of all refugees, migrants and specially economic migrants.

Is the DT writer able to show us why Germany has an illegal trade surplus? By which law? Assumed the UK would have a trade surplus, would it be illegal, to? Once the British have been famous for their objectivity.

10. Can we set our own financial policy in the future? Not within the EU. We will be required to join the Euro this decade by EU law. The EU wants a common financial policy and common tax rates, set by the ECB.

Again, pure speculation, not (yet) reality. Some countries oppose this idea. I guess the ECB will never be allowed to fix tax rates. Not the duty of a bank.

In general a good idea if some special and healthy conditions are fulfilled by all members. You don't want to play lottery with the state money. There must be standards or there will be crashes as in Greece. The real problem is, the ECB and the EU are soft like a pudding in this field.

Different tax rates in general is cherry picking. Starting inequality and fights within the members, just as now.

9. Is the EU an institution that treats all members fairly and equitably? Answer – no it isn’t. the Greeks remember when they couldn't access any of their money a few months ago, and this was entirely due to the ECB flexing its muscles to coerce the Greek government into doing as it was told!

Then you defend the Greek attitude of lying and not abiding by contracts? (as they did entering the EU). The Greeks lived beyond their means, before the crash and didn't want to relinquish their lives style they got used to – at the cost of the EU members. If you make contracts you have to fulfill them. Normal standard, but not for the Brexiteers, it seems.