mrwebb8825

On 5/5/2018 at 10:47 PM, billd766 said:

The problem is in 2 parts.

 

1   To recomission warships will be expensive and fairly lengthy depending on how many ships of different classes will need to be recommisioned. A single aircraft carrier will need cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft, helicopters, man/womenpower etc, as well as support ships for fuel, food, ammunition etc. The fleet will be regular navy and reserves and the support ships will be merchant seamen.

 

2   IIRC a single carrier has a crew of about 5,000 men and women and to commission the Second Fleet may take up to 25,000 men and women on board let alone the land based back up. Where will they get the staff from?

 

Where will they find the aircraft, missles, ammunition, training, crews etc let alone the money to rebuild and re-equip a fleet from?

Let's put your mind at ease and eliminate your single, 2-fold problem. There is no recommissioning, refurbishing, refitting, etc.

"Washington disbanded the 2nd fleet, which at the time numbered over 100 ships, in 2011. Many of its assets and personnel were assigned to other sections of the US Navy."

http://www.dw.com/en/us-re-establishes-2nd-fleet-to-counter-competition/a-43662253

As mentioned above, the most difficult part will be putting the leadership structure back in place. Then it's simple reassignment of home port.

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

We have been discussing "defamation" as introduced in your post which I replied to.

"Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. ... Washington State has held its criminal libel statute unconstitutional applying the state and federal constitutions to the question."

"Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, meaning true statements cannot be defamatory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

Guess it'll be up to the courts but don't hold your breath. In her claim she says that the "event" occurred shortly after she agreed to do the InTouch interview in May, 2011 yet makes NO MENTION of any such "event" during the interview that took place just 1 month later in June, 2011.

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I know  another politician who by your standards was a liar: Ronald Reagan.

now you're just being "glib".

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I am well aware of the facts. Just a simple answer for your simple question.

 

Question for you: have any statutes of limitation run out?

You tell me. 1st, name the crime you're referring to since humping isn't 1, then find the statute.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So you're contending that Trump didn't have sex with this woman and someone he claimed didn't represent him and then said did, paid $130000 in hush money to a woman who didn't have sex with his (non) client?

Perhaps you should reread the OP and my post before posting. The story isn't about humping her, it's about the fake drawing of some guy and a threat that never happened.

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Well mrwebb8825 the simple answer would be the laws of the USA do not discriminate based on occupational or life choices as you seem wont to do.

You should read the article before posting. Seems she couldn't remember a whole lot of details but suddenly, 6 yrs later it all becomes clear? 

How can you possibly defame someone who used to make a living by lying (guess she called it acting", letting people get paid for blowing their load in her face and taking meat sticks in every orifice of her body while getting paid to do it? She's a has-been hack that nobody wants to see any more and saw an opportunity for one more monetary score.

She already sold the rights to her sorted little story to InTouch magazine in 2011. Funny how she claimed to have lived in Las Vegas after her daughter was born in 2011 but made NO mention of ANY person threatening her to "keep quiet" or "forget the story" and never filed a police report with the Las Vegas police.

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/stormy-daniels-full-interview-151788

Just another gold digger being prodded by an opportunistic lawyer.

On 4/30/2018 at 10:59 AM, tonbridgebrit said:

Has Xi got the balls to go head-to-head with a real navy ?
How about, has Washington got the balls to start World War Three because a load of Chinese in the Republic of China reckon that they are the real China and want to declare independence ?

First, get your facts straight; they are NOT a "load of Chinese" they are Taiwanese. They have a different life style and government preference. 2nd, they don't want to be "The Real China", they want to be Taiwan and live free and run their own lives and country.

Brings to mind another country that was under the rule of a dictatorship that got sick of it and fought back. That was 238 years ago. They too sought assistance from others and succeeded. 

They've been nothing but a war pawn for a long time and are probably just sick of it.

"Following the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, Taiwan was ceded by Qing government to the Empire of Japan via the Treaty of Shimonoseki. At the end of World War II in 1945, Taiwan was taken over by the ROC, which was widely recognized as China."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement

On 25/4/2561 at 2:01 PM, webfact said:

"We would have more places to go on the weekend and could take the train to China, even to Europe," he said, since unification would provide a land link with China.

 

"At the same time we probably won't get our pensions and I'll end up farming potatoes in the countryside."

Best quote in the story. 

On 26/4/2561 at 9:33 AM, wanderluster said:

so this is the american version of James Bond

More like Jason Bourne or his boss. Interesting that she was never on anyone's radar, never questioned, never investigated until she became 1 of President Trump's picks. If memory serves, that list of senators now complaining are the same people that were all gun-ho after the 9/11 attack and authorizing everything on the fly. 

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

By appointing Goldman Sachs alumni to run the economy and serve the interests of Wall Street?

IF, by that you mean, business people who have been doing business all their lives and created wealth for themselves by creating millions of jobs for others and NOT typical politicians who are only concerned with lining their own pockets at the expense of millions of people, then, yes. 

ETA: Wasn't it HC who was being paid $750,000 a speech to Wall Street people and Obama at his last WHCD who said he's planning on leaving that job and heading out to "Make some serious Tubmans..."?

On 28/4/2561 at 7:25 PM, Srikcir said:

But frankly, any deliberate delays out of political spite caused by the Democrats don't compare to the year long delay by Republicans to even allow a hearing on Obama's Supreme Court nominee Garland.

You and I both know (if you're honest with yourself) that Obama was trying to get 1 more notch in his failed belt on his way out the door for good to try and make it easier on HC whom he was sure would be his 8 year clone. The republicans were sure they would win the White House in 2016 and wanted someone more aliened with their policies and not have to be stuck with an Obama buddy.

I'm not claiming all republicans are acting correctly either. Some are acting quite the fool and need to be replaced. One thing President Trump has proven is that DC is FULL of despicable people and he's working very hard on trying to shovel at least a few of them out and return the government to the people.

How's that line written: "A government for the people, by the people, of the people..." but unfortunately it has become a sort of a multi-lateral dictatorship where less than 1,000 people have any say what-so-ever.

I reread the OP to make sure I didn't miss it and guess what? President Trump and the US are NOT mentioned. Since some of you have to satisfy your fetishes When it comes to President Trump no matter what or who the story is really about, how about this; Wouldn't this be an opportune time for the US Navy to give their sailors some R&R by rotating 1/4 of the fleet roaming around the Korean peninsula to Taiwan for a week at a time? Could be interesting to see if Xi has the balls to go head-to-head with a real navy.

On 26/4/2561 at 5:14 AM, simple1 said:

In today's media in Oz a lot of criticism of the Trump Administration serious backlog with appointing Ambassadors (e.g. 18 months without a US Ambassador for Oz) and apparent lack of interest to serve the Trump Administration.

The backlog isn't due to lack of nominees, it's due to the lazy committees that won't vet them because they don't like President Trump. He has over 200 nominees waiting to be approved.

On 25/4/2561 at 11:49 AM, billd766 said:

 

Why should any country be dictated to as to where they buy thier weapons? 

 

The only people who care about more profits for America's defence contracters, are the US defence contractors. 

 

The USA under Trump is isolating itself from the world without thinking the consequences through.

1st you blindly blame President Trump and when you were shown the error of your thinking, you want to blame him anyway? 

The OP clearly states the main concern from India is that they already have over 60% Russian arms and that those arms need Russian parts and maintenance. You can't expect them to just say "Oh well, we've got an extra $100 billion. We'll just replace everything tomorrow."

President Trump knew but had little choice. This one's all on congress. If you check the vote, it was largely democrats and a few republicans like R. Paul who voted while chanting "Better dead than red!". 

On 26/4/2561 at 1:12 AM, Andaman Al said:

Even today, news is out that the "conservative judges in the supreme court are leaning towards allowing Trump his travel ban against Muslim countries".

Of the countries listed that contain muslims, they represent roughly 8% of the world's muslim population. 

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here's a FACT.

 

Trump said he would release his tax returns to the public.

 

Here's another FACT.

 

Trump has not released his tax returns to the public.

 

 

He's still president and still alive and still capable of fulfilling that ad nausium request that means absolutely nothing given the bigger picture. It took Obama 6 years to find his birth certificate. 

Amazing how many senators and congressmen are skeptical and planning for this to fail. Almost as amazing as the number of those same people who were in office brokering the last 4-5 deals that DID fail.

At least President Trump is making an effort which is more than can be said about all who came before him. I don't trust Kim but I do trust President Trump to keep turning the screws until there is a verified deal or NK needs a new leader when Kim's people finally turn on him.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

No.

 

It's nonsense when the source you are giving is unverified and deliberately misleading or when the statement has already been debunked. 

 

There is only one set of facts. 

 

Don't confuse opinion with fact. Especially when someone else gave you the opinion.

 

Someone else gave YOU those facts or did you investigate the matter personally? Confusion of opinion and fact seem to be the new norm.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It does, but what the viewer gets to choose from is already pre-selected. 

 

So if you view (and you have said you do), you must understand that what you are seeing has been directed at you. Perhaps with intent to misinform.

So, the same can be said about you as well as everyone else. (non-general use terms) In the end, it's all up to each person to believe or disregard disseminated information.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don't believe I've ever insulted you for having a different opinion, why would I, I absolutely agree we are all entitled to different opinions. 

 

However, we are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not entitled to our own facts.

 

Nobody should expect to post nonsense claiming it as fact and expect not to be challenged, when that nonsense is propaganda or blatant lies then don't expect kid gloves.

So, now it's nonsense because you believe another source or opinion and I don't? Also, the use of "You" was in general terms.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The 'Feed' is the results you get when you search. 

 

This is managed by algorithms that analyse your search history and by 'popularity' ratings. The algorithm will feed 'like minded videos' and the popularity ratings are subjected to manipulation. Example a third party may wish to ensure that a particular video gets a high ranking, they generate 'bot searches' of that video to push it up the ranking - hey presto it turns up in your feed. 

Doesn't that still leave it up to the viewer to view or move on to something else?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It's unbelievable because you are very clearly (as demonstrated by your many posts) following the news of the Trump/Russia investigation. 

 

Hannity has played a leading role in supporting Trump's attempts to undermine Mueller's investigation, undermine the FBI, Department of Justice, Courts and anyone on the prosecution side of the investigation.

 

Now you've made your statements on Hannity, I and others regard the statement as unbelievable (my reasoning above), I've put it under the heading 'background noise'.

 

 

I follow it on here. As for you and others opinions, you're entitled but you are NOT entitled to insult others for having a different opinion.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And do you believe the 'feed' of youtube videos you receive is random or do you accept that the 'feed' is managed?

Not sure what you mean by "Feed" but I just do a search on a name and see what comes up. If it looks like a speech I check it out. If it turns out to be an interview then I listen to the answers. Like when the Nunes Memo came out-I listened to republican law makers talk about it and I listened to democratic law makers talk about it. Then I decided whom I chose to believe.

How is it unbelievable that I had never heard of someone? I've been here for over 16 years and I don't watch TV. I didn't watch TV much before I moved here. I used to watch Walter Cronkite and that other guy when I was a kid because my parents did.

Some of you people are beyond insulting.