RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:Coco has only expressed her own ignorance of the English language and attempted to discredit somebody who doesn't think as she does by misinterpreting what they've written. You can't have an intelligent discussion on that basis.

If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... f-qaddafi/

good story here:

Fresh off of throwing the Democratic National Convention into turmoil after proving that party officials had conspired to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced that he has some even more damaging material in his trove of hacked emails — this time involving Hillary Clinton pushing to arm jihadists in Syria, including ISIS.
"

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/wiki ... es-barrett#

morepork wrote:Jill Stein makes some of the right noises, but I can't quite filter through the interweb noise regarding some of her homeopathy and vaccine statements. Yes, I know she is a pediatrician, but Ben Carson is a neurosurgen.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve would have her assassinated if she got too close to government.

I was a bit iffy as well because it was framed as an actual issue, but I haven't found any actual evidence of her supposed views on vaccines. In fact I've seen at least half a dozen interviews where she has been quite blunt in her views.

I was actually quite disappointed with Last Week tonight a couple of weeks ago, they did a proper stitch up job on the Greens. In fact, the last month or so has really shown a political skew to the program which is a shame (in fairness HBO is owned by the second largest donor to the Clinton campaign), it's gone the way of the Daily show.

It's in the countries corporate interests to keep it to 2 parties, and it shows.

Also, does anyone else find the multi-level quoting really annoying?? Especially on mobile, you basically get 100 lines of 4-5 quoted posts for a single line reply.

jared_7 wrote:Also, does anyone else find the multi-level quoting really annoying?? Especially on mobile, you basically get 100 lines of 4-5 quoted posts for a single line reply.

Especially when it's one person quoting themselves over and over again. What the fuck kind of person does that, I ask rhetorically.

jared_7 wrote:

morepork wrote:Jill Stein makes some of the right noises, but I can't quite filter through the interweb noise regarding some of her homeopathy and vaccine statements. Yes, I know she is a pediatrician, but Ben Carson is a neurosurgen.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve would have her assassinated if she got too close to government.

I was a bit iffy as well because it was framed as an actual issue, but I haven't found any actual evidence of her supposed views on vaccines. In fact I've seen at least half a dozen interviews where she has been quite blunt in her views.

I was actually quite disappointed with Last Week tonight a couple of weeks ago, they did a proper stitch up job on the Greens. In fact, the last month or so has really shown a political skew to the program which is a shame (in fairness HBO is owned by the second largest donor to the Clinton campaign), it's gone the way of the Daily show.

It's in the countries corporate interests to keep it to 2 parties, and it shows.

The Greens have been largely ignored by the mainstream media, which has basically created a reality TV show out of the entire election process.

jared_7 wrote:

morepork wrote:Jill Stein makes some of the right noises, but I can't quite filter through the interweb noise regarding some of her homeopathy and vaccine statements. Yes, I know she is a pediatrician, but Ben Carson is a neurosurgen.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve would have her assassinated if she got too close to government.

I was a bit iffy as well because it was framed as an actual issue, but I haven't found any actual evidence of her supposed views on vaccines. In fact I've seen at least half a dozen interviews where she has been quite blunt in her views.

I was actually quite disappointed with Last Week tonight a couple of weeks ago, they did a proper stitch up job on the Greens. In fact, the last month or so has really shown a political skew to the program which is a shame (in fairness HBO is owned by the second largest donor to the Clinton campaign), it's gone the way of the Daily show.

It's in the countries corporate interests to keep it to 2 parties, and it shows.

She yes, but I'm not convinced about Green science policy as a whole. Prepared to be wrong but.

Oliver needs to pull out and finish if his edge has definitely been blunted. Her is doing some stand up in New York/Philly/Joisey in the upcoming weeks and it would be interesting to see if he is sharper in that format than in front of a camera owned by The Man.

Stein is anti-war and wants to stop US support for Israel. That's precisely why she should be elected, but precisely why she won't be, because the people of America do not determine American foreign policy, the lobby groups do. What Stein has to say about Clinton:


“Well, we know what kind of Secretary of State she was,” Stein said in her response. “[Hillary] is in incredible service to Wall Street and to the war profiteers. She led the way in Libya and she’s trying to start an air war with Russia over Syria, which means, if Hillary gets elected, we’re kinda going to war with Russia, folks…a nuclear-armed power.”

Rowan, just a suggestion but I think if you stoped quoting your own posts just to add another single
video clip you might get people understanding/agreeing eith your comments abit more. I know I agree
with some of what you say but can't be bothered looking at the video clips as you just seem to repeating
the same post.

morepork wrote:She yes, but I'm not convinced about Green science policy as a whole. Prepared to be wrong but.

Oliver needs to pull out and finish if his edge has definitely been blunted. Her is doing some stand up in New York/Philly/Joisey in the upcoming weeks and it would be interesting to see if he is sharper in that format than in front of a camera owned by The Man.

You would obviously know a hell of a lot more than me, brother. I'm not really sure of "science policy" for any of the major parties other than well known things like global warming where I would imagine they fall in much closer to what the science says than the 2 main parties. What areas are you talking about? Does the government at a federal level determine funding (or lack of) for specific areas?

WTF is going on in here?

I agree with Stein about the threat of full scale war with Russia here, and we all know that basically means WWIII. People have been talking about this for so long that it's basically dismissed without genuine consideration any more, but just look how close we are: While the Syrian army is fighting the terrorists with support from Russia, NATO member Turkey is actively supporting the anti-government rebels and bombing the Kurds (who are credited with leading the fight against ISIS). Another NATO member Belgium has been accused of bombing a government-held village just recently and killing civilians, while America is also inside Syrian borders dropping bombs without any permission from anybody, and recently wiped out 80 Syrian soldiers "by accident," allowing the terrorists (who they created in the first place) to regain vital territory. & We've got Russia threatening to fire on America if it attacks the Syrian army again, and Syria threatening to fire on Turkey if it continues to bomb the Kurds. This is precisely what the Trump charade has been designed to distract our attention from. Meanwhile various British politicians are accusing Russia and Syria of war crimes, because it's not 'collateral damage' when our enemies do it, and Hillary Clinton, who destroyed Libya (among countless other crimes) during her term as US Secretary of State, is about to be elected president while pledging to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, remove Assad and get tough with Putin. If she follows through with those threats, and if NATO members continue to operate within Syria illegally, we are very likely headed for a major international conflict. The only way out is if Russia backs down and Assad steps aside and allows Syria to become another puppet state under growing US hegemony. & that may well lead to conflict with Iran, who will thus find themselves completely isolated. But I suspect even WWIII will not concen Westerners too much, provided it is staged in the Middle East and does not find its way to their doorstep.

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:Rowan, you probably fuck off with that broad brush. People in America are well aware of the military industrial complex and the need to reign it in. There is still a beating heart in the 4th estate under all that reality TV and info-news, and there is dialogue on the ground. I see it because I live here. The racist fire and brimstone wankers make the mainstream media, but they are not a majority. I agree with you on the need to shake up the establishment and get power back in the people's hands, but sweet jesus, not every American is a clone of Carl Rove FFS. Remember there is a lot of diversity in this country.

This. Very well said Porkster.

You are my boi Coco.

That'll do Porkster. That'll do.

Already answered that, Coco. See below. You're really showing your true colors now, after your indignant rant about sexism. What a hypocrite you turned out to be! You very clearly have no interest in this discussion from a moral perspective whatsoever.

rowan wrote:Coco has only expressed her own ignorance of the English language and attempted to discredit somebody who doesn't think as she does by misinterpreting what they've written. You can't have an intelligent discussion on that basis.
#

Gold Star for Rowan's English Comprehension Chart.

Gold star for reducing the discussion to primary school level because somebody did not think as you do.

But you really ought to work on your English grammar so that you don't misinterpret people so often. Unless, of course, you do it deliberately...

rowan wrote:Coco has only expressed her own ignorance of the English language and attempted to discredit somebody who doesn't think as she does by misinterpreting what they've written. You can't have an intelligent discussion on that basis.

If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... f-qaddafi/

Rowan, first off.. Please do us all a favor and stop requoting youself, and posting the long stories, then the link. I think we are all smart enough to just click and read a simple link.

Secondly, please explain what you mean by the first para-rant above. I'd love to respond to it, but cannot help but think you are projecting your own misinterpretation.

Please try to remember that you will have to dumb it down for me, as I am a white-middle-class-American-woman that has no grasp on any life experience, or common sense.

Thank you in advance.

Coco, first off. Please do us all a favor and stop requoting youself, because others can do the same just to show you that it's really not clever.

& if you misinterpret people that is due either to your own ignorance or narrow-mindedness, perhaps both.

& do stop trying to play the gender card on here because you are clearly not sincere in that regard and are quite possibly more guilty of sexism than anyone else on this forum, judging by the way you've abused the issue.

Now, can we get back to the discussion??

Sweet jesus.

rowan wrote:Coco, first off. Please do us all a favor and stop requoting youself, because others can do the same just to show you that it's really not clever.

& if you misinterpret people that is due either to your own ignorance or narrow-mindedness, perhaps both.

& do stop trying to play the gender card on here because you are clearly not sincere in that regard and are quite possibly more guilty of sexism than anyone else on this forum, judging by the way you've abused the issue.

Now, can we get back to the discussion??

I'm an abuser of the gender card? Oh woe is me. Here have a binky and a blankie.

Exactly. I've already shown you many quotes from the mainstream press about Trump's supporters being mostly white males, but somehow you regard it as taboo to suggest a lot of Clinton's support is coming from white females. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. I don't think Americans even understand what the word feminism means, because day-time TV has twisted the entire issue out of shape so badly.

rowan wrote:Exactly. I've already shown you many quotes from the mainstream press about Trump's supporters being mostly white males, but somehow you regard it as taboo to suggest a lot of Clinton's support is coming from white females. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. I don't think Americans even understand what the word feminism means, because day-time TV has twisted the entire issue out of shape so badly.

Are you still pouting about something I pointed out reguarding your sexist, racist, etc. post a few weeks ago? You should really try to get over it.

No, I am pointing out that it is you who is the sexist by demanding double standards and exploiting the gender issue in an attempt to discredit those who do not think as you do. You're a hypocrite who does not understand feminism, clearly believes her gender endows her with moral superiority, and shamelessly abuses the issue.

rowan wrote:No, I am pointing out that it is you who is the sexist by demanding double standards and exploiting the gender issue in an attempt to discredit those who do not think as you do. You're a hypocrite who does not understand feminism and shamelessly abuses the issue.

Examples.. ? Did I emasculate you?

Full circle Space Madness.

PC gone wild. Show us yer tits/kok.