RugbyRebels

Didn't say I agreed with it. Actually, I didn't. The idea that women should just let men make all the decisions about war is absurd. Look where that got us!

But he is entertaining

cashead wrote:Also, that's one box on rowan bingo.

Which box has Peter FitzSimons in it?

I got as far as him saying danger was the only way to asses the possible contribution of either candidate to the global community, so not very far. Tbh I don't even know why I bothered to click on the link.

Watching these videos seems akin to the Victorians going to the insane asylums to laugh at the inmates, funny enough if one can be bothered to laugh at them

Trump just paraded his escort....sorry, wife in front of a meeting in Philly. She done a speech that was very Whitney Houston in it's message.

Sweet Jesus. Eternal Halloween.

http://youtu.be/4jR1Y1w1yvM

Crack is whack.

He's gaining.

I may just get my wish of being able to sit back with a bucket of popcorn and watch as the comedy unfolds.

Digby wrote:I got as far as him saying danger was the only way to asses the possible contribution of either candidate to the global community, so not very far. Tbh I don't even know why I bothered to click on the link.

Watching these videos seems akin to the Victorians going to the insane asylums to laugh at the inmates, funny enough if one can be bothered to laugh at them

You're entitled to your opinion. I think he summed the situation up extremely well - and honestly - as usual. & who is John Pilger?

He has won an Emmy and a BAFTA for his documentaries, which have also won numerous US and European awards, such as as the Royal Television Society's Best Documentary.

His articles appear worldwide in newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Mail & Guardian (South Africa), Aftonbladet (Sweden), Il Manifesto (Italy). He writes a regular column for the New Statesman, London. In 2001, he curated a major exhibition at the London Barbican, Reporting the World: John Pilger's Eyewitness Photographers, a tribute to the great black-and-white photographers he has worked alongside. In 2003, he was awarded the prestigous Sophie Prize for '30 years of exposing injustice and promoting human rights.' In 2009, he was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize.

Selected Awards
1966: Descriptive Writer of the Year
1967: Reporter of the Year
1967: Journalist of the Year
1970: International Reporter of the Year
1974: News Reporter of the Year
1977: Campaigning Journalist of the Year
1979: Journalist of the Year
1979-80: UN Media Peace Prize, Australia
1980-81: UN Media Peace Prize, Gold Medal, Australia
1979: TV Times Readers' Award
1990: The George Foster Peabody Award, USA
1991: American Television Academy Award ('Emmy')
1991: British Academy of Film and Television Arts - The Richard Dimbleby Award
1990: Reporters San Frontiers Award, France
1995: International de Television Geneve Award
2001: The Monismanien Prize (Sweden)
2003: The Sophie Prize for Human Rights (Norway)
2003: EMMA Media Personality of the Year
2004: Royal Television Society Best Documentary, 'Stealing a Nation'
2008: Best Documentary, One World Awards, 'The War On Democracy'
2009: Sydney Peace Prize
2011: Grierson Trustees' Award

So, Pilger v "Digby." Hmmm. Not sure who to go with there....

rowan wrote:

Digby wrote:I got as far as him saying danger was the only way to asses the possible contribution of either candidate to the global community, so not very far. Tbh I don't even know why I bothered to click on the link.

Watching these videos seems akin to the Victorians going to the insane asylums to laugh at the inmates, funny enough if one can be bothered to laugh at them

You're entitled to your opinion. I think he summed the situation up extremely well - and honestly - as usual. & who is John Pilger?

I'll have to live with the disappointment that I didn't make it as far into the video as John Pilger entering from stage left, not that I'd have been inclined to stay watching to listen to the gasbag.

You are quite keen on listing all the stuff he's done and/or won, I suspect though you're only keen to reference such awards when it's someone you're inclined to agree with which rather makes the action irrelevant.

There's the appeal to authority. So you liking him means that Pilger should therefore be exempt from any sort of scrutiny?

That's not what I wrote. On the contrary, I wrote that Digby was entitled to his opinion.

I suspect though you're only keen to reference such awards when it's someone you're inclined to agree with which rather makes the action irrelevant.

Sure, but I think that would apply to everyone, and Pilger has a particularly extensive list of awards because he's been winning them for about half a century - since cutting his teeth as a foreign correspondent during the Vietnam War, in fact. & those awards are by no means irrelevant to any discussion relating to his work.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/04/ ... hn-pilger/

Fucker needs a few hours on the sun bed.

morepork wrote:Fucker needs a few hours on the sun bed.

A lot of stuff on this board makes me lol but this made me lol the most.

War criminal . . . Pervert . . . or Jill Stein ??

Why ignore Evan McMullin and Gary Johnson?

One could certainly focus on the big two candidates, but if looking beyond that then McMullin might win a state which looks impossible for Stein, and Johnson is polling way ahead Stein, so you've part widened the search and then focused on one of the less interesting (in terms of being a factor) independents and ignored the two more interesting (as regards being a factor)

I'm not ignoring them, I just don't have a clear picture of their foreign policy (nor Trump's, for that matter), whereas Jill Stein's is very clear - and the direct antithesis of Clinton's, notably on Israel, Saudi and Syria. Works for me

rowan wrote:I'm not ignoring them, I just don't have a clear picture of their foreign policy (nor Trump's, for that matter), whereas Jill Stein's is very clear - and the direct antithesis of Clinton's, notably on Israel, Saudi and Syria. Works for me

It's in part amusing you've not looked at all the evidence/candidates and are happy you've found something which works for you given your fondness for lambasting others for not seeking out more info.

Interesting imagination you have. Could you quote me on some examples where I've been " lambasting others for not seeking out more info," please.

Actually, I read a great deal of news every day, both mainstream and alternative, from a number of different countries and in several different languages. When something piques my interest I follow it up, like most normal people. Relatively little has come up on the 3rd party and independent candidates, though what I've read about the Greens interested me; what I read about the others didn't particularly, due partly to opacity.

So, Clinton is innocent again then?

Not too long after the Donald praised the FBI, he's spitting out his dummy again and accusing them of being part of the rigged system.

To paraphrase his thoughts on everything...

"I know it, she knows it, you know it, they know it, everyone knows it"

The man is a genius and I beg the good people of America to vote Trump. The world needs a laugh.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Comey is toast. I have absolutely no problem with investigating any potential crime that might come to light, but to make the big deal of it that they did with so little evidence was very odd, it was always going to draw accusations o interfering in the election. Now, having broken all records to get the job done in far less time than first envisaged, the FBI declare there isn't any evidence.

Its farcical.

Good article here:

In her last presidential debate, Clinton said that she wants a no-fly zone in Syria because it will “save lives”:

“I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria, not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”

The “leverage” she is seeking is Russian roulette with the planet. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, noted in response that a no-fly zone in Syria might trigger a war with Russia, a nuclear power. Neither does she believe that a no-fly zone will save lives. In a closed-door speech to Goldman Sachs in 2013, Clinton said:

“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”

She knows what is at stake with a no-fly zone in Syria, and yet she tells us the opposite of what she knows will happen. In other words, she’s lying.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/07/ ... -in-syria/

Sandydragon wrote:a) Comey is toast. b) but to make the big deal of it that they did with so little evidence was very odd

C) Its farcical.

a) this will probably depend on who wins the election.
b) check out his links to the Republican Party and all will become clear.
c) Just the latest farcical act in a farcical situation.

The entire campaign has been a charade to divert attention from the real issues by focusing on personal scandals on both sides. America is going to be choose between a war criminal and a pervert (the latter quite likely no more than a smokescreen for the former) and the most important topic of all - foreign policy - has been largely neglected. That's astonishing when you consider what the consequences could be, particularly to the people of the Middle East.

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-i ... ir-donors/