Thoughts of Reasoning

David wrote:

no knackered mr google is not always right and accurate, he censors and edits certain things, certain people don't want us to see or hear.........

Good Post Dave, and 100% right!

The things I would Google would not be those open to any misinterpretation, only basic facts that one could verify very easily.

Anyone can find fault with anything if that in question is disputable but only fools fall for downright lies.

And one can only call anything a lie if it can be proven not to be true, and then you deal with it accordingly.

Regards.

Now can any one know before googling it whether it is a fact.
When a multi £billion concern, with £ billions in the bank, and other wealthy asset, make £billions each year then steal money and refuse to pay their taxes... minor after the legal fiddles … How can any one trust their truth. Proven in lies and deceit. J.M.O.

Would never ever be interested in Google other than for information that is not open to interpretation, just justified facts and nothing more.

Large businesses and enterprises have always been open to and used along with governments and owners to manipulate the rules and regulations to suit their own ends.


If we knew half of what goes on behind closed doors we would maybe not sleep on a night as it were.

Google to me is just a source of obtaining information that would take me longer to obtain by other means.

Regards.

Would personally rather use Wikipedia. Not such a money making machine, nor in the pocket of powers to be. Like that poor fellow that spoke truths and now can't leave the Embassy because he knows, like we all do, that A. the U.S.A. would / will lock him up for good or assassinate him. For telling the truth.

Daz wrote:

Would personally rather use Wikipedia. Not such a money making machine, nor in the pocket of powers to be. Like that poor fellow that spoke truths and now can't leave the Embassy because he knows, like we all do, that A. the U.S.A. would / will lock him up for good or assassinate him. For telling the truth.

Another farcical type moment in time I suggest Daz with the Assange affair as such Just wonder thou with him being confined as he is there what the odour factor would be maybe, & the general talk at the table at tea time as such .

Many senators were named. Hilary Clinton has 13 charges in court waiting to be charged and answered. All carrying jail sentences. Trump when campaigning … and when the polls aren't good for him - promises that she will go to court and will go to jail. Yeah right. Will never happen.
Like that distasteful Maggie Thatcher … will never get brought to justice.

Mind did see on the net where George Bush and Baraka Bama were convicted of wars crimes... $5000 fined. Very small print granted … can't, like Churchills once - find again. Mind some of Churchills atrocities are now coming out. As are Thatcher's.

If all the facts were known regarding any government and it's members one would be very surprised to find one member with the power to be used in an inappropriate manner not to have done so at some stage, it is just the unlucky ones that get caught.

How can Blaire still be walking free?


How can the Lords be full of halfwits?.

How can some of the idiots in parliament ever have been elected?

Oh Happy Days.


Regards.

the queen and the pope have arrest warrants out for them in certain countries, if they go there they will be arrested..............hence they don't go there

Daz wrote:

Many senators were named. Hilary Clinton has 13 charges in court waiting to be charged and answered. All carrying jail sentences. Trump when campaigning  … and when the polls aren't good for him - promises that she will go to court and will go to jail. Yeah right. Will never happen.
Like that distasteful Maggie Thatcher … will never get brought to justice.

Mind did see on the net where George Bush and Baraka Bama  were convicted of wars crimes... $5000 fined. Very small print granted … can't, like Churchills once - find again. Mind some of Churchills atrocities are now coming out. As are Thatcher's.

Churchill may have been bad enough etc Daz . but those at the top in the first war as such I suggest should have been shot maybe or even hung from the highest tree with how they sent good honest men into the field of war to be slaughtered by the thousands & thousands as such back then in a very short time span. Some may remember that mine field thing I mentioned recently here the clown idiot moran that made that decision to do it, which was a total, total **** up disaster on all accounts, actually got promoted up the tree for his fine outstanding effort to the war effort for doing it. Extraordinary moment in history/time here. But then, that is what you get maybe, when you have clowns in charge of clowns type of thing .

In man made wars people behave in a manner that reflects the period involved.

War is not fun and games it is a matter of survival.


No one not having experienced the possibility of being gassed, a baynot being put into their guts has no right to judge.


A back seat driver is an irritation.


Actions in war of a seemingly, and possibly rightly, totally un acceptable behaviour, are usualy in retaliation for a little less action carried out by the enemy, and it goes on from there.

Leaders in war have to take the actions necessary to ensure the survival of their country and at times those decisions are not palatable to the feelings of others, often those with no experience of war other than a bun fight down at the Old Coral, only being there because of others who died
on their behalf.


Of course on reflection and in a free situation one can pontificate and pick the bones out of a dead cat, but they would be better employed dealing with the presentvworld situation where theworld is on the brink of ruination by mans folly, ifhe was given the time, but ?????.


Will not mention the word, it will be here oon enough.


Regards.

Wars. Uprisings. Many round now a days. Nothing changes much.

halcanada wrote:

Wars. Uprisings. Many round now a days. Nothing changes much.

True Hal    . Trump I see is on the war trail it appears I suspect maybe in some back ward type place that I carn't even spell . Some thing about the democracy thing there & he is willing to fight the fight to uphold it as such apparently there. End of the day I suspect, if he does it will just go down as another war lost by the yanks & the only winners will be those that supply the armoury to fight it for him at the end of the day.  

It only needs the wrong weapons put into the wrong hands for everything to go BANG.

In my opinion almost inevitable at some time.


Regards,

Trump I see is on the war trail says Knackered. True that. And Tereasa May after The Chameleon in Libya. The close vote in last June made her hold fast wanting to bomb Syria... think she must have a building contract.

As for Churchill he only wanted to protect the Empire and Commonwealth. It was Starlin and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Churchill left 3000 to die because he … Also caused unnecessary OF 3 Million Indian / Pakistan's and much, much, more.
Indeed to be frank he was the biggest scum bucket of the last 150 years. Maybe Thatcher runs him close.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+brutal+side+of+churchill%2C&form=EDGNTT&qs=PF&cvid=9b36e3e3fd494f779c2e38682fcad60d&refig=c6c2cc9f246c40ffcad7f6b74dd1e6be&cc=GB&setlang=en-GB

Plus so much more atrocities he did.

Churchill started the bombing of the towns and cities.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/

No one can judge another without knowing all the circumstances.


Easy to make assumptions.



Sat back in a safe environment made possible by the actions and sacrifices of others under pressure and little time to actually consider all the circumstances because many of them are not known, is not a very sound method of coming to a reasonable conclusion.


Both sides in any war have to make decisions that are not acceptable under normal circumstances, war is not normal.


Those who believe in the Bible should read what the wrath of God can involve.


Regards.

Daz wrote:

Trump I see is on the war trail says Knackered. True that. And Tereasa May after The Chameleon in Libya. The close vote in last June made her hold fast wanting to bomb Syria... think she must have a building contract.

As for Churchill he only wanted to protect the Empire and Commonwealth. It was Starlin and  Dwight D. Eisenhower. Churchill left 3000 to die because he … Also caused unnecessary OF 3 Million Indian / Pakistan's and much, much, more.
Indeed to be frank he was the biggest scum bucket of the last 150 years. Maybe Thatcher runs him close.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+brutal+side+of+churchill%2C&form=EDGNTT&qs=PF&cvid=9b36e3e3fd494f779c2e38682fcad60d&refig=c6c2cc9f246c40ffcad7f6b74dd1e6be&cc=GB&setlang=en-GB

Plus so much more atrocities he did.

Churchill started the bombing of the towns and cities.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/

See we appear apparently to be on the same page here Daz Looking good, one could say maybe & not a drop of that ***** thing was mentioned for what I see. So credit where due I say etc    .

Just exactly what would you have done under all the circumstances, part of the problem is you nor anyone other than those directly involved know the exact circumstances leading to any action, which makes any comment by others supposition, not a very good basis for character assassination.


Of course those in charge have to consider all the facts at the time, and not in retrospect ( the habit of historians) if it is decided that to bomb A and it will kill 2, 000, 000 many innocent but save several countries from slavery and brutality involving many more, involving the future children in those country etc; then it can be justified as far as I am concerned, the better of two evils.

Just consider the fact that if things had gone wrong those presently being judge and jury would probably be used as servants and flogged on a regular basis, come to think of it ????????.



Regards.

MISTY wrote:

Just exactly what would you have done under all the circumstances, part of the problem is you nor anyone other than those directly involved know the exact circumstances leading to any action, which makes any comment by others supposition, not a very good basis for character assassination.


Of course those in charge have to  consider all the facts at the time, and not in retrospect ( the habit of historians) if it is decided that to bomb A and it will kill 2, 000, 000 many innocent but save several countries from slavery and brutality involving many more, involving the future children in those country etc; then it can be justified as far as I am concerned, the better of two evils.

Just consider the fact that if things had gone wrong those presently being judge and jury would probably be used as servants and flogged on a regular basis, come to think of it ????????.



Regards.

   



   

???????????? Lost me with this one etc Misty unfortunately. Runs along the same lines as many of my posts here maybe One just cannot make any sense out of them, or the message sent at the end of the day as such .

To put it in a nut shell, Knackered, one has to do what one has to do, to protect ones own, it may involve distasteful actions but if they are the better of two evils, then they are justified.


Hope this helps.


Regards.

MISTY wrote:

To put it in a nut shell, Knackered, one has to do what one has to do, to protect ones own, it may involve distasteful actions but if they are the better of two evils, then they are justified.


Hope this helps.


Regards.

Gotcha same, same page now thankfully.
*****

Do not know if this is the right place to bring it up but I will.


Our dog Misty takes no notice whatsoever of the television, never even looks at it.


But the least noise outside or the phone goes and he barks.



A dog can bark on the television and he totally ignores it as he does the pictures etc; or any other noise.


But can hear everything else other than the television.


Cannot understand it.


Regards.

MISTY wrote:

Do not know if this is the right place to bring it up but I will.


Our dog Misty takes no notice whatsoever of the television, never even looks at it.


But the least noise outside or the phone goes and he barks.



A dog  can bark on the television and he totally ignores it as he does the pictures etc; or any other noise.


But can hear everything else other than the  television.


Cannot understand it.


Regards.

Normally except for a few maybe here where not into the doggy issue thing Misty etc But all Ok I suspect in your situation when talking about your beloved Misty as such here I suggest Amazing things dogs with their smell & there senses at times when well trained I've found. End of the day get the right dog & you can just about train them to do anything as such given the right affection & I'm talking more about the war zone type thing these days & the border security type aspect issue at ones ports/air ports as an example.

misty, dogs have some strange ways, mine will sometimes bark at certain videos I watch on youtube, certain voices she will bark at, and others she wont.

we have also watched videos on youtube of pups squeaking, sometimes she listens, other times she doesn't................sometimes she barks at the bin men, sometimes she doesn't  

Mine used to get upset at some of the sorry sights on Paul O Grady love of dogs. Also used to watch the horse racing then try to get round back of TV to see where the horses had run to.