dutchroll

....that's three.

Ok, again let's do something which is a rarity here on rec aviation off-topic forums. Let's apply some common sense, reasoning and rationality. Let's assume a "sharia bank" is going to happen. What does this mean exactly? Firstly let's see if we can figure out if "sharia" involves anything other than decapitating people with a knife in a sandy desert. I propose that "sharia" is not necessarily synonymous with murderously wishing people a horrible and violent death any more than "christianity" is synonymous with shooting dead a doctor in an abortion clinic or saying the death of your son in an IED explosion serving in Iraq serves him right because we are too tolerant of homosexual people, even though there are quite a number of instances of these things happening under both "systems". Let's move on, and ask ourselves: is there actually any principle in "sharia law" which is a good one, or should we wipe everything that complies with sharia law off the face of the earth because it is necessarily "very bad"? Well, donating to charity is a well-established principle, in fact considered a requirement, in sharia law. Is donating to charity a good thing or a bad thing? If your answer to this is "a good thing", then by default you agree that sharia law has at least one good principle. Another sharia law principle is that you have a right to protect your family. So if you agree that you have a right to protect your family, you now agree with *two* sharia law principles! Yikes! I won't go on because some people here will want to go and slash their wrists when they realise that they actually agree with a number of sharia law principles. Islamic or sharia banking has established principles which include the following: 1) investment in business which is considered unlawful is prohibited (good or bad thing?). 2) Interest charges are forbidden and this is the main thing about Islamic banking. Islamic banks make profit by using equity-sharing, or monthly profit payments. So a business pays back a loan without interest but if it makes a profit, it shares some of that profit with the bank. If it makes no profit, the bank gets nothing. For a mortgage, the profit is through monthly rental payments, but if the homeowner defaults, there is no compounding interest effect against them (good or bad?). Generally these days, Islamic finance is actually cheaper than conventional finance. Before you decide that something is a bogeyman, it actually pays to figure out what it really involves and make an educated decision, not an emotional one. However with the like of Hanson, Lambie, Reclaim Australia, and so on, that principle is apparently a thing of the past. There's no need for education or consideration of caveats and exceptions, before deciding you want to erase something from the face of the Earth.

I couldn't vote for an anti-vaxer (and also for her other wayward views). It just indicates to me an inability to rationally process well established facts and information, and that's really dangerous in someone with a lot of political power (or any power actually). You have to be careful what you wish for........

I doubt even Pauline has the ability to prove what doesn't actually exist, but I'm sure she'll try anyway. In other recent beauties from her interview yesterday: On Putin: "I respect the man. He is very patriotic towards his country, the people love him, he is doing so well for the country." - Stalin was incredibly patriotic and still managed to be a ruthless and murderous tyrant. Hanson seems utterly unable to distinguish what features make someone "good" for the people of their country. - There are penalties for publicly "not loving" Putin, as a number of now deceased Putin critics have found out. I mean, it's not everyday that someone gets poisoned by Polonium-210, like vocal anti-Putin whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko. - "Doing well"? Seriously? A 40% drop in Russian GDP over the last 3 years! 15% of the population living below the poverty line. Monthly wages down nearly 10% last year. Average monthly wage now $450. What exactly are you snorting Pauline? On MH17: She questions the evidence of Russian involvement. - Yes Pauline, because literally every man and his dog has a Buk 9M38 surface to air missile launcher in his back yard. Being Russia's most advanced mobile surface to air missile, I hear that the Russian Defence Ministry usually does a "buy one, get one free" every second tuesday, for whoever is interested. On vaccines (which she is sceptical of): "I advise parents to go out and do their own research with regards to this." - Uh huh. So the eradication of smallpox, the virtual eradication of polio, and the near eradication of numerous childhood diseases is not enough evidence? The derp is strong with Pauline Hanson.

I just had a look at the One Nation policy list. This is a party whose stated policies include holding two Royal Commissions (average cost to taxpayer $50 million each). One into Climate Science to determine whether the data is corrupted, even though numerous independent, non-Government inquiries overseas have firmly established that it is validated and uncorrupted from numerous sources. The other being a Royal Commission into Islam to determine whether or not it is a religion (that's what it says on their website). Yes, that's right. One Nation will spend $100 million of your money to determine a) What we already know with climate data (they're not even looking at the political question of climate action - just the data itself which has already been the subject of many inquiries). b) To figure out whether Islam is a religion (while they're at it, I don't like a lot of things the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, so let's spend $50 million to figure out whether they're one too!) This is a party which hasn't even really got going but has great plans to squander huge amounts of your taxpayer money. It amazes me what people will vote for when they're angry about something. I had a look at their other policies too and I'd be here all day if I were to poke holes in their arguments, some of which are just - to slip into my "liberal elitist" mode for a minute - pure dumbassery. However I simply don't have the time. And yeah it's not nice to assert that a political party which some people like has a number of completely "dumbass" policies, but it is what it is and I'm sick of tip-toeing around trying to be nice about emotive policies on very complex subjects which have had very little rational thought put into them.

I made no judgement about who offends more than whoever else. I made two posts this evening pointing out what I consider fairly obvious hypocrisy in the commentary of two individuals. One was Gnarly Gnu. One was you. It's pretty rich to go about complaining of bigotry while continuously collectively referring to just about anyone with views to the left of Augusto Pinochet as a "leftard". This is nothing to do with being politically correct. It's about not being an ass. It would actually be more acceptable to call them "twits" if you must continually hurl insults collectively at an entire segment of the world's population. Even "moron" or "fool" is more acceptable. What is in the drinking water that makes a segment of the political spectrum use a word absolutely directly derived from the mockery of genuinely intellectually disabled people to describe those who hold opposing political views? .....and write opinion columns for The Australian. I was in her class in high school. Fascinating what some people go on to achieve and what some people don't.

Actually it is the first time I have ever retrieved your historical comments in my time on the forums and those were only the first lines of the first page - I couldn't be bothered going any further. I recalled that you have often made a habit of introducing commentary with snarky laughter and wanted to check whether my recollection was accurate. Turns out that it is. I normally have zero interest in your past commentary, so to call it an "obsession" is quite inaccurate. It was merely a tool to point out an exemplar level of hypocrisy. Don't let it worry you.

Sick of it eh? No bigotry here. No bigotry here (though just a wee slight barely noticeable touch of irony in talking of leftards, then immediately alleging that calling people names for their voting choice makes you a bigot). No bigotry here. No bigotry here.

Conway's quote: “I bet it’s brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalised and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre, It didn't get covered.” Let's tease it apart: “..... President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program" That is false. He initiated a stricter vetting program which slowed the refugee intake down. ".....after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalised" That is false. They were not radicalised in the USA. That is not a trivial mistake, given the big problem of radicalisation. ".....and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre,” There never was any such massacre. Conway argues she meant to say "Bowling Green Terrorists" (her exact words not mine). So in other words, she meant to say: "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green Terrorists" which barely even makes sense. "It didn't get covered". The Bowling Green Massacre didn't get covered because there was no such thing. The arrest of the two Iraqis for plotting to send weapons overseas did get covered by CNN, CBS and the Associated Press among others. Take your pick, Gnu. Wrong, or wrong. In isolation I could accept a slip of the tongue, but she went into the interview defending Trump's bans and arguing a string of false "alternative facts", ending with yet another attack on the media for not reporting something which didn't happen, except that the thing which did happened was actually reported by the mainstream media. In fact the only thing she got right was that there were two Iraqis and they lived in Bowling Green. Impressive to you maybe, but not to me. Yes that was the claim by the FBI, than one man's fingerprints matched those found on one unexploded IED. Oh come off it Gnu. Is there absolutely nothing on this planet that you can't fabricate a bunch of dots between? No-one is joking about the loss of American lives to IUDs in Iraq. Conway was specifically referring to a non-existent massacre plotted by immigrant terrorists in the continental USA and perpetrated against the domestic American population, which is what the whole "don't let 'em in" is all about. The tweet is referring to a non-existent SEAL team which foiled a non-existent massacre. Conway clearly and deliberately was trying to use this example to argue: 1) refugees are a direct threat to American security, and 2) that the media is not reporting this. People are having a field day poking fun at the apparent willingness of Conway to either fabricate stuff completely, or to be so hopelessly misinformed that little of what she alleges is either true, or makes sense. They are not having a joke at the fact that two Iraqis conspired to send weapons overseas, nor that they boasted of participating in attacks on US soldiers during the conflict in Iraq. That's pretty rich, given.....

Trump minion? Minion: noun. A follower or underling of a powerful person, especially a servile or unimportant one. Servile: adjective. Slavishly submissive or obsequious; fawning. Obsequious: adjective. Characterised by or showing complaisance or deference. Complaisant: adjective. Willing to please others or to accept what they do or say without protest.

[ATTACH]48091._xfImport[/ATTACH]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/politics/bowling-green-massacre-kellyanne-conway.html?_r=0 Senior Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, creator of the now famous "alternative facts" meme, kicked another spectacular own goal yesterday, creating her own fake news and accusing the media of not covering it. She referred to the "Bowling Green massacre" to justify Trump's immigrant executive order. Except there never was a massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky, ever. Or anywhere in the USA around that time. This somewhat exxplains why the media didn't cover it. Of course, Twitter had a field day. [ATTACH]48090._xfImport[/ATTACH]

The Borg are an alien cybernetic life-form in the Star Trek series, which is part organic and part artificial. Each Borg has an implanted bio-chip which links their brains to a collective consciousness. They are quite antagonistic and expansionist, and forcibly "assimilate" other civilisations by capturing them and injecting nanoprobes into their bodies which can re-program DNA. Borg Queen: [ATTACH]48089._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Picard could fly off the handle occasionally with the pressure of dealing with Alien species like the Borg, etc while simultaneously commanding a "Galaxy Class" starship like the Enterprise-D, so I wouldn't take it too personally Phil.

This Civil War photo has been doing the rounds recently with some suggesting the image has been photoshopped due to the timescale of the 1841 model artillery piece. Others have said the horse just doesn't look right. [ATTACH]48087._xfImport[/ATTACH]

In the defence of celebrity opinion being broadcast, the newspapers have opinion columnists who talk total garbage (and have no qualifications other than they are journalists) and reach the same readership, but every day of the week!

Everyone, including actors, has a right to express a public opinion. If you wish to exclude certain sections of the public from having a right to express political opinions, I'm sure you know which dangerous road you are driving down......... Having said that, there is no requirement at all to agree with them.

11-10 odds of impeachment?? Woah! If I was a bookie I'd be refusing to take wagers on that!

Turns out the Canadian mosque shooter who murdered 6 and wounded 19 others is a radical leftist muslim-lover who worshipped Obama and was trying to frame honest people just being patriotic about their country. ......... .........no hang on....... .........wait a minute, I seem to have mixed my facts up here....... Sorry. False alarm. He's just an ordinary white guy known online for his right-wing anti-refugee and pro Donald Trump rants on social media. Quebec City mosque attack suspect known for right-wing online posts - The Globe and Mail [ATTACH]48084._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Trump really needed to get over the fact that he lost the popular vote, as has happened to other Presidents despite winning the electoral college vote. None of them kicked up such a stink as Trump has. This points to a badly bruised ego. If he ignored the fact, no-one would care longer than a week past the election, but he can't. He cannot believe that a numerically thumping majority of people didn't vote for him. He cannot believe that his crowds weren't as big as Obama's. He cannot believe the CIA and every other US Government Department doesn't worship the ground he walks on after he spent months implying they were hopeless and corrupt. In short, he is not capable of accepting that anything he has been involved in wasn't the biggest, best, and most adored thing of all time by anyone in world history. That his chief voter fraud investigator, among other members of his staff and family, have turned out to be registered to vote in multiple states should come as no surprise. He's so obsessed with his own image that he wouldn't bother checking beforehand to make sure there are no hidden traps which could make a fool of him. He makes the mythological ancient Greek hunter Narcissus look like a really humble and down-to-earth bloke. In the latest news, acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration in court. Before certain individuals cry "treason!", the acting Attorney General made it quite clear that she was not convinced the executive order was consistent with the Department's obligation to uphold the principles of justice in accordance with the Constitution, nor that the instructions contained in the executive order were lawful in the first place. I do seem to remember saying either here or on another forum that Trump would be a train wreck driven by his ego. I won't take too much credit for it, as it's the single most bleeding obvious prediction I've ever made in my life.

I think you need to take a closer look at that website you referenced. "That is now what Polidiotic.com is to me. It’s a weapon on the battlefield of ideas. It’s a tool to use against liberal elitists......Polidiotic.com is about knowledge, truth and patriotism." "....we have Conservative talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity & Glenn Beck to thank for waking up a great portion of America...." "....It was about thanking God, not the Indians, for protecting them on their journey, allowing the remaining Pilgrims to land safely on American shores...." "I’ve decided to create a list of articles/research on the argument against anthropogenic global warming. Since this is and has been an ongoing and heavy debate since 2006, this list shall be continuously updated until a point is reached where climate alarmists will finally cede to the truth or are engulfed by flames, as punishment for their continuous perpetuation of an obvious facade." (this was an enjoyable read - yep, you're going to hell if you believe the climate scientists!) Here's one of my sources which has an expansive description of the various ways of measuring national debt: Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt? The answer in pure dollar terms is Obama, but you need to read the article to see the objective reasons this occurred. The largest debt increases are associated with either world wars, or with the Great Depression and the GFC. At least he had an excuse, which is more than either Ronald Reagan or George W Bush had.

The logic isn't my issue with Gnu's musings. It's the scarcity of objective facts. In the absence of those, the conclusions reached often don't make sense or are just completely wrong.

You do realise that the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", ie, Obamacare to which you refer, was a Bill which passed through the Senate and House of Representatives (ie, "Congress") just like any other legislative bill does, don't you? Sorry......rhetorical question. Trump's executive order directs Federal agencies to waive or delay provisions of Obamacare "to the maximum extent permitted by law". To actually repeal it, a new Act will have to be drafted and passed through both houses. Obama increased US National debt by 68% (68% = "double" in Gnu-world) mostly due to the GFC. George W Bush, Franklin D Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Ronald Reagan had larger percentage debt increases. I don't really understand why you write these things without checking the facts first. I honestly don't. You gotta stop drinking the Breitbart Kool-Aid.

There is nothing more simultaneously hilarious and disturbing than a Gnu post. Executive orders are tracked by the American Presidency Project. The facts are that the number of executive orders Obama signed (276) were less than George W Bush (291), less than Bill Clinton (364), less than Ronald Reagan (381), less than Jimmy Carter (320), less than Nixon (346), Johnson (325), Eisenhower (484), Truman (907) way less than Franklin Roosevelt (3,721), less than Hoover (968), Coolidge (1,203), Harding (522), Wilson (1,803), Taft (724), and Theodore Roosevelt (1.081). I find it amusing that by default you seem to be asserting that all of these Presidents have ruled the USA in a "rather Soviet" way. Lol.....Reagan will be turning in his grave hollering "Seriously Gnu? Seriously??" There is "reading" and there is "comprehension". These two things are not the same and when one is undertaken without the other, it can lead to quite a different outcome. It also leads to the inability to distinguish real from fake news, and real facts from "alternative facts". You are correct that Syria is the only country mentioned in the text of the executive order. This shows me that you have read it. You are incorrect in your assertion that it has nothing to do with the seven countries. This shows me that you have not comprehended it. In Section 3, sub-para ©, it states (in part) ".......I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order....." So what countries might they be? They happen to be Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. I curiously note that middle-eastern muslim countries known to harbour terrorists but which have Trump business interests such as hotels, companies, and golf courses located in them are exempt (Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt). Coincidence, I'm certain. Oh, and I can pick and choose photos too, Gnu. Look! A Muslim girl who became a volunteer surf lifesaver and life guard! (Probably all fake photoshopped......or if it isn't, she's probably using it as a front to plan her next terror attack on North Cronulla beach). [ATTACH]48083._xfImport[/ATTACH]

The scientists are just taking a leaf out of "A Few Good Men". "You cut these guys loose! You had Markinson sign a phony transfer order! You doctored the log books! You coerced the doctor!" It's just what scientists want you to think - that they're in labs and on field trips gathering data. No sir. They're not. They're out there kidnapping other scientists, tying them up, and stuffing rags down their throats if they don't fall into line and "independently gather" data from "multiple lines of research" (so they say) which confirms the ruse. This is what they DON'T want you to know!