MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Malvinas sovereignty claim is standing and non negotiable”, anticipates Macri in New York
Argentina's claim over the Malvinas Islands is standing and non negotiable, were the first words of president Mauricio Macri when he arrived on Sunday to New York to attend this week the UN General Assembly. The statement follows the strong reactions to the last Wednesday Argentine/UK joint cooperation statement which includes a South Atlantic chapter strongly questioned in some political circles. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWe have agreement. To the Argentine sovereignty is not negotiable. To the islanders, sovereignty is not negotiable. So - no negotiation. It is good to agree.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Just words from Macri. The intention is clear. The Argentine claim is negotiable and in time will be surrendered.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ooohhhh, ooohhhh, so can we now say that Argentina are in breach of the 40 or so UN Resolutions as well, as they refuse to negotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Someone should tell him to stop digging, the hole is deep enough.
“The sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands is a standing claim and not negotiable for Argentines”, said Macri.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh that usurpation!
and all of those UN resolutions!!
https://www.academia.edu/21721198/Falklands_1833_Usurpation_and_UN_Resolutions
Every day people laugh just a little bit more.
Who cares about these mythical malvin-something or other islands.?
Sep 19th, 2016 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0However if you were referring to to OUR Falkland lslands, then l would have to agree with you.
OUR Sovereignty is NOT NEGOTIABLE.
Glad you see eye to eye with us.
That comment is for his domestic audience, he has to say that or his time in the Pink Boudoir will be severely limited.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse +1He has no choice but to say these things as the constitution says them and he is beholden to obeying that.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, he has started the process of weaning Argentina off their childish pursuit. The effect of which will compound over time.
As others have said Macri has to say that for the millions of Argentines that believe in the mythical Malvinas that also have a vote. I have met many Argentines that don't believe in the myth and many more who think there are more important issues but tend to stay quiet in the face of the rabid ones.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse +1So the issue is not on the negotiating table. Good.
We (Argentina) want negotiations but we are not going to negotiate!!
Sep 19th, 2016 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No surprise there then.
Argentina will give up on it's spurious claims before 2025.
Ask Hep he/she/it knows!!
Yes, we have no Malvinas, we have no Malvinas today
Sep 19th, 2016 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We've got Pitcairn, Helena, Gibraltar, Bermuda
Here it is for the hopefuls that an Argentine president whose ideology falls in line with that of the Reagans and Thatchers of this world would somehow drop the country's claim on Malvinas.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry folks. It's probably not funny to live under such a shadow, but you must know that no president ever will want to have his or her name tarnished by attempting to do such a thing, ever.
Different presidents will use different approaches, but don't be fooled by that. Argentina's claim will remain in place until we get those islands back--no matter how long it takes.
“Malvinas sovereignty claim is standing and non negotiable”
Sep 19th, 2016 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what is that supposed to mean ? other than the usual BS for internal consumption, it means there is nothing to negotiate.....so the current status stands....for all eternity, “and 25 years” (the mention of '25 years' is in Hippy's honour ).
@11
Sep 19th, 2016 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina's claim will remain in place until we get those islands back--no matter how long it takes.”
And folks will keep on trying those lottery numbers until they win--no matter how long it takes... But who has the best odds ; )
@11 Enrique
Sep 19th, 2016 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly Argentina can't get something 'back' that they have never owned. That's impossible. So tell me Enrique, since the British flag has been flying over the Falklands for longer than Argentina has been a country how can you own something that belonged to someone else? Well you tried stealing it and got your arses handed to you. We all remember 12 Jun 1982 when all those Argentine soldiers (who were very 'brave' whilst terrorising unarmed civilians) ran like rabbits with the British troops hot on their trails.
Secondly, what would you know about living under a shadow in Argentina? Considering you love Argentina so much that you'd rather live in Canada.
But Argentina will NEVER get it's thieving mitts on the Falkland Islands, which have been British since 1690, hundreds of years before Argentina existed, and even longer since Argentina committed genocide against the natives and stole Patagonia.
How frustrating for you that the British are better armed than the poor natives who were massacred by your ancestors. How frustrating for you to know that every day that goes by weakens Argentina's already pathetically weak claim to the Falklands.
How frustrating for you that Argentina has to beg other countries (including Britain) to trade with you, promising that you won't steal foreign companies (this time honest!).
Argentina's Speaks
Sep 19th, 2016 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's claim over the Malvinas Islands is standing and non negotiable,
the British again hold out the hand of friendship, we just want to trade,
Are they right, or are we doing right by holding the hand of friendship,
or should the British say, sod it, shove of if that's the response to our hand of friendship,
just a thought.
Nice to see Mr Marci agrees with the islanders! sovereignty “not negotiable”
Sep 19th, 2016 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0good start to future relations.
11 Try not to stress. The sensible, pragmatic politicians who now control Argentina have already determined that the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands is to be slowly dropped in return for investment and a healthy economy.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is actually good news for Argentinians........so stop moaning and rejoice.
The only possible rotes that Argentina can take to get hold of The Falklands is either to get the ICJ to give it to them or invade it.
Sep 19th, 2016 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the former it will get chucked out without even being heard,and in the second they risk a small local outbreak of selectadeath missile which will not miss,say,the Casa Rosada.
We wete rather nice to them last time,for we are a tolerant people,but as many contries have discovered during our long history our patience is not inexhaustible.
If the UN had done what it should have done in the first place and establish grades of Sovereignty for its member nations what,out of ten,would Argentine score?
It might get one for democracy,just to encourage it a bit,but does a bankrupt state have any claim to soverainty?
M
@14 “How frustrating for you that the British are better armed than the poor natives who were massacred by your ancestors. How frustrating for you to know that every day that goes by weakens Argentina's already pathetically weak claim to the Falklands.”
Sep 19th, 2016 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, it is quite frustrating to be under the jackboot of the British, and know that every day that goes by makes us more and more subhuman... not to mention people like holier-than-thou people like you always bragging about how you angels are better than lowly humans.
14
Sep 20th, 2016 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“how can you own something that belonged to someone else? ”
Are you being serious...?
The British developed that into an art...
Plant the flag....decimate....change the name...voilà...
We British dont wear jackboots,thats the Nazis.
Sep 20th, 2016 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Neither have we ever sunjugated any nation but Ireland.
Only one mistake,made by Oliver Cromwell,when views on these things were somewhat different.
We have never,ever,invaded any other Nation since.
M
14 LEPRecon
Sep 20th, 2016 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina committed genocide against the natives and stole Patagonia.”
And so what?
Argentina does not need to pass any “good country” test in order to claim the Islas Malvinas.
Your efforts to depict some real and some imagined blemishes are totally beside the point and unrelevant.
You probably know well that the negotiations that will end up in the handing over of that portion of Argentine territory depend on some factors coming together.
Oh, and we are not thinking violent action here. What happened in 1982 was the decision of a group of generals used to murder unarmed civilians.
You and other islanders can keep typing away how Argentina lacks rights to claim Malvinas--that's your right.
But yapping and furiously posting on how Argentines do not “deserve” to get the islands because of how bad we are and how nasty our ancestors were--I cannot see how it would advance your case.
There was a dispute between Spain and England over the Islands that began in 1748 and ended in 1833. Argentina was never a party to that dispute, and Spain never complained about its resolution.
Sep 20th, 2016 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, in this case, Voice, the Falklands have never belonged to Argentina.
@19 Magnusmaster
Sep 20th, 2016 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're showing your inferiority complex again. The only 'jackboot' that Argentina is under is your own. The UK doesn't care about Argentina one way or the other.
@20 Voice
Being selective with my post doesn't work. I never said the British hadn't done this, but as I was explaining to Enrique, in the 19th C territory belonged to you as long as you could defend it. The United Provinces tried to steal the Falklands in Nov 1832, but the British turned up and defended their territory, and the UP was sent packing with their tail between their legs.
@ 22 Enrique
Firstly there is no such place as 'Mavinas', that's another thing Argentina has made up.
What imagined blemishes? Everything I wrote was true.
I don't blame the United Provinces (Argentina didn't exist in 1833) for trying to increase its territory in line with law as it was in the 19th C. They took a chance hoping the British thought the Falklands were too far away for them to either care about or do anything about it. But they were wrong. Just like Argentine government were wrong in 1982 when they thought the same thing.
But in the 19th C territory was yours if you could defend it. The UP turned up, tried to usurp the Falklands and then COULDN'T defend their attempt at usurpation.
In the late 20th C, however, international law (which Argentina promised to follow by signing the UN Charter), categorically states that all people have the right to self determination.
Which is why your assertion that there will somehow be 'negotiations' to 'hand over' the Islands are wrong. Why? Because the ONLY people who could give permission for a change in sovereignty of the islands are the people who live there...you know them the ones who can trace their ancestry back on the islands to before Argentina existed as a country.
And in 1982 we all remember the 'downtrodden' people of Argentina euphorically celebrated the military junta's decision to oppress & murder these unarmed civilians on the Falklands
EM
Sep 20th, 2016 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“But yapping and furiously posting on how Argentines do not “deserve” to get the islands because of how bad we are and how nasty our ancestors were--I cannot see how it would advance your case.”
As usual, you avoid the real point and run off waving a red herring.
The Falklands had no indigenous inhabitants, nothing was stolen from anyone.
Patagonia was taken forcibly from the 'Indians' who lived there.
Hypocritical of Argentina to claim moral indignation that the British stole from them.
@22 Enrique Massot
Sep 20th, 2016 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine claim to the sovereignty of the Falklands archipelago cannot be substantiated as it is based on lies, myths, fairy tales and mistaken interpretations of historical events. Furthermore, in 1850 the Argentine Federation tacitly ceded the archipelago to the United Kingdom by way of the Arana Southern Treaty - even Latin American historians agree that Argentina has a very weak case.
The only way the matter can be resolved is for Argentina to take its case to the International Court of Justice - the justices in The Hague will reject the nonsensical claim.
Please excuse Voice. When he reels in pissed from the Combined Services after midnight he gets confused. As for the hypocrite @22 his brainwashing was completed at age 10. You would Think that these people would have ensured that Argieland would have taken their sovereignty case to the ICJ years and years ago but the fact is tbey haven't. Why? Because as they are well aware they have no case at all.
Sep 20th, 2016 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has had a number of cases put before the ICJ for resolving issues and won on most occasions. The proof that the Falklands Islands was never Argentine lies in their refusal to present their case to the court knowing that decision is final and would effectively end their claim. The opportunity to end the issue once and for all with the whole world watching only weakens any claim Argentina has and casts doubt on their credibility in the international community as a trusted country to do trade with.
Sep 20th, 2016 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 023
Sep 20th, 2016 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0....and yet, East Falkland has never belonged to Britain, but somehow you believe it apparently does now....
24
Did you say the United Provinces tried to steal the Falklands...?
The Falklands was administered by the United Provinces until the Spanish left...are you saying, because the Spanish left, East Falkland was up for grabs as it was abandoned...?
Wasn't West Falkland abandoned for 60 years too....
Are you saying that Britain had more right than the United Provinces to occupy East Falkland even though they had no prior claim and had never administered them...?
As usual the British claim would fail to satisfy even simplistic scrutiny...
29 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and immitator extraordinaire
Sep 20th, 2016 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Are you saying that Britain had more right than the United Provinces to occupy East Falklands” Well history certainly does, otherwise, please explain how the following treaties don't specifically nullify any and all Argentine pretensions. Under Utrecht and Nootka, Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration. Furthermore, the Convention of Settlement, 1850 is a peace treaty that is binding, that ends all further territorial claims. But even if these prior conditions didn't exist, and the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them; it was perfectly legal in 1833 to wit. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: “Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, …”10
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928)
30
Sep 20th, 2016 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Under Utrecht and Nootka...?
Unless you can show me otherwise that particular treaty applied to the coast of mainland South America....psst...It was a secret...is the clue...
A Convention of Settlement reverts the situation to as it was, prior to the cause...ie competing claims....it doesn't solve prior disagreement that were not related to the cause...
Look it up....
Not sure why you are quoting conquest as a legitimate means of acquiring territory, when you know fine well there was no conflict, therefore there was no conquest...
btw....
“Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession”
Do you the difference between a statement and an endorsement...?
You must try harder Terry me ole son....;-))))))
Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. … secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. ..The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. .. and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) ...negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
Sep 20th, 2016 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
“...only refers to the Mainland...” only according to you. ”...Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain's reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 was an exercise of Britain's rights under this clause. In the opinion of Professor Dolzer,(legal representative for Argentina) “ the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way...“ Moreover, your assertion would in any event be dismissed as an ab absurdo interpretation. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes wrote:
”Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity which can hardly have been intended,... ...An example of an ab absurdo interpretation of a statute or of a contract would be where the conclusion empties the phrase under scrutiny of no effect whatsoever.”
As D.W. Greig writes in his “Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis” on Nootka. “Falklands, which equally undoubtedly were islands adjacent to coasts
The rest is your unproven fraud.
@29... 'Military Conquest' or 'Conquest', one may involve Conflict, the other may not.
Sep 20th, 2016 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Has the ICJ limited conquest to Military action?
or
CONFLICT:
1.
a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.
Does their need to be Military action to cause a conflict.
All these questions!
@29 Voice
Sep 20th, 2016 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As usual you misrepresent the facts. In 1832 both Britain and Spain maintained sovereignty claims on the Falkland Islands. The UP NEVER had any right to claim, except through the right of conquest...which didn't turn out too well...especially as they were defeated by their own mutinous men...meaning that Britain didn't even have to fire a shot to see them running away.
Claiming something is yours and something actually being yours isn't the same thing. And no the UP didn't administer the Islands at ALL...EVER.
However, in the 1840's Spain abandoned it's sovereignty claims to the Falkland Islands and saluted the ONLY recognised claimant left...Great Britain.
Spain didn't recognise Argentina as an independent country until 1863, approximately 20 years AFTER Spain had surrendered its sovereignty claim.
As for your assertion that both claims were abandoned for 60 years, that is also false. Both Britain and Spain left plaques stating that their sovereignty claims stood (which was legal under international law as it was in the 19 C), and during the '60 years' no one else turned up to try and claim them. Not even the UP.
So Argentina's assertion that Spain somehow left the Falklands to Argentina in their 'will' is illegal, illogical and an outright lie.
You must really stop lying, Voice, it is so bad for your soul and you'll never get into heaven.
@31 Voice
Psst! Aren't you tired of being shown up by people smarter than you?
@11 Reekie
Sep 20th, 2016 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Different presidents will use different approaches, but don't be fooled by that. Argentina's claim will remain in place until we get those islands back--no matter how long it takes”
Reekie, did someone knock you on the head, causing mental confusion ?
I'm concerned, because despite the absurdity of the notion that the Falkland's ever belonged to Argentina, you have actually 'defended' Macri...
LEPRecon's #14, below, has said all that needs to be said.
“@11 Enrique
Firstly Argentina can't get something 'back' that they have never owned ?”
Also, was surprised to see your reaction (in yr # 22), in response to another part of LEPRecon's #14 :
“Argentina committed genocide against the natives and stole Patagonia.”
And so what?
Argentina does not need to pass any “good country” test in order to claim the Islas Malvinas.“
It seems that 'your' ”good country“ standards only apply to ”other“ countries - not to Argentina' - and by adopting a 'double standard' when it suits you, you have shown that your convictions are somewhat 'flexible' ; perhaps you don't know, but you should - you can't have it both ways ; Have you thrown your liberal-style convictions in the garbage - temporarily - because they've came around to bite you in the arse ?
Yr #22 just goes on to show how confused you must be ....
”But yapping and furiously posting on how Argentines do not “deserve” to get the islands because of how bad we are and how nasty our ancestors were--I cannot see how it would advance your case.”
Here you imply that what your 'nasty' ancestors did in the past has no bearing on the case in question - the sovereignty of the Falkland's - it doesn't, yet neither does it prevent you from believing that what your 'nasty' ancestors did 183 years ago - shipping a garrison of about 60 men to the islands, for an enormous full six weeks - advances Argentina's case. Sorry to say, it doesn't.
Confusing...isn't it ?
32
Sep 20th, 2016 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Opinions opinions...Terry never the facts...
How about in plain black and white...
“The secret article only mentions ”the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of said coasts“. The secret article DOES NOT MENTION ”the islands adjacent“. The secret article only mentions establishment of any other power ON THE COASTS IN QUESTION. Thus, any settlements on the islands by Argentina subsequent to its independence would NOT automatically invalidate Nootka.”
Even the first part only says adjacent islands...
How adjacent is 300 nautical miles....not very is my guess...
If ever there was an intention to apply this treaty to the Falklands...I dare say it would be a good idea to mention them...don't you think...?
34
In what way is quoting other folks opinions deemed smarter than me...
btw..It's irrelevant whether Spain recognised Argentina....
Britain did...before the theft of East Falkland...
psst...You are surely not suggesting that it is you that is smarter than me...?
You know what they say about self praise....
31, 36 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 20th, 2016 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For your claim to be correct would mean Briton could establish settlements on the South American mainland. I guess all you need to do is provide evidence of such an absurdity. “How adjacent is 300 nautical miles....not very is my guess…” Well your interpretation is out gunned by the expert opinions I have provided
” Maxwell on Interpretation… and Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ..is to be interpreted 'in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to . . . [its] terms in their context, and in the light of its object and purpose.“ Appears to put paid to your sophistry.
”A Convention of Settlement…it doesn't solve prior disagreement“. ”§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it,.... If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... “LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
“..know fine well there was no conflict, therefore there was no conquest…”
214 THE ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
“…according to international law, ..annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is ”firmly established.“ It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.
General theory of law and state by Hans Kelsen : published: Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1945
Do you know the difference between ”…occupation or conquest, or, like cession,…”?
You still are unable to show how Argentina can overcome her prohibition under Urecht.
Ha ha Terry there you go again...part quoting...
Sep 20th, 2016 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just the bits you like eh...;-)
Here is the bit you won't like....
§ 11. Claims unconnected with causes of the war. A treaty of
peace does not extinguish claims unconnected with the cause of
the war. Debts, existing prior to the war, and injuries com-
mitted prior to the war, but which made no part of the reasons
for undertaking it, remain entire, and the remedies are revived. ”
“LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
The claims prior to the cause of the war (Blockade) were not extinguished by the Treaty of Peace....
Remind yourself....must try harder...must try harder....;-)))))))
38 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 20th, 2016 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Quoting...Just the bits you like ” Just those that are relevant, unlike you in the following. So you raise the old 'red-herring' specific only to civil torts, of which Argentina raised none, and paid compensation to British nationals. You are still prevented from raising the spectre of territorial claims according the interpretation of internal law at the time. Further stymied by ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration that acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law “are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession.”
You still are unable to show how Argentina can overcome her prohibition under Utrecht. “...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”. Finally, All we have is your unsupported and unqualified claim that Nootka is of no effect. In spite, of three experts who proffer a contrary opinion. Also, that such an interpretation in law is considered Ab Absurdo Definition: Latin: an evidentiary suggestion or statutory interpretation that is, or leads to, an absurdity. An example of an ab absurdo interpretation of a statute or of a contract would be where the conclusion empties the phrase under scrutiny of no effect whatsoever. Neither the legislature nor persons who sign contracts can intend that a phrase of their contract have no effect whatsoever and so therefore, such an interpretation would be ab absurdo.
Where does it say it's only specific to civil torts...?
Sep 21st, 2016 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clue..it doesn't...
I'm not giving opinions, I'm giving you the actual wording in plain black and white...
I keep giving you facts and you keep giving various interpretations...opinions...
Also the Spanish King didn't sell, yield, pawn, transfer the United Provinces either, but they still became Argentina...Uruguay..etc
Argentina didn't need his permission or consent for the Falklands... they merely had to occupy and settle them...which they did...
Until of course Britain decided they wanted them....
Theft....
40 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 21st, 2016 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Where does it say it's only specific to civil torts” The choice of words is the clue “claims unconnected with the cause of the war. Debts, existing prior to the war, and injuries committed prior to the war, but which made no part of the reasons for undertaking it, remain entire, and the remedies are revived.” Where does it say it overrides the specific provisions of § 12?
“Argentina didn't need his permission or consent for the Falklands…” What Argentina did was act unitarily against a country whom she knew had been prepared to go to war with Spain over the same territory, and had a prior existing claim. Ignored diplomatic protests, and resorted to arms, and sent an armed garrison, in an act of force. Unfortunately, it back-fired spectaculary, and Argentina has since been complaining about the UK, even though it was Argentina that triggered the event and the UK just reciprocated in a like manner. All of the applications of international law support the UK's position. Argentina has been unable to find any facet of international law to support her claim.
The Falklands were over twelve hundred miles the from the rebellion in the Spanish colonies of United Provinces, at that time the rebels/ Argentines had no representation/control on the islands they had only several hundred miles around Buenos Aires was all that they controlled, even when Britain recognised Argentina in 1821 it was only a fragment of Argentina today all through history rebellions that were successful and recognised by the international community was only to the land they held in their possession at the time of rebellion that was the norm then and much the same today.
Sep 21st, 2016 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0the Argentines cannot argue the historical point as there was no state of Argentina during the British/French and then later acquired ex French claim sold to Spain. Patagonia only became part of Argentina in 1888 bring the islands closer to Argentina to with in 400 miles of the mainland it is for Argentina to supply evidence they have inherited from Spain. The British have had a presence on these islands for almost 300 years and a population for over 200. the UN has said to settle the dispute, Argentina 3 times have refused to go to the only legal international body that can give them control of the islands ICJ their deliberate avoidance casts doubt on their story and shoots themselves in the foot. Argentina`s fear of losing in the court exposes the weakness of their claim
38 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 21st, 2016 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0”The claims prior to the cause of the war (Blockade) were not extinguished by the Treaty of Peace….” Oh yes they were according to the constraints of international law, and the Argentine government. So much sophism, so little to show for it.
The only time that S.11 was used was on behalf of British claims, not Argentine thus “...Vice-President Marcos Paz opened Congress on 1 May 1866, and in his Message mentioned some old claims for private losses by British citizens: The British Government has accepted the President of the Republic of Chile as arbitrator in the reclamation pending with the Argentine Republic, for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled. The wording of that statement is perfectly clear - apart from the question of personal claims for damages, there was no dispute between Argentina and Britain. The Falklands were no longer an issue between the two countries. ...” Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper. Therefore your assertion that “...Argentina's claim was not extinguished....” Is directly refuted by two presidents and one vice-president. As well as the subsequent acquiescence between 1850 and 1941, except for one protest in 1888.
41
Sep 21st, 2016 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh' no Terry....
Being a Canadian, it comes as no surprise that you have little understanding of English grammar....
“The choice of words is the clue”
Have you ever heard of a clause in grammar...?
“A clause is a group of related words that contains both a subject and verb. We have two primary types of clauses. o An independent clause expresses a complete thought, so it can stand by itself. o A dependent clause, also known as a subordinate clause, expresses only part of a thought, so it cannot stand alone.
”A treaty of peace does not extinguish claims unconnected with the cause of
the war. ”
Is an example of an independent clause, it is a complete sentence ending in a full stop....
So... to summarise...
You have a treaty that specifically doesn't mention the Falklands...
A Peace Treaty that does not extinguish claims unconnected with the cause of
the war...
A claim of conquest that has never been supported by the UK in any form whatsoever....
I'm sure that would even be thrown out of my local magistrates let alone the ICJ...
You have nothing, but ambiguities and opinion...
Must try harder...must try harder....;-))))))
44 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 21st, 2016 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people's grammar were just plain annoying. Now there's evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS.“ illinois.edu/blog/view/25/76120
“Grammar Pedantry Syndrome” is a form of OCD in which sufferers need to correct every grammatical error.” twitter.com/uberfacts/status/218151002707206145
“A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, ... Asperger syndrome often have behaviour characterized by pedantic speech.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant
“You have a treaty that doesn't mention the Falklands…” It doesn't have to “If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character”
Also, this view by Halleck is supported by the following contemporary jurists James Madison Cutts, T. J. Lawrence, Henry Wheaton, and George Grafton, Wilson, and Hans Kelsen. It is further rejected by two Argentine presidents and one vice-president. “A claim of conquest that has never been supported by the UK in any form whatsoever….” They may well have not relied on such a claim, but that doesn't make it discounted. It would be impossible for it to “..be thrown out of my local magistrates let alone the ICJ…” In first instance, the former doesn't have jurisdiction. In the second, the ICJ is not going to revisit a ruling by it's predecessor, that is applicable only to historical situations, that predate the UN.
So you have nothing but viveza criolla.
What grammar correction...?
Sep 21st, 2016 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I merely highlighted the FACT, that the statement made by H. W. HALLECK was an independent clause and as such, would be read in that context...
Don't blame me if you are not capable of understanding simplistic English...
btw...It would be discounted by the UK, because they have always maintained there was no conquest...
ps....Why do you slip in meaning less statements....
”Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character”
I have already explained that the treaty of peace is irrelevant concerning prior disagreements...
You have nothing... but your interpretation, regardless of the facts...
46 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 21st, 2016 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What grammar correction…?” “It comes as no surprise that you have little understanding of English grammar….”
“I have already explained that the treaty of peace is irrelevant concerning prior disagreements…” No you haven't you've attempted sophistry by claiming s.12 is subordinate to S.11, simply on your unqualified self-serving say so. “You have nothing... but your interpretation”. Hardly, when you're ignoring the endorsement of support for S.12 by five more international jurists, who are also experts on the subject. The further rejection of your claim by two past Argentine presidents and former vice-president.
Is there no end to your attempted viveza criolla, in the face of such overwhelmingly conclusive evidence?
There is no end to it.
Sep 21st, 2016 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He seems to hate the British and more especially, the English.
48
Sep 21st, 2016 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is that you Troy...;-)))
There is something about your posts that are triggering little alarm bells at the back of my mind....
@48 Kanye
Sep 21st, 2016 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although I seldom agree with Voice, now he's just taking the piss out of Terry, who, in all his haughtiness is too stupid to realize it. But let’em fight it out.
But returning to the title “Brazil's ex-attorney general...”, closed for comments (a bit too soon), and in reply to yr #45, I agree that this time, Hill is not wrong... but to cut to the chase, if the Argies believe their claim is legitimate, why don't they go to the ICJ ? For the simple reason they know it isn't. End of story.
Regarding the rest of his crap, Hill thinks he is always right - even when he's wrong. As I've stated before, you can't fix 'stupid'.
Regarding his # 46 under the same title (Brazil's ex-Att.Genl...”), he states that “I wouldn't recognize a truism if it hit me between the eyes”, because “I've never relied on one previously” (???)... his wee brain must be misfiring.
Hill also states that “ studies have shown that right-wingers....etc”.....so why doesn't he PROVE it....AND, show us the links to such reputable studies....
Hill will very likely accuse me of shifting the burden of proof, but as he made the statement, let him prove it...or be exposed , once again, as an idiot.
In his #48 he again shows mental confusion, confirmed by his # 50. He has trouble expressing himself without resorting to highfalutin speech and irrelevant quotes. He lacks the clarity of mind to present his non-original thoughts in an intelligible manner.
In his above post (#45) in reply to Voice's #44, in which the latter correctly points out that he has “little understanding of English grammar....”, he comes back with the attack ”Now there's evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD)“ ; He told me the same crap when I too, corrected him ; so, by his warped logic, when someone points out a grammar mistake, they must be ”ill, suffering from a type of OCD”. LMAO
T Hill cannot distinguish between an educated observation or opinion, and a lie, a deliberate falsehood.
Sep 21st, 2016 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To insist that offering an opinion that is unproven, is therefore a “lie”, shows he has no understanding of logic.
50 Jack Bauer
Sep 21st, 2016 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I wouldn't recognize a truism if it hit me between the eyes” Was stated as you've never let a good prejudice be stopped from being expressed for lack of factual support. “Studies have shown that right-wingers....etc”.....so why doesn't he PROVE it....AND, show us the links to such reputable studies….”
You only have to ask, my pleasure. Oops! What a surprise not everyone else is like you, just shooting their mouths-off with no factual support.
“Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.”
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
“Little understanding of English grammar....”, was raised by a party that couldn't effectively refute the evidence I had produced, and so went entirely off-topic and engaged, like you in a more personal approach. So I simply responded by showing how people who were more familiar with issue, viewed such behaviour. Like I've said, if you don't like my responses , you don't have to evoke a reply. So don't shoot the messenger, for a causation produced by yourself.
52
Sep 21st, 2016 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you saying you do understanding the difference between an independent clause and a dependent clause...?
If you did, then you would realise that....”A treaty of peace does not extinguish claims unconnected with the cause of the war. ”
Is an independent clause and is not referring to a civil tort...and certainly not a red herring as you claim...
When a book is published they usually have an editor that removes or highlights ambiguities so that the reader is in no doubt as to the meaning of an opinion...
You appear to be incapable of understanding what is written, which must mean that you have little understanding of English grammar...
It is certainly not off topic, because it renders your argument worthless...
A TREATY OF PEACE DOES NOT EXTINGUISH CLAIMS
UNCONNECTED WITH THE CAUSE OF THE WAR.
Do you see how relevant that independent clause is from your expert on war...?
At no point did I correct your grammar, I stated that you had little understanding of grammar, that is not a correction...
51
Are you ignoring me ..... Kanye boy...?
A little rearranging of your name ......Yankeboy....?....;-))))))
51 Kanye
Sep 21st, 2016 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“T Hill cannot distinguish between an educated observation or opinion, and a lie, a deliberate falsehood. ”Already answered as to what the requirements of logic are as to such statements, according to experts your humble opinion is a miss by a golden mile. http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/05/sao-paulo-police-disperse-five-days-of-demonstrations-against-removal-of-rousseff-and-calls-for-fresh-elections
“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
My dictionaries/thesauruses indicate ”opinion - belief, judgement, thought(s), school of thought, thinking, way of thinking
Which prior to that states, they're only true or false so it doesn't comply with the analogy of being unprovable as you are are attempting to foist on it.
53 Voice
”A treaty of peace does not extinguish claims unconnected with the cause of the war.” that's right just civil liabilities. Which is supported by eight experts, and is directly refuted by two presidents and one vice-president.
So to make your sophism viable, all you have to do is produce some expert opinion, to bolster your personal unsupported one.
53
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Are you ignoring me ..... Kanye boy...?”
Doing my best.
'Argentina didn't need his permission or consent for the Falklands... they merely had to occupy and settle them...which they did...
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Until of course Britain decided they wanted them....
Theft....'
Forget the rest before 1833 that just spoils the story..
Now that sounds like Argentinian logic to me.....'Voice' or should that be 'Voz'
@56 James Marshall,
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Voice is Think.
They(?) even use the same punctuation.
Both(?) wholly unbelievable.
Both(?) are Anglophobes.
The rest before 1833...well.... it's just as embarrassing...
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0French settle and claim the islands...
Britain tries to settle and claim islands already settled and claimed...
French give Spain title...
Spain tells Britain to bugger off...
Britain does bugger off...
To save face Spain allows Britain to return briefly, but to bugger off of their own accord...
Britain does bugger off of their own accord....
60 years pass....
Spain loses all provinces controlled and administered from the United Provinces...including....the United Provinces....which become Argentina..Uruguay ..etc.
The new Country Argentina claims and settles the former Spanish possession..
Happy now...?.....;-))))))
58 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Spain tells Britain to bugger off...Britain does bugger off…Not exactly, more like, Britain says, ”Okay we'll have to settle it man to man“. Spain ”We were a little hasty, how about we compromise and share, after I've changed my pants.
1833? That's all irrelevant Voicey lad. There's more to foam at the mouth about than that. Wonder Woman is going to change your life. More taxes, property taxes, exclusion of the wealthy from many public services. And Captain James T Trotsky Kirk is on his way back. You will be living in the SSOS with a hard left government after your cash and making your life even more miserable - be afraid! :-))) If you really ARE worried about your taxes you are in the wrong place!
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0@58...Actually I was referring to the diplomatic protests made by GB. But thanks for confirming that Argentina has never had possession of the Islands. Great work.
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 019th C.
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UPS - Spain, Fuck off, we don't recognize your authority!
Present day,
Argentina - We rightfully “inherited” them from Spain, they wanted us to have them.
USA, UK, UN, Spain, Chile, Brazil, ANZA, Canada - yeah, sure.
@52 Hill
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your statement : “Studies have shown that right-wingers are not the most intelligent of people….”
Me: “...so why don't you show us the links to such reputable studies….”
You : ”You only have to ask, my pleasure. Oops! ..”
So, is “Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice“ your proof ?
Funny, the study does not mention ”right-wingers“, far less link them to your crazy notion that they are less intelligent ; Sounds a bit “prejudicial”, doesn’t it ? but I suppose that is YOUR biased conclusion....with no proof. The study however, does actually say ”“Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and “social conservatism”, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid.”“ So that knocks your theory for a six. I do agree though that ignorant people - usually found in the lower social classes - tend to be less flexible towards change, until someone comes along with handouts…after that, they are hooked.
And, some of the conclusions arrived at, based on the reactions of participants to experiments in which they watch someone eating worms , or stare at a big turd, are hardly reliable in determining one’s political views. I suppose that not wanting to eat shit, makes one a conservative or, in your vocabulary, a ‘right-winger’….Corollary : left-wingers like eating shit.
Studying “cause and effect” can be interesting, but a normal person would be wise to not generalize.
While trying to shed light on several social aspects, the study has its merits ; When I read that ”low levels of education are linked to higher levels of prejudice”, I though immediately of YOU, given that look down on everyone that you believe (erroneously) is not as smart as you, but it brought ME great relief....after all, I have two University degrees and an MBA ...I was very worried for a moment, but after reading that, my mind has been set at ease..
53 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“At no point did I correct your grammar” Nor did I ever state you did, it's just another part of the sophistry of inventions and pretensions that you utilize.
64...Terry....
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Am I dreaming...?
Am I missing something...?
More to the point are you missing something....
Terence Hill @45...
”Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
”It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people's grammar were just plain annoying. Now there's evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS.“
Terence Hill @64....“At no point did I correct your grammar” Nor did I ever state you did,”
What was @45...Scotch Mist...?
Let me guess.....it was a quote....
All about folk that correct other folks grammar...
If you weren't suggesting that I correct grammar, what was the quote for...?
You are losing it Terry...pull yourself together....
63 Jack Bauer
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0'Conservative beliefs' is synonymous with 'right-wingers' “The study does not link them …to your notion that they are less intelligent.” If you check it was not my notion, as I had stated “Studies have shown that right-wingers..” You certainly add substantial verification to the statement “People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb,”
“After all, I have two University degrees and an MBA ” Just like everything else you post, not one iota of evidence. So it's just one more unbelievable lie. Otherwise, you would at least present details of where this fairy tale could be verified.
65 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
“You have little understanding of English grammar….” Is what you stated. My response was a quote “It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people's grammar were just plain annoying. Now there's evidence they are actually ill,..”
Since your comment is a criticism, means that you assume your in a position to correct my comprehension of grammar, which is extremely presumptuous to say the least. The sole purpose of such an interjection, is because you're defeated again on an issue and attempting a diversion. But, other people have a different view of your conduct as I've shown.
66
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0“to correct my comprehension of grammar”....
Is that how you are trying to fit a correction in..?.....;-))))
The article is about people that correct people's grammar....not an article about people who tell people they know fcuk all....Terry...;-)
I didn't correct your grammar....
btw Terry....
“Since your comment is a criticism, means that you assume your in a position to correct my comprehension of grammar”
It should be “you're” not “your in a position”
;-))))))))))
67 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It should be “you're” not “your in a position” Of course, but the purpose of it's placement was to verify the criteria that you belong to, so thanks for the confirmation. ”Now there's evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS.“ illinois.edu/blog/view/25/76120
“Grammar Pedantry Syndrome” is a form of OCD in which sufferers need to correct every grammatical error.” twitter.com/uberfacts/status/218151002707206145
Oooo...Good recovery....
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0;-)))))
@66 Hill
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“'Conservative beliefs' is synonymous with 'right-wingers' “The study does not link them …to your notion that they are less intelligent.” If you check it was not my notion, as I had stated “Studies have shown that right-wingers..”
Exactly, you made a statement that was not supported by the study you cited, so you are a liar...and a mediocre one at that. Your futile attempt at trying establish a valid link between my aversion to liberal policies and my intelligence, or to eventual prejudice, has backfired.
”“After all, I have two University degrees and an MBA ” Just like everything else you post, not one iota of evidence“”
First of all, I do. But that is quite beside the point I was making ; I thought you were intelligent enough - but obviously I was wrong - to realize I was just ridiculing your unsupported 'theory' (when I said “but it brought ME great relief.....I was very worried for a moment, but after reading that, my mind has been set at ease”); besides being a haughty idiot, you obviously lack a sense of humour, unusual for someone who tries to pass as a Brit.
Second of all, do you really think I would be silly enough to post such details, so that a weirdo like you could stick your nose where it doesn't belong ? But I'll drop you a hint - University of São Paulo...Fundação Getúlio Vargas.....
Third, as I have said before, I don't care whether you believe me or not. Even if you did, it would mean nothing to me.
70 Jack Bauer
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The study does not link them …to your notion that they are less intelligent.” What you claim.
”But, then studies have shown that right-wingers are not the most intelligent of people“ What I originally stated.
What the study claims, which definitely puts the kibosh on any idea that they are the most intelligent of people. So what exactly is your beef?
”Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies“
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
”Your unsupported 'theory” Since the only study I've mentioned is the one above and it's thesis and URL are plain to see, how is it unsupported?
You're the one who's making uninvited claims about your education, with no support. So don't blame me for you shooting your mouth-off, It may well be that you have a reluctance to reveal any personal information. But, it's a far likelier prospect that it's more pork-pies, since all you've revealed in your postings is that you're a moron, who's obviously not educated.
@71 Hill
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not me that claims....read the report again you moron. Caught out once more.....and I apologize if you feel “abused”.
No use trying to wiggle out of prior statements. Seems to be your latest tactic to try to save face, but it ain't working too well, is it ?
No uninvited claims about my education - just the facts, in order to take the piss out of you. But if in the unlikely case I did feel I needed to prove my statements, how do you suggest I do it ?
The fact is you are an uneducated twit that cleaned lavatories while young, and seems to not have progressed much further over the years. And it's no use insisting on the same theme, because I really don't care. Bye-bye, numbnuts !
72 Jack Bauer
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Not me that claims....read the report again. Caught out once more…”
Are you drunk or what? There is nothing in my last post that supports your claim, if it did you'd be able to flesh it out. Makings claims without providing evidence is not proof. Other reports on the same study. “The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe. …Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html A different study correlates the same conclusion. “Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? … Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, has just written a paper that is set to be published …by the journal Social Psychology Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so. The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. ... What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse ”evolutionarily novel“ values..http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html Another report on the original study. ”People With Low IQ Tend to be Socially Conservative: New Study:
We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Sep 24th, 2016 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Geeeeeeeeeee....
Sep 24th, 2016 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0This “Terence Hill” character evidently suffers a serious case of OCD, Autism and Anglo haughtiness disorder...
Wonder why he choosed Mario Girotti's artistic name...?
...but what fun he is Mr. Think...;-)))
Sep 24th, 2016 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0...Something of interest for you....
Take a look at Ebay.co.uk under BSA motorcycles and scooters category...
A 1938 Rudge Special 500cc... original registration...up for grabs...
I know you like them....;-)
(76) Mr. Voice
Sep 24th, 2016 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Funny indeed...
As that spaghetti cowboy, Mr.Terence Hill was....
By the way... He is still riding strong... on classical Bianchi Viaggio;-)...:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bOF17GLkubs
Nice girl that one you presented me at Ebay... Wonder what she will go for?
Even if she doesn't fit in my minimalistic way of life..., it was nice watching her curves for some minutes...
Thanks..
Mr. Think...
Sep 24th, 2016 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0A lot less than it's worth on Ebay that's for sure...about 8k I reckon...
Did you notice the number plate....TH 9951...
I'm sure this baby has your name on it....;-)))))
(78) Mr. Voice
Sep 24th, 2016 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Already over 6k offered...
and still more than 9 days to go.....
And geeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.... You're right...
That Rudge 1938 has has me name on it... !!!
Original Plate Nr....: TH 9951 / Reg. year...: 1938
All together...: TH 99511938
Or...: T H 9 95 119 38
Or...: T H 9 9+5 1+1+9 38
Or...: T H 9 14 11 38
Replacing them first three numbers by their equivalent Engrish alphabet letters it strangely gives...:
* T H I N K 38 *
:-)))
Uh!
Sep 24th, 2016 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have something in common with VoiceofThink!
Bet they would covet my Rudge Ulster :-)))
See you down the Grapes then Think, its not far from 65 Brook Street.
Well Mr. Think...I never thought of that...weird...
Sep 24th, 2016 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's been up a couple of days....in the first two days the wheat is sorted from the chaff, eliminating the dreamers...
An auction is only won in the last few seconds ...it is wise not to bid anymore as it only makes the seller more, as there is no reserve, anyone serious will “snipe” in the last seconds at least a grand above the static bid...
Leaving others no time to outbid...
Only a fool would bid on it now...
80
Sure you do....post some pics...
TWIMC
Sep 24th, 2016 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here's a pic of meself on me Brough in the middle of nowhere...
It's true because I say so...
;-)
Photos are on the Revival website. What year??
Sep 24th, 2016 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See you at the Grapes… :-)
@73 Hill
Sep 25th, 2016 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0“There is nothing in my last post that supports your claim, if it did you'd be able to flUsh it out”.
I just did. You allege the study you cited states right-wingers are less intelligent..“; it doesn’t ; that's yr conclusion ; ”Makings claims without providing evidence is not proof”...more bs - you’re either confused or a liar..I’d say both. Yr lies prove it.
The study you now mention : only 3 paragraphs were sufficient to see Kanazawa parts from a very general premise, “The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is familiar to anyone who has spent time on a college campus.”; Well, “the notion” simply stereotypes two extremes, which by no means covers the large majority. His short answer, “shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal, and also less likely to say they go to religious services”; Note : “more likely to say they’re liberal”…so, those who are less likely to say they’re liberal, are less-intelligent ?? the notion that the political views one adopts later on life, based on experience, can have anything to do with yr “born” intelligence, is definitely “dumb” ; the notion that only liberals are intelligent is about as intelligent as Dilma, when she said “I've just returned from Portugal, where 20 % are unemployed, which means that 1 in 4 people are unemployed” - really ? and YES, SHE is a liberal ! The fact some people aren’t as willing as others to accept all change, is not a measure of their intelligence…to believe that, too, is being “dumb”. I suppose the fact that I never went to church, “proves” I am “more-intelligent” ? Anyway, I find that people who are easily influenced by the “college campus”, aren’t too intelligent. If they’re easily swayed to believe what the manipulators - such as left-wing professors - want them to, they obviously can’t think for themselves. And finally, it is only a study, little more than a theory, far from a scientifically proven fact.
84 Jack Bauer
Sep 25th, 2016 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I just did. You allege the study you cited states right-wingers are less intelligent..“; it doesn’t ;” If doesn't one has to wonder, why you're unable to reveal your evidence? If not, then it raises a question as to the validity of your claim. So I have produced two articles, at your behest. You don't agree with their conclusions, so what? I have met my burden. You don't get to engage in the fallacy of moving the 'goal-posts'. Your burden is to produce evidence that my statement is untrue, or if you don't, then your claim is false and you are the only proven liar here.
“Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics”
”Stupid is as stupid does” In other words, a stupid person is a person who does stupid things. Do you get it?
Well... well... well....
Sep 25th, 2016 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A bit slow in here today...
What about signing Faith Felton's* isolationistic petition?...:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/is-your-cheap-holiday-worth-their-lives
* For your kind info, Ms. Felton is the less popular of all Malvinas Islands politicians... Not even her extended family voted for her at the last FIGleaf election...
........ And her Petition hasstill less signers than they are Malvinas Felton's buried in the rural cemeteries of Santa Cruz, Argentina...
She needs a hand...
Chuckle, chuckle...
Teri, still working on your unified theory of economic/political salvation for Latam?
Sep 25th, 2016 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol
Ever had a thought that wasn't totally derivative or reactionary?
Well... well... well....
Sep 25th, 2016 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A bit slow in here today...
What about signing Faith Felton's* isolationistic petition?...:
www.ipetitions.com/petition/is-your-cheap-holiday-worth-their-lives
* For your kind info, Ms. Felton is the less popular of all Malvinas Islands politicians... Not even her extended family voted for her at the last FIGleaf election...
........ And her Petition has still less signataries than they are Malvinas Felton's buried in the rural cemeteries of Santa Cruz, Argentina...
She really needs a hand...
Chuckle, chuckle...
@85 Hill
Sep 25th, 2016 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”If doesn't one has to wonder (SLIGHTLY CLUMSY ?), why you're unable to reveal your evidence? If not, then it raises a question as to the validity of your claim. So I have produced two articles, at your behest. You don't agree with their conclusions, so what?“
At least you agree they are only 'conclusions'...NOT proof.
Besides your erratic start, what evidence do I need to reveal ? you post 2 studies, which are no more than their authors' opinions, and which nowhere claim categorically that ”right-wingers are less-intelligent, bla, bla, bla“; you arrived at that conclusion, without the slightest scientific proof of their insinuations because their opinions coincide with yours... the only evidence needed to prove your statement is untrue, are the 2 studies you cling to like a dingleberry to arse-pubes; Both of the authors establish their points of view in such a feeble manner - perhaps via simple observation, instead of serious research ? They limit themselves to 'suggesting' their theories....a kind of subliminal process whereby weak minds, like yours, accept the brainwashing.
I don't have to submit any theories to try to prove the contrary, as I never asserted anything to that effect....but I do maintain that you are not too intelligent, despite your liberal political views.
The only burden you have met, and with great success, is showing what a stubborn idiot you are....most would shut-up after being exposed, but you just carry-on, which is undeniable evidence of your haughtiness, brought on by an enormous inferiority complex.
Neither can I agree with the ”academics' opinions”, which imply that racism - or the absence of it - is the result of innate intelligence, not education ; It presumes people are pre-disposed to racism, or not, the moment they're born ....which precludes the possibility of their education, or the environment they live in, having any influence over them.
Definitely, quite a stretch.
Geeeeeeeee.......
Sep 25th, 2016 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the Murdochite press promoting Kelperette Faith Felton's* isolationistic petition and still only 69 signataries...!?!
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
And some 1,500 other Murdochite pamphlets all over the world...
Chuckle chuckle...
89 Jack Bauer
Sep 25th, 2016 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again, What I have originally written is ”But, then studies have shown that right-wingers are not the most intelligent of people“ To which you have called me a liar. Whereas, the articles have I relied on, stated the same, in much stronger terms. ”Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice….The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. …Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study…What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism.“ So the only valid way for you to refute these conclusions is to show valid studies, that conclude that right-wingers are the most intelligent of people. You must be aware of such studies since you're so adamant that the studies I've shown are wrong, even though you demanded that I show them. ”Most would shut-up after being exposed,” You've exposed nothing you've simply opined, without any vestige of proof. Even though I repeatedly asked you to reveal any such evidence. So with your failure to comply, with this required burden of proof, it reveals you as a liar. Therefore Mary, Mary quite contrary, your claim is false.
Geeeeeeeee.......
Sep 25th, 2016 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the Murdochite press promoting Kelperette Faith Felton's* isolationistic petition and still only 69 signataries...!?!
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/falkland-islands-argentina-uk-thaw-worth-42306240
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804506/Falklanders-protest-against-IMPROVED-relations-Britain-Argentina.html
www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/23/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth-it.html
www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth-it/2016/09/23/b1be1144-8194-11e6-9578-558cc125c7ba_story.html
www.dothaneagle.com/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth/image_1f0319bc-d75d-5ac1-bacb-303a2ad4abcb.html?mode=jqm
mynorthwest.com/399773/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth-it/
www.oleantimesherald.com/news/world/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth/image_b083012f-16e9-5392-bf78-1c541a69b292.html?mode=jqm
www.thedailytimes.com/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth/image_9bc6dea3-4fd9-5266-8885-baa25b672cb3.html?mode=jqm
www.fredericksburg.com/news/news-wire/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth/image_1136c1db-3a37-5a81-ba80-b803f871d885.html?mode=jqm
www.tulsaworld.com/in-falkland-islands-some-say-argentina-uk-thaw-not-worth/article_cbab6063-b580-584e-9c79-ae0d52deec85.html
And some 1,500 other Murdochite pamphlets all over the world...
Chuckle chuckle...
Didn't think so, Teri.
Sep 25th, 2016 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Think is spamming now.
Sep 25th, 2016 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0C'mon Turnips...
Sep 25th, 2016 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sign that bloody Kelper petition...
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/is-your-cheap-holiday-worth-their-lives
;-)))
89 Jack Bauer
Sep 25th, 2016 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Both of the authors establish their points of view in such a feeble manner - perhaps via simple observation, instead of serious research”
“The study, by academics at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, used information from two UK studies from 1958 and 1970 , where several thousand children were assessed for intelligence at age 10 and 11, and then asked political questions aged 33.
The 1958 National Child Development involved 4,267 men and 4,537 women born in 1958.”
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html A
”The study was conducted using two large-scale, nationally representative U.K. data sets (N = 15,874), and a secondary analysis of a U.S. data set.“
www.ibtimes.com/people-low-iq-tend-be-socially-conservative-new-study-401470
”So are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as “very liberal” is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves “very conservative.” The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant.”
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
Good news..., Faith daling...
Sep 25th, 2016 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We got a Turnip to sign the petition...
We are up to whopping 70 signataries now...
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/is-your-cheap-holiday-worth-their-lives
Chuckle, chuckle
Go back to your room, Think.
Sep 25th, 2016 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This doesn't concern you.
Play with your trainset, or do something useful for once & stop stirring.
You have no idea of what is happening behind the curtain.
HelIo, Isolde dahling...
Sep 25th, 2016 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You naughty..., naughty girl...
You haven't yet sign dear Faith's petition...
Hurry up before she finds out and pours her wrath at you...
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/is-your-cheap-holiday-worth-their-lives
Warren Buffet = Tulsa World
Sep 25th, 2016 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hardly one of Rupert's minion's.
Thinkerbell, you are ate up with the dumbass.
lol
@91 Hill
Sep 25th, 2016 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Again, What I have originally written is ”But, then studies have shown that right-wingers are not the most intelligent of people“ To which you have called me a liar.”
Yes, you ARE a liar, because the studies - only 'studies' - do not state the bs you allege they do, and which you believe in ; Besides, if they are to have any value at all, they need to be understood for what they are - an individual's personal observations - not conclusive data. Which stands to reason, as the studies are mere unproven theories... Besides, it is not uncommon for some authors to manipulate the data of their studies in order to arrive at the results they want ; they part from a premise, no matter how wild, and then set out to “try” to prove it....at any cost . The only thing absolute around here, 100 %, is your stupid stubborness.
“ So the only valid way for you to refute these conclusions is to show valid studies, that conclude that right-wingers are the most intelligent of people. You must be aware of such studies since you're so adamant that the studies I've shown are wrong”.
Is your miscomprehension of what I wrote, deliberate or because you're thick ? The fact that I think the studies you mention aren't worthy of credit, does not imply I need to present others, stating the contrary, especially since it was not me that brought this crap up in the first place. Despite what the authors may believe, their studies are not conclusive. They only indicate a tendency of the group studied, which by no means represents the whole universe. To believe “that” is plain ignorant.
@96 Hill
These studies are so bloody ridiculous, making broad generalizations based on the behaviour of a few thousand people, who represent 'what' percentage of the population ? 8,800 in hundreds of millions ? too many 'zeroes' to the right of the decimal point to be significant. Believe what you want... and do me a favour, don't send any more shit on this subject .
101 Jack Bauer
Sep 25th, 2016 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Yes, you ARE a liar, because the studies - only 'studies' - do not state the bs you allege they do” No a liar is a person like you who deliberately delivers falsified accounts. Who is unable to provide any factual support for their narrative. Who makes outlandish attacks on the skill and or integrity of researchers. Will not accept that they wrong, when evidence is provided, to show that the subjects that were studied, contrary to your claim. “Authors establish their points of view in such a feeble manner ”, are numbered in the thousands. In fact the following headlines, epitomize you exactly. “Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study; Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced; People With Low IQ Tend to be Socially Conservative: New Study;
Of course you'd reject such ideas out of hand, they hit to close to home, but, they're absolutely representative of your mind-set. It's got hurt being that dumb.
”Does not imply I need to present others, stating the contrary, especially since it was not me that brought this crap up in the first place.“ Yes you do, and yes you did at post #52 “Studies have shown that right-wingers....etc”.....so why doesn't he PROVE it....AND, show us the links to such reputable studies….”
I have done and I did, over to you 'brains trust'.
Teri, you lad - are a dolt.
Sep 26th, 2016 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0He's just very conservative
Sep 26th, 2016 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very.
Sep 26th, 2016 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”The Clique of Corrupts Installed in Brasília Won't Stop Till They Pardon Themselves”......
Sep 26th, 2016 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For once, I agree.
“,,, …So they're now trying to pass a new law preventing their own punishment,....”
The first part of the paragraph, “”,,, …So they're now trying to pass a new law preventing their own punishment,....” shows the scumbags they all are, independent of party - 40% of Congress (abt 200 members) have had their names mentioned in the Lava-Jato, and are being investigated. Their 'special privilege' if indicted, just means their cases will take a bit longer, as they go to the STF.
As to the second part, “....demonstrating exactly what impeachment opponents have long warned ... was the real goal of removing Dilma: ......” I cannot agree.
First, the impeachment opponents were none other than the more radical , high-ranking 'petistas', Gleisi Hoffman, Grazziotin, Lindberg Faria, Jorge Viana, José Guimarães, Humberto Costa...what would you have them to do ? turn on their leader ?
Second, Gleisi (and her hubbie Paulo Bernardo), Lindberg Faria, Humberto Costa have been accused by a few of the “Lava-Jato” whistleblowers of being part of the corruption scheme headed by the PT. Therefore, it was in their interest that Dilma carry-on, that 'Lula be empowered as Cabinet Minister' - the 'ploy' failed - so they could work together to shut the Lava-Jato down and protect their own arses. The fact Dilma has gone, and Lula is just a common citizen, has made them vulnerable ...no more special privilege...reason why they are reacting in such an aggressive manner, criticizing and doing their best to disqualify Moro and the whole Federal task force...
Third, “...and Temer's close ally Romero Jucá admitted while being secretly recorded”, while I'm well aware of the shit Jucá is, I would still like to see the link showing Juca's (secretly recorded) admission that they too, are in fact, trying to shut down the “Lava-Jato”.
101 Jack Bauer
Sep 26th, 2016 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“These studies are so bloody ridiculous, making broad generalizations based on the behaviour of a few thousand people,”
No they're not, as it is done all the time by political polls to within +/-3%, usually with remarkable accuracy. But, if you were a truly educated person you would know that.
Mr. JB
Sep 26th, 2016 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Terence Hill's” English is fracturing as he becomes more unhappy with you.
He may have some stake in this or a reason for bias.
Good news..., Faith daling...
Sep 26th, 2016 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We got a waco that dislikes “negers” to sign the petition...
We are up to whopping 71 signataries now...
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/is-your-cheap-holiday-worth-their-lives
Chuckle, chuckle
To all : pls ignore my # 206.. It belongs to another thread ....at times,
Sep 26th, 2016 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0seems the computer has a mind of it's own....but, getting back to business...
@102 Hill
You must be losing it. You accuse me of “deliberately delivering falsified accounts”?? You are the moron who posted all the crap studies that (only) insinuate “right-wingers are less intelligent....”, and because I think they are baloney, “I” am falsifying accounts ? You're nuts.
You can keep on idolizing your 'researhers', since that's what YOU think they are, that's YOUR problem.
For all the value the shit you present has, you can shove it all where the sun don't shine.
You were the idiot that stated “Studies have shown that right-wingers are less intelligent....”...take a look at your # 46 under headline “Brazil's Attorney-General...”...
Finally, you've proved nothing, except....
Mr B
Sep 26th, 2016 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not too long ago, T Hill accused me of “censoring” him.
I am not sure how that is possible unless he thinks I'm an admin.
110 Jack Bauer
Sep 26th, 2016 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And because I think they are baloney, “I” am falsifying accounts ? You're nuts.” You're really loosing the plot aren't you? You lie so frequently, and then forget what you've stated. Which is what you are condemned for at post #101 Jack Bauer. Where you categorically said “Yes, you ARE a liar,“ but, are totally unable to proffer any proof, so you are 'falsifying' accounts period. ”You can keep on idolizing your 'researhers'”(sic)“ But you do understand their academic credentials are of sufficiency to gain them publication in LiveScience, Psychological Science, American Scientist, and the journal Social Psychology Quarterly?
”They need to be understood for what they are - an individual's personal observations“ Is an over simplification as, the original study was based on questionnaire by a Britsh independent study that involved 8,804 people. While the second one, was based on two independent data studies. One of which had ”20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant.”
What you need to understand, is while you may proffer what ever opinion you wish, but it's meaningless as you lack any expertise in the subject matter. For your argument to carry any weight you would need to find 'peer-reviews' that were critical of their conclusions. “For all the value the shit you present has, you can shove it all where the sun don't shine.” I'm glad that your able to avail us of the real depth of your claimed higher education.
I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.
This man is cruelly depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Don't despair, Faith daling...
Sep 26th, 2016 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still only whopping 71 signataries...but Gott ist mit Uns...
www.ipetitions.com/petition/is-your-cheap-holiday-worth-their-lives
Chuckle, chuckle
@112 Hill
Sep 28th, 2016 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0At least be original and stop all this 'burden of proof' stuff...It's getting you nowhere. And please don't send me anymore of your stupid sources , which are just a bunch of weirdos who believe they can put labels on everyone. If you are content to accept that BS, be my guest. Fact is, I must admit I'm getting bored with yr crap.
My higher education, which has served me well in my professional life, did not make me into a dummy - like you - and taught me that when you talk to an idiot, you need to lower yourself to his level...otherwise, he might not understand you.....
114 Jack Bauer
Sep 28th, 2016 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Stop all this 'burden of proof' stuff…” Why when your failure to meet is confirmation that what ever you're claiming never happened or doesn't exist. Which is de facto confirmation that it's a lie.
“Don't send me anymore of your stupid sources” The same one's that you absolutely are unable to refute the truth of their claims. “My higher education” Is an absolute fiction as anyone whom has attended university whether their field of study is in the arts, science, law, or engineering. Is taught how to present an argument that has the necessary prerequisites of proof. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're a lying uneducated moron.
@115 Hill
Sep 28th, 2016 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No need to refute your sources...they speak for themselves, as they don't prove a thing, except that the study conducted arrived at some predetermined conclusion regarding (only) the limited group of participants - nothing more.
Terry, as I have already mentioned, whether you believe - or not - what I decided to mention about my University education, only to take the piss out of you, makes no difference to the actual facts, which btw, I asked you to tell me how to prove it without disclosing confidential details - You never replied.....why ? because you don't know how. To be called a liar by YOU, is almost a compliment, as it means that you are becoming flustered and getting your knickers in a twist. Now piss-off, stop wasting my time and be a good boy.
116 Jack Bauer
Sep 28th, 2016 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“To refute your sources...they speak for themselves”They most certainly do as they are accepted as qualified and therefore expert opinions. Further, verifying acceptance in at least four academic publications, plus numerous newspapers. In contrast, to your uneducated, uninformed, unqualified ludicrous pronouncements.
“I decided to mention about my University education,” Which is a lie, as it's your burden to prove not mine to disprove. Which your own writings disclose that you're anything but an educated person, and is insulting to those that truly are educated. As the following proves “getting your knickers in a twist. Now piss-off,”
Are you always an idiot or just when I'm around?
Careful now, don't let your brains go to your head!
I know you are nobody's fool, but maybe someone will adopt you one day.
@117 Numbnuts
Sep 28th, 2016 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me how to prove my educational level without turning my personal information, public ? C'mon Mr. Know-it-all...
If someone states their age, height and weight, for any reason, is it a lie, just because they have no way to prove it ? But more important, why the hell should they ?
You state you are educated ...Can YOU prove it ? No. So it must be a lie.
Can you prove you ever lived in Brazil ? No, but I suppose you expect us to take your word on that ?
Prove your own assertions....
You argue like a true pussy-liberal, the good old 'double-standard'.
But enough time wasted on you.
118 Jack Bauer
Sep 28th, 2016 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Tell me how to prove my educational level without turning my personal information, public ?”
Dipshit, thats why intelligent educated people don't go round 'blowing it out their ass'. As they usually give a little thought, to avoid making a fool of themselves. But, don't worry theres no danger of you revealing any personal information vis-a-vis your claimed exulted education status , because you've done a perfect mimicry of an uneducated moron. So there's no reasonable expectation that your claim merits any truth. I'll just file it away with all your other outlandish unproven claims. Don't worry if I make any assertions, unlike you I make sure they're proved.
@119 Terence Hill
Sep 28th, 2016 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're seriously accusing him of lying about having a University degree? Why would he lie and why do you even care? This thread has become positively surreal!
120 DemonTree
Sep 28th, 2016 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you even care?
DT
Sep 28th, 2016 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surreal? You're right.
Mr. Hill is unable to differentiate between telling a lie, and uttering a statement without positive verification to accompany it.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!