I only hold those beliefs, because of the overwhelming evidence supporting them. You’re buying into a story which has zero evidence, and was even denied by the Russians, who you know damn well would plaster it all over the world if they actually had disabled the ship.
Watch the 4 part documentry I posted about Russia and the wears relationship where they go into detail about all the past issues .
There is plenty of behind the scenes “deals” going on there .
But that’s likely too much effort for you .
Do these deals have anything to do with Russia disabling or destroying our tech? I’m not in a place where i can watch it right now, but I’m willing to bet you’re full of shit.
Do you actually read people’s responses ? I explicitly stated I don’t believe or disbelieve the story I’m staying open minded .
Russia may have well agreed to stay quiet of the event in return the US lowered its stance on Ukraine and cut Russia some slack .
Perfectly possible . Not saying it happened but I’m open minded .
Just watch the documentary , they are more to do with dealing with spies and Georgia .
The whole documentary will open your eyes to a lot of behind the scenes agreements with Russia over certain world events .
You’re staying open minded on a fucking hoax, a tabloid story.
Clearly you never read any of mine, since i proved the story was rubbish. Your posts clearly show that you think something along the lines of the ship being disable went down out there. Especially since you’re trying to come up with examples to support the hoax.
It’s also possible for unicorns to exist, but i bet you wouldn’t believe it unless you read it from a Russian tabloid.
Firstly I didn’t read it in any Russian tabloid .
Secondly what evidence do you have to suggest it was a hoax ?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/ Is where I originally read it I believe
None you provided my with a link to Wikipedia … With a supposed quote from no one
The U.S military denied it, as did the people who make the fucking jammer. They even said the jammers weren’t even installed on the Su-24 jets at the time.
The quote comes from the manufactures of the jamming equipment.
> They were dismissed in February 2015 as “nothing but a newspaper hoax” by the Khibiny jammer’s Russian manufacturer KRET’ website, which asserted that Khibiny was not installed on Su-24 but claimed it was “capable of completely neutralising the enemy radar”.
Quote found here.
The story was created by Russian tabloids, as was the 9/11 nuclear device story. So you have a bad habit about double checking to see if stories are real or not.
The us government denied 9/11 and al Qaeda even admitted to it being them …
Had the U.S government been the only ones refuting the claim, then i might have still believed it. But even the fucking Russians who made the jamming equipment said it never happened. Their shit isn’t even installed on the jet that buzzed the U.S ship.
Al Qaeda was pretty much created by the CIA, Bin Laden was an asset for years, and in fact a little known fact many of the supposed Hi jackers were actually found to be alive.
And Bin Laden NEVER took credit for the attack, in fact he denied having any part in it. There is an alleged audio tape of what they think is him taking credit, but they aren’t even sure if its him or not.
So the UK’s referendum has been set for June 23rd 2016
And members of parliament are now free to campaign as they feel right . And the minster of justice has just put this statement out and what a statement it is . Well worth the read
Statement from Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Justice, on the EU Referendum
Immediate release, 20 February 2016
For weeks now I have been wrestling with the most difficult decision of my political life. But taking difficult decisions is what politicians are paid to do. No-one is forced to stand for Parliament, no-one is compelled to become a minister. If you take on those roles, which are great privileges, you also take on big responsibilities.
I was encouraged to stand for Parliament by David Cameron and he has given me the opportunity to serve in what I believe is a great, reforming Government. I think he is an outstanding Prime Minister. There is, as far as I can see, only one significant issue on which we have differed.
And that is the future of the UK in the European Union.
It pains me to have to disagree with the Prime Minister on any issue. My instinct is to support him through good times and bad.
But I cannot duck the choice which the Prime Minister has given every one of us. In a few months time we will all have the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the European Union or leave. I believe our country would be freer, fairer and better off outside the EU. And if, at this moment of decision, I didn’t say what I believe I would not be true to my convictions or my country.
I don’t want to take anything away from the Prime Minister’s dedicated efforts to get a better deal for Britain. He has negotiated with courage and tenacity. But I think Britain would be stronger outside the EU.
My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.
But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling.
The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.
Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves.
In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world.
By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.
Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity. Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria. The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves. All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930s.
The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time. It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date. The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation. It is an analogue union in a digital age.
The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people. Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).
Individually these rules may be comical. Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress. Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies. As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.
It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: ‘Yes Minister, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s against EU rules’. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.
But by leaving the EU we can take control. Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish. Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down. We can show leadership. Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.
We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.
We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country. Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule? On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure.
This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future.
ENDS
1 Like
mayor of London backs brexit !
That’s a great speech on his part.
I wonder - are there any talks about joining EFTA after leaving EU?
Ive heard my whole life how the U.S completely overspends on military, and how half of our GDP goes to it.
So in reality, we spend just over 3%, which is almost the bare minimum for NATO. If we can achieve the most powerful military with just that percentage, i wonder where we would be at if we were spending as much as countries like Saudi Arabia, who spends 10% of their GDP on military.
No . We would agree a free trade agreement of some kind but not the EFTA
The difference is that your government is run by what government takes away from the people, i.e. taxes. Hence the people expect certain level of services in exchange.
Meanwhile Saudi government is run by what they can get out of the soil and sell, i.e. oil. Apart from spending on military, Saudis are literally buying loyalty from their subjects by literally giving them money. Should the price of oil go down any further, this will all change very soon with quite devastating effect on Saudi society.
Similarly, Russia will very likely very soon find itself on a brink of collapse if the things go for a few more years in the same direction.
You’re seriously telling me not one dime of their military budget comes from taxes? The rule is governments do not produce wealth, they have to rely on taxes, I’m highly skeptical Saudi Arabia is an exception to this.
My point still stands though, the U.S does not hardly over spend on its military, we spend more on worthless shit like Obama care then we do military.
45 cents a gallon, that’s not much cheaper than what ive been paying lately. Filled up the tank for seven bucks last week, normally its around 11 bucks. Isn’t that what you guys pay per gallon? 
Yes i agree and they are shoveling all their money into military gear they can’t afford other than a few new tanks for a parade. Probably a good thing , their plans for military dominance over the west seem to be slipping away.