CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Rusticus

Reward Points:102
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
92%
Arguments:65
Debates:8
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

But I have no doubt that ghosts exist, I proved that to myself on the ship. My resistance or befuddlement or whatever name you want to give it doesn't come from not knowing that there's an afterlife or that ghosts exist, I have no doubt that they exist because I spent an evening with one.

1 point

I don't mind you asking. To be honest I'm not sure myself what I think about all of it.

Maybe my attitude is to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't even know myself on that subject. That might tell you how deep I've delved into it. I'm befuddled about the whole thing.

1 point

The truth is I don't know how to even begin to describe what I feel about it. I'm pretty sure it would take years of psychotherapy to suss it all out. Also, it's way too complicated a subject to get into here. I'm not purposely trying to be evasive here but it is what it is.

Maybe I should say that I know I'm being evasive but I can't help it. Sorry.

1 point

I'll think about it. I admit I'm hesitant. I'm not really comfortable dealing with this stuff which is almost certainly the reason I blocked it out for so long.

Now I can't help but wonder if it was an accident that I stumbled upon this website when I did. This is the 'darker' issue that I struggle with.

2 points

The word for what you've posted in reply to my comment is: Gibberish

1 point

Thank you, I’m glad you liked the story. It’s called the United States Merchant Marine but don’t confuse that with the Marine Corps because they are two different things. Merchant mariners are not in the military, they’re civilians working on merchant ships that are usually owned by corporations or individuals. It’s a bit confusing because merchant marine officers wear (they usually don’t but they can) a uniform that’s very similar to a military uniform so the two entities are frequently confused. Another source for confusion is that in wartime merchant ships and crews are involved in delivering supplies and sometimes transporting troops for the military. Before and during WW2 many merchant ships were torpedoed and sunk by German U boats while they were delivering military goods to England.

The tanker (U.S.N.S. Shoshone) my ghost encounter occurred aboard was owned by the Navy and was on a Military Sea Transport Service ‘charter’. We carried cargo for the military exclusively, mainly #2 diesel and JP 5 (Jet Propellant) (kerosene) jet fuel.

I’ve also sailed aboard ammunition ships, so the relationship between the merchant marine and the military is a close one which can easily lead to confusion.

Yes there are still pirates out there, maybe more now than ever.

I wish that I had looked in the ships logbook and learned the dead sailors name but at the time it never occurred to me to do so. Maybe someone with the skills necessary to conduct a search could find it but I would have no idea how to go about it.

WOW! I was looking up MSTS and I just found this:

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/logbooks/sea-transport-and-sealift-command.html

Maybe I’ll email them. ( I can't believe I found that)

2 points

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

By Bob Cesca · May 08,2013

The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearings this week there's renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.

Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.

So I thought I'd revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher — especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they're so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs.

Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had beenmarried for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

A few observations about this timeline. My initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, my list above doesn't include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war — a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel.

Speaking of Graham, I ran a search on each attack along with the name "Lindsey Graham" in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn't prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn't exhaustive enough. But one thing's for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases — no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way.

This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrivebefore the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn't the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn't he provide additional security?

Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana'a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn't even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes? Just once I'd like to hear David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once.

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could've been raised about the Bush era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm's way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).

So we're only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president's second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit — a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth. Ultimately, they don't even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value — not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of "truth" proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they'll keep repeating "Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!" without any regard for history or reality. Like always.

Benghazi hoax debunked...for umpteenth time

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-Benghazi-hoax-completely-unravels.html

Darrell Issa Hid The Truth About Benghazi For a Year While Attacking President Obama

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/29/darrell-issa-hid-truth-benghazi-year-attacking-president-obama.html

The Charade of Darrell Issa

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/the-charade-of-darrell-issa/

2 points

It's interesting. I just did a bit of reading on this subject and here's what I've found so far:

The Boy scouts have the Eagle Scout rank. Everybody knows what it is and how great it looks on a resume. The Girl Scouts equivalent to that is The Girl Scouts Gold Award and almost nobody knows of it. Outside of the Girl Scout community it's practically unknown so it doesn't have anything like the prestige that the Eagle Scout badge has.

So that's one reason girls want to be Boy Scouts.

The other reason is that many of the Girl Scout troops don't do any outdoor camping. Usually it's because the troop leader has no outdoor skills or one or more of the girls don't want to get dirty or sleep on the ground, so the girls that do want to go camping and don't mind roughing it and getting dirty are missing out on that experience.

1 point

@Brontoraptor - Every time this subject comes up you Reich wing nuts bleat the same nonsense but you have no evidence or history to back it up.

As far as the jobs going overseas goes, just put back the job protection legislation, the taxes and tariffs that were taken down by Reagan and Bush and Clinton. They worked fine since 1789.

And the jobs going overseas? Apparently you haven't noticed that nearly everything is made in China now. As far as I know there isn't a single television manufacturer in the United States, just as one example. Repeat - we need to bring back job protection legislation that the Republicans and DINO Bill Clinton did away with.

1 point

At one point during the Eisenhower administration the top tax rate was NINETY ONE PERCENT. With that money Eisenhower paid for the G.I. Bill, built the freeway system including thousands of bridges, hospitals were there were no hospitals and schools of every sort. He built much of the infrastructure that we still use today (although after all these years of hard use it's now crumbling).

When taxes were that high, the C.E.O. of a corporation on average made SEVEN times the wage of one of his workers on the assembly line, and they weren't complaining. The economy was soaring. Men who had no more than a high school education or less were able to support a family, with the wife staying at home, and the kids were sure to be able to afford college because it was almost free. They owned their own home, they bought a new car every few years and they had money to take the family on a vacation in the summer. They were living the American dream.

Coincidently at that time union membership was at it's peak. Jobs were everywhere. You could quit a job in the morning and have a better one by the end of the day.

Contrast that to what we see today. As of April 15, 2014 the average CEO salary was 331 times the wage of the average worker. The buying power of the average workers wage is far less now that it was during the Eisenhower administration.

I could go on and on but that's all I can stand for now.

Any working class person who thinks the rich need a tax break is NUTS!

Displaying 8 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Bribery Rocks!
Winning Position: Trump never lies!
Winning Position: Today Trump Signed an order designed to undermine Obamacare insurance rules
Winning Position: Christians are delusional

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here