Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. 30
  2. 17
  3. 13
  4. 10
  5. 10
  6. 10
  7. 8
  8. 7
  9. 6
  10. 6
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. ​ @MrFlatage  >>Nope that is a blatant lie. I quoted you and you stated 'the arbitration' without naming any official source to your BS claim.<< Anyone who wasn't putting effort into being half witted would have found it easy to find it from what I provided you with (multiple times) >>Now what you claim is real? Is not real at all. There was never any 'UNCLOS arbitration between the PRC and the Philippines'. Yes not a true quote cos you literally cannot spell names of nations, lmao!!<< Yes there was. >>Was this PRC there for the arbitration? Did they ... agree to any arbitration? Who actually did any 'arbitration' named by name? << Thank you for confirming that you do know what I was talking about. Any subsequent confusion on what I'm talking about will be treated as a lie. >>Has there ever been an arbitration done by UNCLOS? Part XV of UNCLOS sets forth rules for the resolution of disputes between State Parties arising out of the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Pursuant to Article 287(1) of UNCLOS? Awwhh everyone can easily prove read UNCLOS is not doing arbitration? Lmao!!<< If your objection to something you can easily find based on what you've been given is the title not being 100% accurate, you're getting desperate. >>You really think you and I quote 'the face of the CCP' could make up some BS stories that stand against proven facts we can proof read from official sources? Named by name? Yes you are the face of the CCP. Who else would hurl false accusations against innocent untill proven guilty?<< You yourself have shown you know what I'm talking about. If it hadn't happened, you wouldn't know enough to ask whether the PRC had attended (their refusal to attend was their problem) This is just sad. >>I will have my Onus Probandi. Each time you refuse that civil right you prove it is all just lies and propaganda.<< You've been given it. Again, that you know what I'm talking about shows that your whines about not getting what you ask for are a simple lie. >>Stop avoiding and deflecting. Prove your words and claim as required by every democratic constitution on this planet.<< I'm answering directly multiple times and you've demonstrated you know what I'm talking about. >>Again ... No 50 cents for you today.<< You seem to be projecting your own job here. Also, when are you going to ask Edwin for his sources?
    3
  29.  @MrFlatage  >>Haha stop deflecting your lies and put them on some kinda 'Edwin'? Rommel?<< AKA the person who made the first post in this thread. It seems like a huge amount of your arguing relies on selective illiteracy and ignorance (the word for this is disingenuous, BTW) >>Yes everyone here sees no proof and evidence to your big CCP lie. Now remember all you have given is 'the arbitration'. Do you deny your own words now? Yes or no?<< You mean the arbitration you have in front of you? >>What if We the People read from real official sources? PCA case number 2013–19, also known as the South China Sea Arbitration? Oooooh how come there is no UNCLOS arbitration going on? Where is it? Come on ... prove your big CCP lie already. Cos people will proof read from the official real world source quite easily as Onus Probandi is given. Where is yours? On 19 February 2013, China declared that it would not participate in the arbitration? But ... but comrade? How can any arbitration be done one sided? Does that not defy the very definition of the word in the dictionary? Haha!!<< If one side chooses not to argue its case, that's that side's problem. >>We can proof read from the actual case from the official source. Named by name that On 12 July 2016, the arbitral tribunal ruled it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary", China's historic rights claims over maritime areas remain in legal effect under UNCLOS. On 12 July the Secretary-General publically stated that UNCLOS 'doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims''?<< Seems a bit strange for Beijing to reject it if that's the outcome. Are you sure you're not missing something? >>But? Is there not a 'UNCLOS arbitration'? Are those not the words and screams of the CCP? So I state again. Where is it? Are these not your words and claim? Against the proven facts from real world official sources? Why not simply post the UNCLOS case number? Cos it ... doesn't exist? Lmao!!<< You've already given the case number 🙂 >>Too bad everyone who is free will read from the real world sources. Not commie lies that do not exist. Going to rinse and repeat your denial and deflect to others? For days at a end? Haha yes you will. All because you do not get your 50 cents for failing China.<< If you had anything meaningful to add, you wouldn't be putting this effort into splitting hairs over the title.
    3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53.  @fugueguy1929  that's superficial in many ways. It's also an image given to an outsider. Face is everything. I've spent the best part of two decades viewing this country from the inside and the outside. My best way of describing it is layers of circles. Culturally on the mainland, this goes from national, right down to personal family and friends. Anyone inside your circle is to be defended and supported. Anyone outside of it is an enemy to be profited from or treated as a threat. The inner circle is most important, the outer circle is least. So when given a choice, they'll tend to preference the inner circle at the expense of the outer. This is a collectivist culture thing to begin with (look up high and low context cultures. Also look up geert hofstede's cultural dimensions) but it's made so much worse by the CCP, particularly with the long term scarring from the cultural revolution which was very much a "succeed by any means to survive" event. For contrast, broadly speaking, we're (I'm guessing you're western) come from low context cultures, which are individualistic. This both means we're not as supportive of each other, but it also means that we view outsiders as individuals, just like ourselves. But in general, ignore the words and look at the actions. They paint a very different picture. And for what the leadership is afraid of, look at their actions. Also remember that the party is more important than the country. They're simply terrified of anything that unites the people against the centre and they'd rather see China burn in a civil war than to give up power any sooner than they need to. Hong Kong is proof of that. They could have used Hong Kong as a base to experiment with preparing China for a post CCP life. They didn't. All this ignores the trust issues, btw. This thing where we trust strangers is not normal. In the PRC it's taken to an extreme.
    2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81.  @dps253  >>No. I don't have an answer to your ideological question<< It seems a pretty practical one to me. >>because currently there's no danger of any trade route disruption, even with the Chinese military establishments in the middle of South China Sea<< Before anything else: It's interesting that even you felt the need to insert the word 'currently'. Anyway, is this where we try to pretend that the CCP doesn't use trade as a way of punishing countries that say things it doesn't like? More seriously: 1. The world (even if only tacitly) decides that these are PRC waters, and that the PRC has the right to say who can go through them. 2. The PRC starts to find reasons why ships going to countries it dislikes can't go through them. >>On the contrary, with her focus on the BRI project which will require this Seaway and all other international trade routes to be free of disruption,<< All approved trade routes >>China will ensure this passage be accessible to everyone<< Accessible to all approved entitites. >>But obviously you agree with sending 80% of the Navy strike groups to exercise in an area where there is no clear and present danger<< The only way there isn't a clear and present danger is if you believe the CCP doesn't have a tendency to use trade (and trade embargoes) as a weapon. >>while ignoring the real flashpoint 8000 km to the West,<< You mean the land based flashpoint? >>and you are more than willing to lose 78M of tax payers' money to a phantom mission,<< Peanuts vs the value of trade going through there. >>and you inadvertently place higher priority on commercial interest over democracy preservation, then in that case, I have no answer for that.<< How is allowing totalitarian states to have a powerful tool they could (If you're going to claim that the CCP doesn't use trade as a weapon, this Australian will simply laugh at you) use against democracies democratic preservation? More to the point, what do you even mean when you say 'democracy preservation'?
    1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1