I fear you are right, which is why I've spent the last month mostly playing Hearts of Iron IV and building Battle Cruisers.Originally Posted by Furunculus
Re: UK Election 2019
I fear you are right, which is why I've spent the last month mostly playing Hearts of Iron IV and building Battle Cruisers.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: UK Election 2019
Some things I want to hear from @Idaho on:
What do McDonnell/Corbyn mean when they speak of decentralized nationalization?
What is your opinion on perhaps a majority of Labour-voting Jews holding Corbyn, and the party, to be anti-Semitic? (Ask about assumptions)
What is the Labour Party not doing that it could do to robustly process complaints and educate the membership on all vectors of (anti-)racism?
I mean the above question for its own sake, not in connection to public perception or media narrative. But having those in mind, what do you think of the conjecture that almost the entire popular perception of Labour anti-Semitism has come to be bound up with the figure of Corbyn?
When you post this way and lean on 'cool kid' detachment you remind me of this cartoon.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If its the alveopalatal fricative that concerns you, it's the other end from guttural.
Both namings are in the Twitter clips, but thanks. The problem with your interpretation is that he doesn't - as in the comparison - pronounce it emphatically, in an exaggerated or mocking manner, so there's no reason to believe he was trying to call attention to it. If he wasn't trying to call attention to it but the significance is still nefarious, you could believe either that he is (*giggle*) trying to subliminally indoctrinate the Gentile population with othering microaggressions, or that his anti-Semitism manifests as an unconscious incorrect pronunciation of this name in particular. Again, some evidence from Corbyn's history with Jewish names would be probative here. Corporal evidence from British English speakers would also be helpful.Watch the clip again.
By the way, here is an example of the ossified genealogy of the "Epstein" name. I don't know how Boris Epshteyn pronounces his last name, but I am almost certain that the orthography is phonemic. (Amusingly, most of the text-to-speech apps I tried on the Internet pronounce the base Epstein [-ain].)
That's fair. The vast majority of my awareness of Jewish names I gained in adulthood, because I wasn't really paying attention.You really over-estimate the extent to which people in the UK are aware of "Jewishness" and how it's signified. When my cousin married a Jewish man most of the family didn't realise he was Jewish until the engagement (no church wedding), also some of his relatives arrived in kilts.
You said "problem," which has just one historically-overspecified meaning in the context of unwanted Jewish influence. I've chosen my words carefully. Perhaps you should have done the same.Bit of a stretch from backroom mutterings to actual genocidal intent, but OK, fine, if you want to read me like that. I thought Corbyn was genocidal, though, I'd just say so.
I linked it right there where you're quoting me, as well as quoting it at length in the spoiler. ???Silly me - I thought you were going to link to the text. Oh well: https://archive.org/details/imperial...goog/page/n274
Now - Hobson's views on Jews, whom he does not name, take up most of the latter half of a chapter titled "The Parasites of Imperialism" and whilst he does not say "Jew" he refers to a "peculiar race" (p. 64) and also to the Boer War - where he attacked Jews specifically at length in another work. Later in the same chapter he refers to the same "financiers" control of the press (p. 67), and asserts that their influence is felt also in "Berlin, Vienna and Paris" (ibid).
Are you, like, skimming my posts??????
That is incorrect, and I really can't talk sources with you if you will consistently misrepresent them.The entire argument is built on these "financiers" being a close inter-connected group
No, you can't make that association. It's 2% of the book. From my understanding of the thesis, Hobson thought modern imperialism was basically mercantilistic because of insufficient domestic markets under industrial capitalism in Europe. He referred to financiers as "parasitic" in the sense of a dichotomy between politicians and citizens motivated by patriotism and financiers motivated by economic self-interest, which in my opinion was too limited a characterization even then. He arrived at this theory by observing that imperialism was actually an overall economic drain on the manufacturing and trading sectors of the imperial nation, and so tried to explain this acting against self-interest by identifying self-interest in a financial sector driven by raw speculation (e.g. interest income from investment). This is again too limited by not taking into account geopolitics, and anyway imperial extraction directly injected massive amounts of wealth into imperial nations in all corners and all levels of society, so he must be mistaken on one of his core economic premises. I have indeed read some of the book just for the sake of this tedious exercise, and it's possible to find both flaws and prescient insight.Hobson has an entire section devoted to parasitic Jewish financiers - which Corbyn (by implication) thinks is "basically right".
The bottom line is that no aspect of his argument - which goes well beyond the role of financiers - is affected by anti-Semitic propositions. It's straightforward to say that Hobson was convinced of the truth and relevance of anti-Semitic ideas, but logically his arguments stand apart from it.
Why would Corbyn need to reckon with a sliver of bigotry in a (two or five-page? The length also makes a difference) foreword? Or if he should, why shouldn't he address the other, more voluminous, racisms contained in the work? Why one but not the other?Even assuming you believe the tents of the book - and that's a big if because the argument is that the primary impetus of Imperialism is economic - you still need to confront the fact that Hobson believed the financial system was controlled by a small number of banking houses, specifically Jewish ones, who benefited even when their own country suffered. I invite those interested to read the work, from page 50 onward. It's decidedly dense and boring, but soldier on and see what I mean.
Are you going to require reckoning with Aristotle or Plato's fundamental sexism in the first word about their philosophy?
I remain unconvinced that it is normally the province of a foreword writer - as opposed at least to an introductory commentator - to warn the reader about all the author's bigotries and insecurities.
There is nothing on that page, or in the book from what I can find, on Zionists. What are you referring to?The book only surfaced this year.
Here's him on "Zionists: https://archive.org/details/imperial...goog/page/n274
The nastiest one so far.
I quoted and bolded this in the post of mine you're apparently responding to and it is the only anti-Semitic connection in the book.I refer you to page 65, Hobson takes up the issues of the Transvaal (Boer War) and says just before that, "There is not a war, a revolution, an anarchist assassination, or any other public shock, which is not gainful to these men."
Now, we've already established that "these men" are of the "peculiar race" so this is basically Rothschild conspiracy 101 now.
Either you have not read the chapter or you assumed I had not.
Please stop misrepresenting sources to suit your narratives.
Ding ding.When I was doing my Undergrad and studying Cicero I was given some excellent advice by one of the professors, "You don't have to like the people you study."
That is, more or less, what I would write in the forward - although I'd be a little more polite.
It's not easy to trust you, but if you were to write that in any foreword to any book by or about Churchill, that would be transgressive enough to earn you some lefty bonafides. I doubt many publishers would print it.
Noticing racism is not racism. But is Corbyn racist toward non-whites on account of their absence from the foreword?Is Corbyn racist against non-whites? Difficult question - quite possibly given that he seems to insist on seeing them all as the perpetual victims of whites.
I don't understand your question. You're suggesting someone who values partisan solidarity to the point of ignoring bad behavior would only become that way once in a position of power? It's more the other way around.So you accept Corbyn tolerates antisemitism from "fellow travellers" today? How do you explain his penchant for the same prior to becoming leader?
Please don't misunderstand me. Corbyn's leadership here and in other matters has been dreadful, and I think it's because he can't transition into that mindset of addressing demands by competing stakeholders and taking criticism judiciously - as a politician does/should. And I don't think it is outrageous to raise the possibility that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I just think the way you construct your case on the most trivial and decontextualized examples, and with peripheral disdain toward anti-racism, is motivated by partisan considerations, and so fails to be credible on its own grounds - because it's not made to be. Which is to say, ironically, that when Corbyn underperforms to the anti-Semitism controversy by acting like everyone who has a problem is his enemy, he's probably fixating on people like you.
Ugh, this study makes the fatal mistake of constructing some very loaded questions on anti-Israel attitudes ("anti-Zionist anti-Semitism") and then lumping them in with "Judeophobic antisemitism." That is, it starts with the premise that all the former attitudes are in themselves anti-Semitic in nature and can all be analyzed together. The quality of the The far-left holding an elevated proportion of anti-Israel attitudes will inevitably skew the result against them in a way that diverges with other studies. As the analysis points out, "This finding [of elevated anti-Semitism on the very left-wing] is mostly accounted for by the proportion of ‘very left-wing’ respondents holding one, two, or three antisemitic views. When we look at the percentage of respondents holding four or more antisemitic views, there is no clear relationship with one’s position on the political spectrum. I'm confident that separating "anti-Zionist antisemitism" attitudes from Judeophobic attitudes in the design would neutralize the study's clickbaity finding.
The 2017 Jewish Policy Research study treated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes as analytically distinct before looking at the overlap, where it was found that while most of those holding at least one anti-Semitic attitude hold at least one anti-Israel attitude, the reverse is not true: most of those endorsing an anti-Israel attitude did not endorse any anti-Semitic attitude. The attitude questions/statements on Israel were also more numerous and better constructed than in the Campaign Against Antisemitism study. Compare former with latter:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I have no opinions on the particulars of the UK order of battle, but this is real silly. If you think there is a future in which the United States invades the UK to slaughter its people or nuclear powers decide on an exchange, then your politics are already a joke and you should be stocking a LMOE bunker out in the highlands.We will not be fighting another war like Afghanistan, unless we specifically go back to Afghanistan. We're much more likely to end up fighting something like a genuine mechanised war against, say, Iran, or we're going to fight China or Russia. We're already relatively close to neutralising intercontinental ballistic missiles and once that happens MAD will cease to apply.
At that point it's going to be rearm or die, and don't think there's no future where the US invades Canada or blockades Australia, because there might be.
The only thing the British Isles have needed for external territorial defense in a thousand years are A2AD techniques. Forget about power projection to Iran; there is no security justification. A PM who inserted Britain into such a scenario should be strung up TBH.
Last edited by Montmorency; 12-02-2019 at 03:48.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: UK Election 2019
This is what I've been arguing for years. Corbyn is inherently, unconsciously, prejudiced, it's the best explanation for why he so often fails to recognise the prejudice in others. It also explains how he can utter antisemitic tropes and decry antisemitism in the same breath.
As regards Jewish name pronunciation in the UK - pretty much every newspaper ran this - and twitter blew up. I don't really know what else to tell you - it's not how English people would say the name having read it, it's not how his name was ever said on the BBC
The British historically distinguish between "Anglo-Jewish" people who, by the 20th Century, were similar to "Anglo Catholics" and continental Jewish people, or Jews in Mandatory Palestine.That's fair. The vast majority of my awareness of Jewish names I gained in adulthood, because I wasn't really paying attention.
Ref, the troubled history of the Jewish Brigade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade
In this case a Germanic pronunciation of Epstein's name is a form of "de-Anglicisation" - hence people getting worked up.
It does not mean "genocide", if I had said "final solution" you'd have been on firmer ground. I said "old men in back rooms" which is long-standing shorthand for racist or jingoistic sentiment, pre-Holocaust.You said "problem," which has just one historically-overspecified meaning in the context of unwanted Jewish influence. I've chosen my words carefully. Perhaps you should have done the same.
When I clicked that link I got a video of Trump talking about Obama's "dynasty" and I don't recall the spoiler being there. Did you edit that part of the post?I linked it right there where you're quoting me, as well as quoting it at length in the spoiler. ???
Are you, like, skimming my posts??????
I disagree. The chapter is divided into three sections, the first section deals with the military and industrialists as "parasites", the second and third sections deal with the financial system, their control of the papers and the state through financial coercion etc - that section begins by characterising those financiers as Jewish, and part of a pan-European Jewish network. My interpretation is that having defined those financiers as Jewish Hobson takes it as read that it is this same group he is discussing in the following sections. Note especially the reference to "anarchist assassination" like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the fact that thse financiers profit from any "shock" to their home country, such as losing a war and suffering hyper-inflation.That is incorrect, and I really can't talk sources with you if you will consistently misrepresent them.
The problem is not that Hobson's argument relies on the Jewishness of financiers, and you are correct that it does not, the problem is that by characterising the financiers as Jewish and then demonising them he demonises Jews and makes them a scapegoat for a nation's ills. His academic word legitimises what will become the Nazi narrative of the Jewish betrayal of Germany before, during and after World War I.No, you can't make that association. It's 2% of the book. From my understanding of the thesis, Hobson thought modern imperialism was basically mercantilistic because of insufficient domestic markets under industrial capitalism in Europe. He referred to financiers as "parasitic" in the sense of a dichotomy between politicians and citizens motivated by patriotism and financiers motivated by economic self-interest, which in my opinion was too limited a characterization even then. He arrived at this theory by observing that imperialism was actually an overall economic drain on the manufacturing and trading sectors of the imperial nation, and so tried to explain this acting against self-interest by identifying self-interest in a financial sector driven by raw speculation (e.g. interest income from investment). This is again too limited by not taking into account geopolitics, and anyway imperial extraction directly injected massive amounts of wealth into imperial nations in all corners and all levels of society, so he must be mistaken on one of his core economic premises. I have indeed read some of the book just for the sake of this tedious exercise, and it's possible to find both flaws and prescient insight.
The bottom line is that no aspect of his argument - which goes well beyond the role of financiers - is affected by anti-Semitic propositions. It's straightforward to say that Hobson was convinced of the truth and relevance of anti-Semitic ideas, but logically his arguments stand apart from it.
Corbyn would need to reckon with the racism of his subject - he apparently didn't. I find that more than troubling.Why would Corbyn need to reckon with a sliver of bigotry in a (two or five-page? The length also makes a difference) foreword? Or if he should, why shouldn't he address the other, more voluminous, racisms contained in the work? Why one but not the other?
When I studied Aristotle one of the first things we dealt with was his sexism and penchant for teenage girls. Again, we come up against Corbyn's "basically right" comment.Are you going to require reckoning with Aristotle or Plato's fundamental sexism in the first word about their philosophy?
I would say that the purpose of the forward is exactly to warn the reader of the prejudices of the esteemed author, the more so the more esteemed they are. Think of it as a sort of intellectual inoculation. For example, if you pick up a copy of Edward Gibbons's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire the forward usually contains something about his prejudice against Arabs and their unfitness for democratic government.I remain unconvinced that it is normally the province of a foreword writer - as opposed at least to an introductory commentator - to warn the reader about all the author's bigotries and insecurities.
Sorry, wrong link.There is nothing on that page, or in the book from what I can find, on Zionists. What are you referring to?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ism-row-labour
This is "Ironygate", another Corbyn blunder - the most antisemitic thing he's personally said - and I don't buy his defence, it's not applicable.
As I said, he first defines "financiers" as Jewish, then he demonises them. I therefore read "Jewish financier" when he says "financier". Note that he actually avoids using the word "Jew" entirely, the entire chapter is coded.I quoted and bolded this in the post of mine you're apparently responding to and it is the only anti-Semitic connection in the book.
Please stop misrepresenting sources to suit your narratives.
You don't trust me because you don't trust me. Nothing I can do about that. Try a forum search and read what I've written on Churchill.It's not easy to trust you, but if you were to write that in any foreword to any book by or about Churchill, that would be transgressive enough to earn you some lefty bonafides. I doubt many publishers would print it.
Noticing racism is not racism. But is Corbyn racist toward non-whites on account of their absence from the foreword?
I think Corbyn infantelises non-whites.
No, I'm suggesting Corbyn has been up to his neck in this for years - the current defence is that he needs to "get things done" but the fact is even as a nobody, which he has been for decades, he associated with horrible people.I don't understand your question. You're suggesting someone who values partisan solidarity to the point of ignoring bad behavior would only become that way once in a position of power? It's more the other way around.
It's a deep, visceral, hatred, deep, deep in my bones. It's an association between Corbyn's Leftist politics, his Marxism, his cozying up to Russia and his antisemitism which represent all the reasons I loathe many Left-Wing politicians. Most of all its the hypocrisy of a man who claims to be an "antiracist" and yet has an antisemitic rap sheet to make a skinhead blush.Please don't misunderstand me. Corbyn's leadership here and in other matters has been dreadful, and I think it's because he can't transition into that mindset of addressing demands by competing stakeholders and taking criticism judiciously - as a politician does/should. And I don't think it is outrageous to raise the possibility that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I just think the way you construct your case on the most trivial and decontextualized examples, and with peripheral disdain toward anti-racism, is motivated by partisan considerations, and so fails to be credible on its own grounds - because it's not made to be. Which is to say, ironically, that when Corbyn underperforms to the anti-Semitism controversy by acting like everyone who has a problem is his enemy, he's probably fixating on people like you.
Eh.Ugh, this study makes the fatal mistake of constructing some very loaded questions on anti-Israel attitudes ("anti-Zionist anti-Semitism") and then lumping them in with "Judeophobic antisemitism." That is, it starts with the premise that all the former attitudes are in themselves anti-Semitic in nature and can all be analyzed together. The quality of the The far-left holding an elevated proportion of anti-Israel attitudes will inevitably skew the result against them in a way that diverges with other studies. As the analysis points out, "This finding [of elevated anti-Semitism on the very left-wing] is mostly accounted for by the proportion of ‘very left-wing’ respondents holding one, two, or three antisemitic views. When we look at the percentage of respondents holding four or more antisemitic views, there is no clear relationship with one’s position on the political spectrum. I'm confident that separating "anti-Zionist antisemitism" attitudes from Judeophobic attitudes in the design would neutralize the study's clickbaity finding.
The 2017 Jewish Policy Research study treated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes as analytically distinct before looking at the overlap, where it was found that while most of those holding at least one anti-Semitic attitude hold at least one anti-Israel attitude, the reverse is not true: most of those endorsing an anti-Israel attitude did not endorse any anti-Semitic attitude. The attitude questions/statements on Israel were also more numerous and better constructed than in the Campaign Against Antisemitism study. Compare former with latter:
The point I made was that MAD is what has brought us peace, not social development, not the EU. Anti-missile technology will ultimately make ICBMS and hence Strategic Nukes, obsolete one day.I have no opinions on the particulars of the UK order of battle, but this is real silly. If you think there is a future in which the United States invades the UK to slaughter its people or nuclear powers decide on an exchange, then your politics are already a joke and you should be stocking a LMOE bunker out in the highlands.
The only thing the British Isles have needed for external territorial defense in a thousand years are A2AD techniques. Forget about power projection to Iran; there is no security justification. A PM who inserted Britain into such a scenario should be strung up TBH.
I said nothing about Nuclear exchange, or the US "slaughtering" people in the UK. I simple observed that war between the US and the UK is conceivable, the check on that is a combination of the UK having a credible military and our shared culture.
As regards war with Iran - that circumstance is conceivable if Iran tries to annex Iraq or goes to war with Saudi Arabia, as this would threaten oil imports.
In such a circumstance the UK needs to be able to deploy without American assistance (because American assistance can never be relied upon, and should in fact be discounted in most circumstances). So, assuming we need to go to war with Iran over Iraq we'd need to ally with the French and to be a credible actor in said war the UK would need to deploy two full mechanised divisions - which we have on paper, but not in reality.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: UK Election 2019
The more I learn about my country's "managed decline" the more I want to hang every politician thats crawled out of the pit since thatcher's term.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: UK Election 2019
Your post is a crime against brevity - one of the most underrated virtues in any discussion.
No idea what Corbyn means about nationalisation. Didn't listen or read about it.
Jews find anti-Semitism wherever they look. There is a fair bit about, and there is plenty of prejudice against myriad other groups that gets ignored - and definitely gets ignored by Jews - especially right leaning Jews. Right leaning Jews couldn't give a toss about any other group. They only believe that *they* should not be prejudiced against.
As to why has the right wing agenda chosen to identify the labour leader with anti semitism and repeat the same message again and again, even if many examples are just hearsay or fluff. Keep repeating, keep personalising.
"The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney
Re: UK Election 2019
Those EU Nationals, coming into our country, putting a stop to our homegrown terrorists with Narwhal horns. The nerve of them...!
Full praise for Lukasz.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: UK Election 2019
We need a second amendment to ensure the right of all citizens to posess weaponizable taxidermies.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: UK Election 2019
You are referring to the right to keep and arm bears, yes? I believe the Silliest Court of the US has ruled that the bears in question must be living.
As to a second amendment, by the way, ought you not to promulgate a first amendment first?
You know...something along the lines of making no laws that respect religious establishments; prohibiting free exercise; freedom of speech when on a bridge or printing press; the right to assemble peace; and government by grievance.
...just a thought.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: UK Election 2019
I want to continue the joke but I dearly want a first amendment here. Most of the censoring judiciary is in scotland rather than my neck of the woods but I have no faith that it will stay there.
Last edited by Greyblades; 12-03-2019 at 18:45.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: UK Election 2019
Our greatest advantage over the UK system of democratic-republican government is our written Constitution which forms the basis of our system. Our single biggest disadvantage, when compared to the UK system, is our written Constitution which constrains adaptation by government.
Ain't nothin' perfect when in comes to governance. The comment attributed to Washington (probably apocryphally) comparing government to fire comes to mind...
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: UK Election 2019
Here's a mind bender for you - as the "Mother of Parliaments" the UK cannot have a written Constitution. All the other Parliaments in the Anglosphere derive their ultimate autonomy from an Act of Westminster (in some cases, THE Act). Their Constitutions have ultimate authority because they were enacted in Westminster, the "Ultimate Parliament" and from this do they derive their magic - much in the same way the US Constitution derives its magic from the Founders.
However, Westminster cannot enact any law which binds a future Parliament, nor can it bind the monarch without their consent, and the monarch cannot bind Parliament.
So, you see, our ultimate weakness is also our greatest strength - we are thee fountainhead of modern democracy.*
*Someone will now argue this is nonsense - but all magic is nonsense to those who do not believe.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: UK Election 2019
And what happens when a government ignores all non-legal constraints? Most of the restrictions on what a government does is due to custom, tradition, accepted boundaries, etc. All of that is justified by the theory that all authority is derived from a constitutional monarch that does not actively exercise decision making power. What if a government ignores all of that, and does whatever it likes where it is unconstrained by law? What if a government goes even further, and looks to change the law where even these rare legal constraints exist?
If you are voting these Tories into power, I fail to see how the above you describe can be a strength.
Re: UK Election 2019
THAT is why we have the 2nd amendment.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: UK Election 2019
We used to have countermeasures in the lords. Asquith declawed them in 1909 by removing their veto, atlee defanged them in 1949 by reducing thier right to delay to a year and Blair decapitated it; in 1999 by removing hereditary peers, packing it with his men, and in 2005 by seperating it from the judiciary, finishing the job in 2009 through his successor by establishing the foriegn abberation on the english system that is the now activist and likely to be similarly defanged supreme court.
Now our only countermeasure is the queen and, as much as I love her, she hasnt done any countering in decades.
None of this is a strength and you can thank the ever more radical end of our political system every time this mess gets in the hands of those you dislike.
Last edited by Greyblades; 12-04-2019 at 12:25.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: UK Election 2019
What happens when people stop believing in magic?
Also - who said I was voting Tory? I didn't at the last two elections.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: UK Election 2019
Plaid Cymru then? You sneaky devil you....
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: UK Election 2019
I know you're American, but Devon isn't in Wales :PPlaid Cymru then? You sneaky devil you....
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: UK Election 2019
Is it? Oddly even the Supreme Court didn't view this as the case until really recently.
You could argue that the 9th Amendment in some respects covers it - the second always was for the Militias of the individual states and the 9th leaves the individual states to decide gun policy.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: UK Election 2019
lol. Was trying to come up with a party that was wildly unlikely to actually get your vote. I actually have most of Blighty's geography pretty decently squared off in my head. At least the more macro stuff.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: UK Election 2019
It would be Mebyon Kernow.Plaid Cymru then? You sneaky devil you....
I believe there was Kenethlegek Kernow too, but they dissolved and now work as a pressure group.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: UK Election 2019
Its all greek to me.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: UK Election 2019
Devon also isn't in Cornwall - and we've covered how getting that wrong can lead to Warhammer 40K levels of violence.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: UK Election 2019
And pasties are legal in Cornwall but not in Devon? What do their exotic dancers sport?
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: UK Election 2019
Pasties are legal here, but they have to be top crimped. Strippers are not really legal, though.
Historical depiction of the Great Pasty War:
You can tell the Cornish, they're deformed and green.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: UK Election 2019
God in his infinite wisdom put the river Tamar in place for a reason.
Call me somewhat biased, but the Government really needs to undertake a "Highland Clearance" approach to the place and redistribute the land to those who are loyal. In the long run, it makes sense.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: UK Election 2019
You also gone into how your were born in Devon but is Cornish. You also said about the different boundaries and how parts of the Kingdom(?) of Cornwall lies in Devon, etc etc etc. Though with your last post, sounds like you identify more with Devon?
Not after arguing with you.
Last edited by Beskar; 12-05-2019 at 18:50.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: UK Election 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50679252Mr Neil said that no broadcaster "can compel a politician to be interviewed".
But he added: "Leaders' interviews have been a key part of the BBC's prime-time election coverage for decades.
"We do them, on your behalf, to scrutinise and hold to account those who would govern us. That is democracy.
"We have always proceeded in good faith that the leaders would participate. And in every election they have. All of them. Until this one."
Mr Neil then listed the questions he wanted the prime minister to answer.
These include whether he can be trusted to deliver on his promises for the NHS - and keeping the health service "off the table" in any post-Brexit trade talks with the US.
Mr Neil said he would also ask the PM about his claim that he has always been an opponent of austerity, another "question of trust".
He ended the monologue by saying: "The prime minister of our nation will, at times, have to stand up to President Trump, President Putin, President Xi of China.
"So it was surely not expecting too much that he spend half an hour standing up to me."
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage have all faced a grilling by Mr Neil.
Anyone here voting Conservative on the 12th?
Re: UK Election 2019
Assuming there isnt a brexit party on the ballot... considering my area, yes probably.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: UK Election 2019
is this a genuine question, or posturing?
yes.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: UK Election 2019
The clear following question is, "Despite the prospective Conservative PM's unwillingness to face scrutiny?". Ie. does Johnson's refusal to face the toughest of the interviewers, which every other major candidate has submitted to, affect your opinion of his fitness to be PM? Neil has set out a number of questions that he'd like to put to Johnson, which already gives the latter an advantage over the other candidates, who had no prior explicit preparation. Should Johnson answer these questions under Neil's probing?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks