"Currants Bw..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I do wonder what would have happened had some people asked for a cake which was, say, pro-ISIS.
Would that have got to court had the bakery refused?
The key issue, for me, is that the bakery didn't refuse to make the cake because of the sexuality of the clients, it was because of the message they were being asked to promote which they didn't feel they could.
Are they not allowed to have that view these days?


But again my main argument is why would anyone care enough to turn away business in the first place?. I don't know how good business is for them, either it is thriving and they can afford to turn away the homosexual clientele or they are just like most people who find solace in religion...a bit simple.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

See, I don't think a seller should be able to discriminate based on who the person is.
If the gays want an anniversary cake then fine, the bakers may have a view on that but they do anniversary cakes so sure, why not?
Where I think it's wrong is they were being asked to print a cake which promoted a cause they didn't believe in. The couple could have just gone somewhere else, this only got legal to make a point. And the point is that apparently you're not allowed to have that view or at least you're not allowed to stand by it.

Oh i look at it differently, i think there should be freedom to discriminate

The problem with rather toxic attitudes is that they are made worse by a culture of trying to silence people. If you let people hold their pointless views rather than try to stifle them, you let all the air out of the balloon.

[GP]

I've always called them fags. Gay is a word that had a very specific meaning before it was hijacked and who wants to type out homosexual all the time? This fucked up LBGT or LGHTV or HDTV or whatever fucking mess of letters it is supposed to be is the new politically correct way I guess? Won't be using that, ever.

My complaint here is the seller's rights have been deemed inferior to a buyer's rights. The, "we are all equal but some of us are a bit more equal", condition.

I used to work with this guy (I think?) who described himself as "Non-binary gender-fluid pansexual"

I hated his fucking guts.

[Letters]

Sweeping generalisations :bow: (that was at HCZ)

It's called conviction and standing up for what you believe in :good:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I used to work with this guy (I think?) who described himself as "Non-binary gender-fluid pansexual"

I hated his fucking guts.

and you were right to

[Marc Overmars]

Gays. :lol:

Awful abominations.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Sweeping generalisations :bow: (that was at HCZ)

It's called conviction and standing up for what you believe in :good:


Yes doesn't mean i have to respect that conviction though, like i say if a small businessman puts the bible above business than that person deserves to go out of business....and when he can't afford the heating he can wrap him up in his silly self-righteousness and say he stood up for his beliefs.

It's utterly ridiculous, i could be an Arsenal supporting Baker, i'm not going to not make a Spurs crested cake, or a chelsea crested cake, or a cake where Pope Alexander VI looks astonished at the Turin shroud because it has the outline of the face of Jose Mourinho on it.

I think all religion is nonsense but i'd make a Jesus died for our sins cake if the customer paid.

[GP]

I like cake.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well arguably Fag and Faggot have been appropriated as well, anyone who can tell me what the etymology of calling homosexual people fags is (faggots are meatballs and fags are cigarettes) i will be mildly grateful for not having to be bothered to look it up myself.


Again a seller in my view within reason should be able to do what they like with their product, if a baker puts a sign on the front of the door saying "No Blacks, Jews or Queers" my view is that should be allowed because again to be too discerning on your customer base is self harm and in a competitive world those discriminated against will be welcomed elsewhere.

Also when these people sue, what is the price you can put on hurt feelings?

Zero is the only fitting price. Nothing happens to you when you are offended. There is no harm or damages caused. So correct compensation is zero.

I'm not necessarily again fines for those who are not vigorous enough or generous enough in offering offence to these precious dickheads. There are fags being thrown off tall buildings in the Mid East and silly little shit stabbers like this "bloke" get all huffy about a cake. I was going to say fuck him, but he'd like that.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Zero is the only fitting price. Nothing happens to you when you are offended. There is no harm or damages caused. So correct compensation is zero.

I'm not necessarily again fines for those who are not vigorous enough or generous enough in offering offence to these precious dickheads. There are fags being thrown off tall buildings in the Mid East and silly little shit stabbers like this "bloke" get all huffy about a cake. I was going to say fuck him, but he'd like that.

In fairness i felt very similarly when that chubby scientist with the European Space mission was pilloried on social media for this shirt he wore depicting a scantily clad anime woman.

So that's your main anger and not women having acid thrown in their face by rejected suitors, being murdered by their parents in the name of honour or being stoned to death for looking a boy on a bike as he drives past.

It does seem more about self-actualisation than it does about fighting for equality.

I'm not sure every Gay man wants to be bummed by every man he meets, I certainly don't want to have sex with every woman i come across.

[Niall_Quinn]

I like cake.

That doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people who don't.

[Niall_Quinn]

In fairness i felt very similarly when that chubby scientist with the European Space mission was pilloried on social media for this shirt he wore depicting a scantily clad anime woman.

So that's your main anger and not women having acid thrown in their face by rejected suitors, being murdered by their parents in the name of honour or being stoned to death for looking a boy on a bike as he drives past.

It does seem more about self-actualisation than it does about fighting for equality.

I'm not sure every Gay man wants to be bummed by every man he meets, I certainly don't want to have sex with every woman i come across.

Fag.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people who don't.

yes it does

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Fag.

Totally unacceptable language

The following is acceptable

Poof
Nancy boy
Queer
Bender
Shirt Lifter
Raving Woofter
Shit Stabber
Chutney Ferret

[Letters]

I certainly don't want to have sex with every woman i come across.
Heh. You said 'come across' :d

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Heh. You said 'come across' :d

To be fair as much as I deride religious beliefs, statements like this makes me believe in miracles

It's a miracle that a woman undrugged and apparently of sound mind (I'm only saying that because I have no evidence to the contrary) agreed to marry you.

[GP]

In somewhat related news, Pete Burns is dead.

[Letters]

He was a prick.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Pete Burns, dead or alive?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Surprised he lasted this long with all that Polyacrylamide shit he was having injected into his face

Was absolutely grotesque

[Goonermerree]

Finally, the French do the right thing a process the people in 'The Jungle' properly. It's only taken them a decade or more.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Finally, the French do the right thing a process the people in 'The Jungle' properly. It's only taken them a decade or more.

In fairness to the French, they couldn't process them because they weren't claiming asylum in France.

On one hand I do think humanitarian considerations aside I don't think you can be too choosy where you end up, life's a bitch.

On the other hand if someone was willingly claiming asylum in France, you'd have to categorise them as being a risk to themselves.

[Goonermerree]

In fairness to the French, they couldn't process them because they weren't claiming asylum in France.

So what's changed? I heard a few moths back that some wanted to claim assylum and the French wouldn't let them. That camp was like a shanty town.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

So what's changed? I heard a few moths back that some wanted to claim assylum and the French wouldn't let them. That camp was like a shanty town.

Well the French didn't want them and they didn't want to stay in France but we didn't want them....Stalemate

But like any impasse it has to be broken, Ariel Sharon couldn't lie in bed as a brain dead empty shell of meat and hair indefinitely and they couldn't be housed in Calais indefinitely.

I think the French were hoping we'd take them, but considering some of our politicians want to do the Dr Christian Szell procedure on the kids we take in....I think they realised we weren't going to fold.

[Letters]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/23/woman-denied-entry-on-to-thorpe-park-colossus-ride-because-her-breasts-were-too-big-6210831/

She can ride on my Colossus ##

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I don't get her complaint, should they have allowed her on the ride and let her risk falling out.

Sorry Tits McGee but why should you be offered a refund, you paid to enter the park not every ride.

[Letters]

I'd like to enter her park ##


Ok, I'll stop that now

[WMUG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&t=0s

[Letters]

http://newsthump.com/2016/10/24/gay-baker-sued-after-refusing-to-make-angel-cake-for-christian-couple/

:d

[Letters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&t=0s

Got bored. Feel free to sum up.

[WMUG]

Got bored. Feel free to sum up.

People don't wield power, power wields people.

[GP]

Cheers, Yoda.

[Letters]

Has just seen my hotel in Vietnam is going to be 2.5 MILLION Vietnamese Dong per night. That's a lot of Dong!

That's more dong than your mum's had. Nearly.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Has just seen my hotel in Vietnam is going to be 2.5 MILLION Vietnamese Dong per night. That's a lot of Dong!

That's more dong than your mum's had. Nearly.


Sigh.....how long exactly were you waiting to make this joke.

£92 that's quite expensive for a hotel in south east Asia. If I were you I'd be expecting a VR headset for porn in your room

[Letters]

I only found out the rate today but obviously I've been waiting a while to make a joke about the Dong :d

#childish.

[Niall_Quinn]

Sigh.....how long exactly were you waiting to make this joke.

£92 that's quite expensive for a hotel in south east Asia. If I were you I'd be expecting a VR headset for porn in your room

The taxpayer is generous.

[Letters]

They are, although this, as far as I understand it, being funded by the exams business.
And as our systems bring in a couple of million pounds a week I don't feel too bad
I didn't pick the hotel, for the record.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

what exactly is it about the exams racket I mean business that takes you out to the other side of the world?

[Letters]

When candidates come to do an exam paper there have to be various staff members present. Invigilators, obviously, but there will be a supervisor who runs the day (more than one in bigger operations) and there are other roles like Marshall who herd the candidates around and tell them where to go.

All those people need paying. At the moment they still fill in paper timesheets so they know how long everyone has worked for. We have built a back office system where they do all the planning - say how many invigilators etc they need, assign people to do those roles. We've written a mobile app which will link to our back office system, the supervisor will log in and it will show them who they're expecting to work that day. We've printed cards for the staff with a photo and QR code on and the staff will come in and the app will read the QR codes, show the person's photo so the supervisor can check their identity and automatically record the time they've clocked in and, later clocked out and capture any exception reasons (if they're late, or whatever). All that will then be synced with the back office system so we can automate the staff payments.


Anyway...we're going to trial the app in Sri Lanka this Saturday and Vietnam the Saturday after. Hanging out in Dubai for a couple of days in between.
I don't think I owe the British tax-payer an apology, I don't think they're paying, but I do feel I should say sorry to the Ozone layer.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Third Runway approved at Heathrow

End of the day, if you don't believe in man made climate change (which seems to be more about making an argument for convenience) than it won't make a difference. If you do believe in it, then people should be honest enough to admit that we've passed the point of no return anyway and any carbon tackling measures is just a futile attempt to slow down the inevitable.

[Niall_Quinn]

Third Runway approved at Heathrow

End of the day, if you don't believe in man made climate change (which seems to be more about making an argument for convenience) than it won't make a difference. If you do believe in it, then people should be honest enough to admit that we've passed the point of no return anyway and any carbon tackling measures is just a futile attempt to slow down the inevitable.

Not really just an argument of convenience though. There's pesky reality involved too. There's also the dishonesty of the ex global warming and now climate change disciples. That Adam Curtis documentary is actually very good. Ignore Curtis' typically shameless propaganda and focus on the behaviour of our leaders over the past decades and it's very simple to answer the question, how could so many people buy into this man made climate change fantasy. Well fantasies are what makes the world go around, as it turns out.

Meanwhile, what's being done about global pollution? Anything? Or food pollution? Or DNA pollution?

Nothing, you say?

[Niall_Quinn]

When candidates come to do an exam paper there have to be various staff members present. Invigilators, obviously, but there will be a supervisor who runs the day (more than one in bigger operations) and there are other roles like Marshall who herd the candidates around and tell them where to go.

All those people need paying. At the moment they still fill in paper timesheets so they know how long everyone has worked for. We have built a back office system where they do all the planning - say how many invigilators etc they need, assign people to do those roles. We've written a mobile app which will link to our back office system, the supervisor will log in and it will show them who they're expecting to work that day. We've printed cards for the staff with a photo and QR code on and the staff will come in and the app will read the QR codes, show the person's photo so the supervisor can check their identity and automatically record the time they've clocked in and, later clocked out and capture any exception reasons (if they're late, or whatever). All that will then be synced with the back office system so we can automate the staff payments.


Anyway...we're going to trial the app in Sri Lanka this Saturday and Vietnam the Saturday after. Hanging out in Dubai for a couple of days in between.
I don't think I owe the British tax-payer an apology, I don't think they're paying, but I do feel I should say sorry to the Ozone layer.

This all sounds like a complete waste of time. From where has the state derived a mandate to do any of this stuff at the citizen's expense?

[Letters]

This all sounds like a complete waste of time. From where has the state derived a mandate to do any of this stuff at the citizen's expense?

Not sure how else to explain this is being funded by exams which is run as a business :tiphat:

[Niall_Quinn]

Not sure how else to explain this is being funded by exams which is run as a business :tiphat:

Well it's not being run as a business if the government is involved. Why is the government involved?

[Letters]

This particular work isn't. We are public sector and some of our funding does come from tax but there is quite a large exams business which is run as such, this work is to do with and funded by that.

[Niall_Quinn]

This particular work isn't. We are public sector and some of our funding does come from tax but there is quite a large exams business which is run as such, this work is to do with and funded by that.

Obviously I'm not talking about this one particular instance. I'm talking about whatever it is that you do in general. Why is the public having a portion of the proceeds of their labour taken under duress in order to fund this self-evidently non-essential operation? There can be no justification for it. And considering this is a "free country", how do I opt out of paying for you to swan around the place performing non-essential activities? I would rather my money be spent on the poor and the sick and the elderly. Who do I vote for to ensure all non-essential services are shut down immediately? May or Corbyn? Please advise urgently.

[Letters]

Obviously you're on the wind up but if you think there's no value in cultural relations with other countries (which is the British Council's brief, English teaching and exams is a part of that) then we'll have to agree to disagree.
There is a lot of waste in the Public Sector and probably in this organisation but there are better targets for your wrath than me :)

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

if you see the world through the eyes of NQ, you think of any public sector, government, taxation, voting as a crime....so probably best not to consider it a wind up

I often find NQ hard to debate with, it's a bit like a human and a germ debating with each other over who has the right to exist given that the existence of one usually means the denial of existence of the other. One view can only exist with the total negation of the other.

I find NQ's opinions and his solutions interesting although ultimately impractical to the point where they aren't worth considering, he presumably finds me to be a slave who is glad of his chains happy to be one of the doped and lied to masses by a clandestine minority of the implacably evil.

[Letters]

I'm not sure he actually ever proposes any solutions.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not sure he actually ever proposes any solutions.

He does, he's a libertarian so his solutions are to remove government, authority, laws etc as they are all oppression

The solution therefore is ultimately individual liberty - totally unconstrained - an individual can do whatever they want to do because cooperation is coercion.

[Letters]

OK, at that level he does. But the detail of how that would actually work in practice, not so much.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

OK, at that level he does. But the detail of how that would actually work in practice, not so much.

I had the discussion with him once, the original point I was making today is that there is no way in my view for it to work in practice and that's why we are essentially divergent.

[Letters]

It may have worked back in the day (I mean a long time ago) when people lived in smaller communities but now with big population, big cities and large scale infrastructure I don't see how in practice it would.

[Niall_Quinn]

if you see the world through the eyes of NQ, you think of any public sector, government, taxation, voting as a crime....so probably best not to consider it a wind up

I often find NQ hard to debate with, it's a bit like a human and a germ debating with each other over who has the right to exist given that the existence of one usually means the denial of existence of the other. One view can only exist with the total negation of the other.

I find NQ's opinions and his solutions interesting although ultimately impractical to the point where they aren't worth considering, he presumably finds me to be a slave who is glad of his chains happy to be one of the doped and lied to masses by a clandestine minority of the implacably evil.

I don't see you as that at all and it's odd you'd get that impression. I see you as somebody who is prepared to have an opinion (importantly an opinion of your own) and then have at least some notion WHY you have that opinion. Therefore I can converse with you very easily, whether we agree or not is irrelevant.

As to our positions and beliefs being mutually exclusive, that's not true in my case. I don't ask you for anything at all, absolutely nothing. My position is that you refrain from making demands on me. Or at least admit to the fundamental contradiction that exists in your model, one that is supposedly based on liberty, choice and the rule of law but can only exist provided liberty, choice and the law are undermined, eliminated or subverted. When you enforce your terms on me through the use of violence (and everything the state does is underpinned by the threat of violence) then you may have reached a practical solution (one invariably favoured by the state throughout history) and maybe it is even impractical for me to imagine I can curb your violence. But we're supposed to be more than simply animals. My view states we are more, your's states that is all we can ever be.

As for Letters, he's brainwashed, pleased to be brainwashed and proud of being incapable of independent thought. Surely it is more difficult to converse with him?

[Niall_Quinn]

Obviously you're on the wind up but if you think there's no value in cultural relations with other countries (which is the British Council's brief, English teaching and exams is a part of that) then we'll have to agree to disagree.
There is a lot of waste in the Public Sector and probably in this organisation but there are better targets for your wrath than me :)

No, I'm not on a wind up. I find it disgraceful you misappropriate the proceeds of my labour without my consent. You should be in prison but instead you shamelessly demand I vote so I endorse your outrageous behaviour. And your own behaviour cannot be excused by the even more excessive behaviour of others. Where is that written in your Bible? My son, proceed with your sinning, because the fucker over there is even worse!

I am not making you a target for my wrath. I'm merely commenting on your latest world tour update. You brought it up, not me.

[Letters]

No, I'm not on a wind up.
:lol: OK.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I don't see you as that at all and it's odd you'd get that impression. I see you as somebody who is prepared to have an opinion (importantly an opinion of your own) and then have at least some notion WHY you have that opinion. Therefore I can converse with you very easily, whether we agree or not is irrelevant.

As to our positions and beliefs being mutually exclusive, that's not true in my case. I don't ask you for anything at all, absolutely nothing. My position is that you refrain from making demands on me. Or at least admit to the fundamental contradiction that exists in your model, one that is supposedly based on liberty, choice and the rule of law but can only exist provided liberty, choice and the law are undermined, eliminated or subverted. When you enforce your terms on me through the use of violence (and everything the state does is underpinned by the threat of violence) then you may have reached a practical solution (one invariably favoured by the state throughout history) and maybe it is even impractical for me to imagine I can curb your violence. But we're supposed to be more than simply animals. My view states we are more, your's states that is all we can ever be.

As for Letters, he's brainwashed, pleased to be brainwashed and proud of being incapable of independent thought. Surely it is more difficult to converse with him?

My point is your beliefs would necessitate me being too comfortable in the prison of government, taxation, voting and other facets of the system. It's not an accusatory remark suggesting you think that i am less than, and i have never been offended by any of your assertions. I'm just saying that one set of values cannot exist without the negation of the other in the same way you cannot be both alive and dead.

For what it's worth, what you have said is manifestly true......the state cannot exist without some form of coercion (concepts of crime and punishment) and that choice and liberty can never be fully universal within that model.

But Absolute Liberty for one person can only for me exist with the curtailment of Liberty for someone else (the man vs the germ again)

You believe you can do whatever you want, I believe that this has to be contingent on you doing what you want having no detrimental consequence for me

[Letters]

Anyway...the consequences of Brexit continue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37755137

I hope negotiations with the EU stay on track and don't hit the buffers...and so on.

[Niall_Quinn]

:lol: OK.

You have no answers, as usual. Because you don't/ can't comprehend the question. You find it quite normal to come on here glibly detailing how you'll dispose of the money you stole. Trips here, trips there, chattering here, chattering there. Meanwhile the elderly won't have heating this winter, the sick won't get timely treatment, millions will sit in poverty scraping together pennies for the next meal. I understand you need a job because that's how the system works. So why don't you get one then?

Vietnam my arse. What possible benefit, even with the wildest stretch of the imagination, can society derive from you flying out there to do whatever it is you do? You lot should be back here, doing the shopping for the elderly, driving buses for school kids or something useful like that. Bloody millions of bureaucrats but not enough nurses. Crazy fucked up place this is.

[Niall_Quinn]

Anyway...the consequences of Brexit continue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37755137

I hope negotiations with the EU stay on track and don't hit the buffers...and so on.

Another subject you know fuck all about.

[Letters]

You have no answers, as usual.
:yawn:

You need a new act, fella :good:

[Niall_Quinn]

My point is your beliefs would necessitate me being too comfortable in the prison of government, taxation, voting and other facets of the system. It's not an accusatory remark suggesting you think that i am less than, and i have never been offended by any of your assertions. I'm just saying that one set of values cannot exist without the negation of the other in the same way you cannot be both alive and dead.

For what it's worth, what you have said is manifestly true......the state cannot exist without some form of coercion (concepts of crime and punishment) and that choice and liberty can never be fully universal within that model.

But Absolute Liberty for one person can only for me exist with the curtailment of Liberty for someone else (the man vs the germ again)

You believe you can do whatever you want, I believe that this has to be contingent on you doing what you want having no detrimental consequence for me

Nobody is talking about absolute liberty. Absolute liberty is survival of the fittest, an expression of the animal kingdom. A bit like what we have now once you strip away all the convoluted filters. Not the liberty bit, but the absolutism.

Libertarianism strongly supports the notion of laws. The primary law being cause no harm. Provided you cause no harm there are no restrictions placed upon the individual. But when you cause harm then the aggrieved party has a right to self defence and a right to see that harm repaired or compensated. Force is not denied under libertarianism. But, unlike in a modern democracy, it cannot be used merely to dispossess the minority.

[Niall_Quinn]

:yawn:

You need a new act, fella :good:

Me? I make my own way in this world pal. Nothing is handed out to me except the shite I don't want but am forced to consume so pretend jobs can be created and maintained.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Nobody is talking about absolute liberty. Absolute liberty is survival of the fittest, an expression of the animal kingdom. A bit like what we have now once you strip away all the convoluted filters. Not the liberty bit, but the absolutism.

Libertarianism strongly supports the notion of laws. The primary law being cause no harm. Provided you cause no harm there are no restrictions placed upon the individual. But when you cause harm then the aggrieved party has a right to self defence and a right to see that harm repaired or compensated. Force is not denied under libertarianism. But, unlike in a modern democracy, it cannot be used merely to dispossess the minority.

Libertarianism doesn't actually have a consensus as to where the upholding of Liberty ends and the encroachment of the state begins.
Pure Libertarianism is as I described it the total undiluted Liberty of the individual which would be as a result a state of social anarchy.

What you seem to wish for (in your Argument for pensioners left without winter fuel) an element of redistribution in order to protect the rights of the individual not to die from hypothermia. I would state that another libertarian would argue that in a fair society everyone starts out from nothing and is free to take their chances and if you end your days freezing or starving to death that would be a consequence of not making the right choices.

[Niall_Quinn]

Libertarianism doesn't actually have a consensus as to where the upholding of Liberty ends and the encroachment of the state begins.
Pure Libertarianism is as I described it the total undiluted Liberty of the individual which would be as a result a state of social anarchy.

What you seem to wish for (in your Argument for pensioners left without winter fuel) an element of redistribution in order to protect the rights of the individual not to die from hypothermia. I would state that another libertarian would argue that in a fair society everyone starts out from nothing and is free to take their chances and if you end your days freezing or starving to death that would be a consequence of not making the right choices.

The pensioners would not have to rely on a handout if the state had not robbed them in the first place, or placed endless restrictions on how they may or may not live. And if the state had not championed the destruction of the family unit then nobody would be freezing. I think people greatly underestimate how detrimental the state is to the prospective wealth of a nation and the what an impediment it is to individuals creating their own destinies. Prior to the mega state, human charity was widespread (the non-fraudulent variety). It has long been understood that as a society we look after each other for the mutual benefit of all. The state has attempted to quantify and monetise human dignity, character and purpose, in its arrogance assuming the general human condition cannot be trusted and must be coerced into cooperation and compliance. As a result we now have massive social fractures, great deprivation and little prospect for favourable outcomes. So hopeless is the situation following such duration under the heel of the state most victims can't even conceive the very obvious alternatives.

[Niall_Quinn]

BTW, of course libertarianism doesn't have a consensus. It would be pointless if it did.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The pensioners would not have to rely on a handout if the state had not robbed them in the first place, or placed endless restrictions on how they may or may not live. And if the state had not championed the destruction of the family unit then nobody would be freezing. I think people greatly underestimate how detrimental the state is to the prospective wealth of a nation and the what an impediment it is to individuals creating their own destinies. Prior to the mega state, human charity was widespread (the non-fraudulent variety). It has long been understood that as a society we look after each other for the mutual benefit of all. The state has attempted to quantify and monetise human dignity, character and purpose, in its arrogance assuming the general human condition cannot be trusted and must be coerced into cooperation and compliance. As a result we now have massive social fractures, great deprivation and little prospect for favourable outcomes. So hopeless is the situation following such duration under the heel of the state most victims can't even conceive the very obvious alternatives.

If you read people like Nozick who is a libertarian, even he basically admits that lost groupings formed for protection now if the human creature was inately good why would human beings need even that.

And isn't the family model also a rather encroaching tactic, either that or you are suggesting that human beings are naturally monogamous and heterosexual and only the state has perverted that.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

BTW, of course libertarianism doesn't have a consensus. It would be pointless if it did.

Well in order for any efficacious libertarian project to be anything other than theoretical surely there would have to be some level of consensus. Any society you would think is fair, would be dangerously restrictive to another.

[Niall_Quinn]

If you read people like Nozick who is a libertarian, even he basically admits that lost groupings formed for protection now if the human creature was inately good why would human beings need even that.

And isn't the family model also a rather encroaching tactic, either that or you are suggesting that human beings are naturally monogamous and heterosexual and only the state has perverted that.

That's an illogical leap. But humans are biologically family oriented, that just makes sense in terms of environment and survival. A post state environment needs to be analysed beyond the tight and imposed state framework. It's like that silly question, if there was no state who would build the roads. Another red herring is the notion we must instantly switch from a state system to an alternative. My objections arise from the consolidation of the power of the state. I'd be all for a progressive walk away from the state. It might take hundreds of years. But we should at least stop walking in the wrong direction. Just look at what the scumbags are up to now. Their definition of human progress is global government. I guess they think national government and continental government hasn't fucked things up enough.

Simple issues could be liberated to begin with. We've already talked about a few, for instance the state getting the fuck out of marriage. Ultimately though the state would have to have its capacity to enact violence curtailed and removed. There can be no real and lasting progress until that is achieved.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well in order for any efficacious libertarian project to be anything other than theoretical surely there would have to be some level of consensus. Any society you would think is fair, would be dangerously restrictive to another.

Who said anything about fair? Is that what we have now? Fair? And why would my desire to exist as I please, provided I didn't cause harm to others, be dangerously restrictive to somebody else? Do you mean I'd be infringing the rights of those who refused to live their lives as they pleased without causing harm to others? Aren't those the very people who abuse rights I the first place? Do I need to worry if I am infringing the rights of somebody trying to punch me in the face or rob my home?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That's an illogical leap. But humans are biologically family oriented, that just makes sense in terms of environment and survival. A post state environment needs to be analysed beyond the tight and imposed state framework. It's like that silly question, if there was no state who would build the roads. Another red herring is the notion we must instantly switch from a state system to an alternative. My objections arise from the consolidation of the power of the state. I'd be all for a progressive walk away from the state. It might take hundreds of years. But we should at least stop walking in the wrong direction. Just look at what the scumbags are up to now. Their definition of human progress is global government. I guess they think national government and continental government hasn't fucked things up enough.

Simple issues could be liberated to begin with. We've already talked about a few, for instance the state getting the fuck out of marriage. Ultimately though the state would have to have its capacity to enact violence curtailed and removed. There can be no real and lasting progress until that is achieved.

Where do you draw the line with curtailing the authority of the state to act violently

All your solutions are predicated on the assumption that people want to peacefully get on with their lives

As I've said from the beginning I don't object to you doing what you want, in your case i don't imagine for a second anything you want to do could result in having any detrimental effect on me.

But to make that assumption of everyone is illogical, some people can only be deterred from inflicting violence or curtailing my rights through the threat or imposition of coercive methods.

Just take the example of the banks, what happened in 2008 was an example of how some people will behave as a result of being given the freedom to self govern their actions.

[Niall_Quinn]

Where do you draw the line with curtailing the authority of the state to act violently

All your solutions are predicated on the assumption that people want to peacefully get on with their lives

As I've said from the beginning I don't object to you doing what you want, in your case i don't imagine for a second anything you want to do could result in having any detrimental effect on me.

But to make that assumption of everyone is illogical, some people can only be deterred from inflicting violence or curtailing my rights through the threat or imposition of coercive methods.

Just take the example of the banks, what happened in 2008 was an example of how some people will behave as a result of being given the freedom to self govern their actions.

That's a bad example. It was the government that not only enabled but encouraged the banks to behave in that manner. And anyway, restrictive state policies create banking cartels and bring about the very "too big to fail" conditions that undermine what would be a natural market outcome for these abusers. It's the state that encourages and rewards abuse, mainly because the state has incentives based on self preservation. The state knows who butters its bread, but of course if you didn't have a state then the banks would have to appeal to the citizenry and I doubt they'd get much traction gambling away depositor funds, nor would they have much incentive to do so unless they were considering purchasing an army to enforce bail-outs currently on-tap from the state. If they thought their PR was bad now...

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Third Runway approved at Heathrow

End of the day, if you don't believe in man made climate change (which seems to be more about making an argument for convenience) than it won't make a difference. If you do believe in it, then people should be honest enough to admit that we've passed the point of no return anyway and any carbon tackling measures is just a futile attempt to slow down the inevitable.

:gp:

No point inhibiting ourselves economically especially in this post Brexit world just so some economically well-off posh yuppies can feel good about themselves. As you say the flights aren't going to vanish, they'll just head off to Frankfurt and we'll lose the economic business nor would any reduction in C02 mean much when India and China continue to pump it out to grow their economies.

Just disgusted it's taken this long to approve and I hope there aren't even more delays in it's construction (there probably will be knowing it's England). What a shambles we are.

P.S. - Fuck off Zac Goldsmith you cretin. Hope he loses.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That's a bad example. It was the government that not only enabled but encouraged the banks to behave in that manner. And anyway, restrictive state policies create banking cartels and bring about the very "too big to fail" conditions that undermine what would be a natural market outcome for these abusers. It's the state that encourages and rewards abuse, mainly because the state has incentives based on self preservation. The state knows who butters its bread, but of course if you didn't have a state then the banks would have to appeal to the citizenry and I doubt they'd get much traction gambling away depositor funds, nor would they have much incentive to do so unless they were considering purchasing an army to enforce bail-outs currently on-tap from the state. If they thought their PR was bad now...

My point is without a set of laws and regulations setting out how businesses can operate, whether you think the theft was state sponsored or not is irrelevant the result is the same. There is no self corrective power, unless you operate under the assumption that I am incorruptible and therefore I must assume other people are as well.

This is my critique of libertarian philosophy, the problem is other people. People aren't all products of an environment imposed upon them by a sinister big brother state, some people are just cunts.

Libertarian works on the assumption that people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to fuck eachother over.

[Letters]

End of the day, if you don't believe in man made climate change (which seems to be more about making an argument for convenience) than it won't make a difference. If you do believe in it, then people should be honest enough to admit that we've passed the point of no return anyway and any carbon tackling measures is just a futile attempt to slow down the inevitable.
It's interesting how things like this are treated as a matter of faith as if it's something we can choose to believe in or not.
It's like the Trump thing, and Brexit. Facts don't matter any more.
It's not quite the same as saying you don't believe in gravity (while floating away, presumably) but the scientific debate about this is all but over, although I pretty much agree it's too late now any I doubt they can do much about it. It's a damage limitation exercise now.

[Niall_Quinn]

My point is without a set of laws and regulations setting out how businesses can operate, whether you think the theft was state sponsored or not is irrelevant the result is the same. There is no self corrective power, unless you operate under the assumption that I am incorruptible and therefore I must assume other people are as well.

This is my critique of libertarian philosophy, the problem is other people. People aren't all products of an environment imposed upon them by a sinister big brother state, some people are just cunts.

Libertarian works on the assumption that people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to fuck eachother over.

Again, you are taking the conditions under the existing system and assuming these are inviolate. People are fundamentally bad, people will do the wrong thing if given the choice, etc. And yet, what do we do? We go ahead and appoint "people" as our leaders. What happens then? Do they magically become virtuous? Are people good or bad, which is it? Or are you saying the state makes people good? I think you probably are because that's the general statist argument. The state is necessary because otherwise humanity would tear itself apart. This would be the same state busily building nuclear weapons I guess.

And your references to the market are similarly mired in the current environment. What does "corrective" even mean in the a contemporary context? Some bloke who has a new theory advising a bunch of blokes who don't have a clue so a one-size-fits-all "solution" can be imposed on the majority? And what about avoiding corrections altogether by tackling causes rather than symptoms? Don't make money your God in the first place perhaps?

I think your problem with libertarianism is you perceive it as isolated individualism. It is possible to have a society without a state, even if such reality has been carefully cultured to appear impossible.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

As a caveat, I would say science has often made assertions that have proved incorrect. Einstein for instance dismissed the concept of an expanding universe until he was proved wrong.

I don't see why opinions that deny man made climate change shouldn't be made, however what I generally find is that they are often made by people in the main who have a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus on climate change.

But like I say it's largely academic anyway, the likelihood is that by the time people like my nephew grow most of the planets surface will be unable to support life, and people will die through the spread of disease, exposure to the elements because of the lack of shelter and starvation due to the inability to create a sustainable food source.

I won't live long enough to see this scenario play out, but potentially barring technological advances beyond our comprehension (which seems unlikely as advances even seen as theoretically possible take sometimes hundreds of years to develop) the human race will be a tiny footnote in this planets history.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Again, you are taking the conditions under the existing system and assuming these are inviolate. People are fundamentally bad, people will do the wrong thing if given the choice, etc. And yet, what do we do? We go ahead and appoint "people" as our leaders. What happens then? Do they magically become virtuous? Are people good or bad, which is it? Or are you saying the state makes people good? I think you probably are because that's the general statist argument. The state is necessary because otherwise humanity would tear itself apart. This would be the same state busily building nuclear weapons I guess.

And your references to the market are similarly mired in the current environment. What does "corrective" even mean in the a contemporary context? Some bloke who has a new theory advising a bunch of blokes who don't have a clue so a one-size-fits-all "solution" can be imposed on the majority? And what about avoiding corrections altogether by tackling causes rather than symptoms? Don't make money your God in the first place perhaps?

I think your problem with libertarianism is you perceive it as isolated individualism. It is possible to have a society without a state, even if such reality has been carefully cultured to appear impossible.

I'm talking about human nature, whether you agree or not. My belief is whether a state is benevolent or not ultimately it is the nearest thing to a guarantee of protection from those who would do me harm.

Yes of course you are right to state that the state itself can do me harm, but unlike you I do believe there is a marked difference between totalitarian states of fear and opression and one where people are disincentivised to visit harm upon me because of the negative consequences.

Otherwise it has to be taken on trust. A set of laws enshrining my rights means nothing without the power to enforce them.

As for your don't make money your God suggestion. You don't believe there is a natural human tendency towards being acquisitive?

[Letters]

As a caveat, I would say science has often made assertions that have proved incorrect. Einstein for instance dismissed the concept of an expanding universe until he was proved wrong.

I don't see why opinions that deny man made climate change shouldn't be made, however what I generally find is that they are often made by people in the main who have a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus on climate change.

But like I say it's largely academic anyway, the likelihood is that by the time people like my nephew grow most of the planets surface will be unable to support life, and people will die through the spread of disease, exposure to the elements because of the lack of shelter and starvation due to the inability to create a sustainable food source.

I won't live long enough to see this scenario play out, but potentially barring technological advances beyond our comprehension (which seems unlikely as advances even seen as theoretically possible take sometimes hundreds of years to develop) the human race will be a tiny footnote in this planets history.
Yes, of course. Science should always be open to revising theories in the light of new evidence or data. But the data on this one is pretty good.
Of course alternative opinions should be heard, if they're based on good, empirical evidence. The problem I have with conspiracy theorists is their starting point for any theory is that it's a conspiracy being orchestrated for some nefarious purpose or other. They state it without any back up despite the evidence and data. And the trouble is it's an impossible position to debate against. You can present a mountain of evidence and data backing up the prevailing theory but then they just claim that that's all part of the conspiracy.
Meanwhile any scrap of evidence which may indicate a different view is seized upon by them as though that's the only trustworthy source. It shows a complete inability to think logically or reason.
I remember one conspiracy theorist friend saying one time (about the Diana death) "Well, there's no evidence it wasn't a conspiracy" :blink: What kind of logic is that?! It's a weird mindset I'll never understand which starts with a perceived truth and fits (or dismisses, as appropriate) available evidence around it. Complete cart before the horse thinking.

I don't subscribe to your gloomy outlook. I do think it will cause a lot of problems for humanity over the next century but I think you're over-stating quite how bad it will get.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course alternative opinions should be heard, if they're based on good, empirical evidence. The problem I have with conspiracy theorists...

:haha:

I don't think he's aware he's doing it. Which makes it funnier.

[Niall_Quinn]

My point is without a set of laws and regulations setting out how businesses can operate, whether you think the theft was state sponsored or not is irrelevant the result is the same. There is no self corrective power, unless you operate under the assumption that I am incorruptible and therefore I must assume other people are as well.

This is my critique of libertarian philosophy, the problem is other people. People aren't all products of an environment imposed upon them by a sinister big brother state, some people are just cunts.

Libertarian works on the assumption that people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to fuck eachother over.

Why do we need a set of laws outlining the way business can operate? Who's business is it how a business operates? Provided there are agreed remedies should those business cause harm then let them do what the hell they want. What's the baker going to do? Poison his customers? Why? Do you really imagine the banks would have played casino had there been no state at the ready to bail them out? Of course not. The very presence of the state is what fired the recklessness. I didn't say the criminality of the bankers was sponsored by the state (the other way around maybe), what I'm saying is the state intervening to offer incentives and punishments will always favour those who can best manipulate the rules. The rich don't pay tax, the poor do. Why? Because the rich can afford accountants and lawyers and those accountants and lawyers are a damn sight smarter than the unambitious drones who lack enough dignity to work for HMRC.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Why do we need a set of laws outlining the way business can operate? Who's business is it how a business operates? Provided there are agreed remedies should those business cause harm then let them do what the hell they want. What's the baker going to do? Poison his customers? Why? Do you really imagine the banks would have played casino had there been no state at the ready to bail them out? Of course not. The very presence of the state is what fired the recklessness. I didn't say the criminality of the bankers was sponsored by the state (the other way around maybe), what I'm saying is the state intervening to offer incentives and punishments will always favour those who can best manipulate the rules. The rich don't pay tax, the poor do. Why? Because the rich can afford accountants and lawyers and those accountants and lawyers are a damn sight smarter than the unambitious drones who lack enough dignity to work for HMRC.

So what stops the business using underhand methods to establish itself as a monopoly and then once a monopoly setting its prices however it chooses.

What then stops that business from firing an employee because they couldn't come in one day because they suffered a family bereavement.o

Yes this already happens now, but it seems like a stateless society just gives it the green light

I agree that the Banks only did what the state allowed them to get away with, but what would stop a cartel forming where for instance people were only able to get mortgages at crippling rates of interest, the cartel has eliminated all its competitors and therefore there is no going elsewhere for a better price. It just seems to me that it makes natural what you hate about states and government for manafacturing artificially


The only thing I can see that your stateless system provides is that businesses won't have to bribe anyone in government to act the way it wants to, because there won't be a government.

Greed, violence and misery are not by products of the state, they are by products of human beings.

[Niall_Quinn]

So what stops the business using underhand methods to establish itself as a monopoly and then once a monopoly setting its prices however it chooses.

What then stops that business from firing an employee because they couldn't come in one day because they suffered a family bereavement.

The only thing I can see that your stateless system provides is that businesses won't have to bribe anyone in government to act the way it wants to, because there won't be a government.

Greed, violence and misery are not by products of the state, they are by products of human beings.

What?

Genuine competition prevents monopolies. When you strip away all the nasty little state provided incentives and rewards for big business then it allows competition and innovation to thrive. The monopolies you see now are all mostly a result of the backwards and forwards privatisation scam.

And a worker couldn't be fired under the conditions you mention because he'd have a contract of employment. Any breach would carry a penalty. What happens now when a company fires all it's workers and then reinstates them on zero hour contracts?

Greed, violence and misery are most certainly byproducts of the state, not the only byproducts but some of the more notable ones. The greed is obvious. The violence is the very thing on which the state is founded and upheld. And the misery may not extend to every citizen but that's the point, robbing one citizen to bribe another. I'm pretty sure the guy who just got robbed is going to be miserable.

So is it better to have one giant, corrupt monster at the heart of the society, or is better to have many, smaller organisations that may or may not behave in a way that is beneficial to society? What do you do now if a company abuses society? You turn to the state and plead with the to do something. And what happens? You speak of the state as if it actually solves any of these problems you imply are inherent in liberty.

[Letters]

Who's business is it how a business operates?
You said "Who's" :lol:


Meh.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Obviously I'm not talking about this one particular instance. I'm talking about whatever it is that you do in general. Why is the public having a portion of the proceeds of their labour taken under duress in order to fund this self-evidently non-essential operation? There can be no justification for it. And considering this is a "free country", how do I opt out of paying for you to swan around the place performing non-essential activities? I would rather my money be spent on the poor and the sick and the elderly. Who do I vote for to ensure all non-essential services are shut down immediately? May or Corbyn? Please advise urgently.

You really really really need to watch Parks and Recreation.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What?

Genuine competition prevents monopolies. When you strip away all the nasty little state provided incentives and rewards for big business then it allows competition and innovation to thrive. The monopolies you see now are all mostly a result of the backwards and forwards privatisation scam.

And a worker couldn't be fired under the conditions you mention because he'd have a contract of employment. Any breach would carry a penalty. What happens now when a company fires all it's workers and then reinstates them on zero hour contracts?

Greed, violence and misery are most certainly byproducts of the state, not the only byproducts but some of the more notable ones. The greed is obvious. The violence is the very thing on which the state is founded and upheld. And the misery may not extend to every citizen but that's the point, robbing one citizen to bribe another. I'm pretty sure the guy who just got robbed is going to be miserable.

So is it better to have one giant, corrupt monster at the heart of the society, or is better to have many, smaller organisations that may or may not behave in a way that is beneficial to society? What do you do now if a company abuses society? You turn to the state and plead with the to do something. And what happens? You speak of the state as if it actually solves any of these problems you imply are inherent in liberty.

Again I don't see how you can state that monopoly would not occur, either by fair means or foul

And working contract? If the person has to choose between working for a company and unemployment because of the lack of alternative employers what on earth makes you think they are going to be offered an equitable contract?.

[Xhaka Can’t]

:gp:

No point inhibiting ourselves economically especially in this post Brexit world just so some economically well-off posh yuppies can feel good about themselves. As you say the flights aren't going to vanish, they'll just head off to Frankfurt and we'll lose the economic business nor would any reduction in C02 mean much when India and China continue to pump it out to grow their economies.

Just disgusted it's taken this long to approve and I hope there aren't even more delays in it's construction (there probably will be knowing it's England). What a shambles we are.

P.S. - Fuck off Zac Goldsmith you cretin. Hope he loses.

By the time the runway is built, air travel will be obsolete and the sun will have entered its red giant phase.

[Letters]

:haha:

I don't think he's aware he's doing it. Which makes it funnier.

I think you just beat MrsL's record for saying so much and yet saying so little.
Kudos :lol:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

By the time the runway is built, air travel will be obsolete and the sun will have entered its red giant phase.

Fingers crossed

[Niall_Quinn]

You really really really need to watch Parks and Recreation.

Watched the first couple of episodes last night.

Are you mocking me, by any chance?

What I can't figure out is if it's fictional or a fly on the wall documentary.

[Letters]

You really really really need to watch Parks and Recreation.

Sounds like I should do, having looked up the premise.

Have to say some of the stuff that goes on at work does make me go... :blink:

:lol:

[GP]

Parks and Rec is brilliant.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Catholics now allowed to cremate their dead, but not allowed to scatter ashes, keep them in family home or be placed inside jewelery or other mementos

Wow thanks eminence!

[Niall_Quinn]

Catholics now allowed to cremate their dead, but not allowed to scatter ashes, keep them in family home or be placed inside jewelery or other mementos

Wow thanks eminence!

Them's the rules of their club. All clubs have rules. Don't like the rules, don't be in the club. This sort of stuff doesn't affect any non-Catholic in any way, expect maybe those ghouls in the funeral homes who charge thousands for a wooden box.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Them's the rules of their club. All clubs have rules. Don't like the rules, don't be in the club. This sort of stuff doesn't affect any non-Catholic in any way, expect maybe those ghouls in the funeral homes who charge thousands for a wooden box.

Very easy to say, because we don't live in a country where the Catholic Church has its claws into it

Like with many religions it's something imposed and indoctrinated into people rather than something people choose

And the Catholic Church likes to torment its adherents with things like telling them if their child died prematurely before they had the chance to be baptised their souls would be in Limbo

Form of psychological abuse. And as someone who routinely accuses the state of telling lies to keep people compliant, I'm surprised you are that blasé about it.

[Letters]

Weird lot, the Catholics.

I guess some of you would say the same about my lot.

[WMUG]

Weird lot, the Catholics.

I guess some of you would say the same about my lot.

Wouldn't dream of it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Weird lot, the Catholics.

I guess some of you would say the same about my lot.

Other than knowing that you are a god botherer I had no idea as to your particular denomination.

My mum has today been dead a year, I remember clearly a year ago for days afterwards people in the mawkish way people do when they are trying to be nice saying "I'm sure she's looking down at you from heaven". I didn't want to be unappreciative of people trying to be nice, but it never struck me as being anything but wishful thinking fantasy that people live on after we die. In some ways it's a white lie because it can I'm sure bring genuine comfort to those scared of dying and those who are grieving for lost loved ones.

Historically at least the religious have always sold eternal reward and torment in the most underhand way, and even now you will get slippery Christians who are so lacking in shame that they visit the vulnerable, people struggling to take one breath after the next and promise them salvation if they square things with God.

I'm thankful that no one tried that with my mum or they'd have left in a black bag before she did.

[Letters]

Wouldn't dream of it.

:lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

Very easy to say, because we don't live in a country where the Catholic Church has its claws into it

Like with many religions it's something imposed and indoctrinated into people rather than something people choose

And the Catholic Church likes to torment its adherents with things like telling them if their child died prematurely before they had the chance to be baptised their souls would be in Limbo

Form of psychological abuse. And as someone who routinely accuses the state of telling lies to keep people compliant, I'm surprised you are that blasé about it.

I'm a Catholic myself. Technically. Gave up paying attention to that stuff ages ago. The indoctrination is overplayed, they aren't as good at it as they used to be. Growing up you quickly learn how to let it wash off you. Religion isn't as dangerous as government. Religions make preposterous claims that are easy to dismiss. Governments are far more insidious. Many people actually believe what governments claim, if you can believe that! Which makes government very dangerous indeed. And the Catholics gave up bloodthirsty slaughter and pillage a while back, officially at least. Government is still up to its elbows in that shit. Plus the Catholics don't send thugs around to my home if I fail to obey their instructions. No, government is far more dangerous and in so many more ways than religion, at least here in the west. In the Mid East and certain parts of Asia and South America, fair enough, religion is still a heavy hitter.

[Letters]

Other than knowing that you are a god botherer I had no idea as to your particular denomination.
I don't really identify with any particular denomination although my church is a member of the Elim which is more a group of churches than a denomination (although I guess that is splitting hairs a bit). Sorry to hear about your mum.


Historically at least the religious have always sold eternal reward and torment in the most underhand way, and even now you will get slippery Christians who are so lacking in shame that they visit the vulnerable, people struggling to take one breath after the next and promise them salvation if they square things with God.
I'm thankful that no one tried that with my mum or they'd have left in a black bag before she did.

Where do you see the harm in that? At worst the Christian is wrong but if they are then it doesn't make any difference anyway, but maybe it brings some comfort to the dying person. Unless 'squaring things with God' involves, say, them making a rather sizeable donation to their church in which case of course that's despicable.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Because it's manipulative and preying on people's vulnerability and fear near the end

It's an absolutely abhorrent thing to do

Unless someone is a practising Christian already and wants someone like a priest to pray for them, that kind of vulture like mentality should be illegal.

If you think it's fine to prey on someone who is scared and in pain than I'm sorry Letters but that's a sad inditement on you. Offering dying people the Pascal's wager is for me just a few rungs below stealing their shoes after they've expired.

[Letters]

But you only take that position because you think the Christian message and hope is false.
If you think it's true and you know someone is running out of time then how can you stand by and do nothing?

Obviously there's a line. A friend of mine died of cancer years ago. When he was getting ill I asked if he wanted my then minister to come and see him. He said no so I left it at that. In a way I admired him, he stuck to his guns when push came to shove. My grandfather though did come to faith towards the end of his life, I don't believe he did so under duress.
I have no idea how you can say it's preying on someone unless you stand to gain from it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No, Not at all....I would be equally contemptible if I tried to convince a devout believer that there was no God on their deathbed.

If someone wants the comfort of religion let them ask for it, don't like I say hover over them degraded and afraid and use that fear against them.

There are gains other than the purely financial, I'm sorry to say this but there is the twisted mentality amongst Christians that they have a duty to save the souls of others, it's not enough for them to believe what they do they have to prophlytise.

The example you have used is inoccuous enough because you merely asked someone if they wanted a minister and they said no.

What I'm telling you is that, you get bible bashers who work alongside hospitals sniffing around the dying. People who are dying slowly and painfully and are half stupefied from the pain and the drugs to alleviate the pain, and the irony is they latch onto these people because they think they are doing good by doing so.

Emotionally manipulating someone's pain and fear to force your ethos on them is I put it to you an act of wickedness.

I ridicule your religious beliefs because you can take it on the chin, I am not trying to convert you away from your beliefs because I have no wish to do so. I couldn't care if I was the only non believer in existence, however for many Christians it does not work that way.

From cradle to grave it's a non stop recruitment process, from Jehovas witnesses knocking at your door to dead eyed Mormon kids accosting you in the street. For a fit and healthy individual it's easy to bat them away, but when your lying in a hospital bed terrified of what happens next you are all too susceptible.

What I'm saying is if Christians or any other religious individuals want to preach and make promises to people,they should do it at a time when the individual they are trying to reach is more capable of rational judgement.

[Letters]

No, Not at all....I would be equally contemptible if I tried to convince a devout believer that there was no God on their deathbed.
What?! I'm not having that! Those two things are the exact polar opposites. One offers comfort and hope (you may think a false hope, but that's beside the point). The other is trying to distress someone who does have comfort and hope. How can you equate those two things?


There are gains other than the purely financial, I'm sorry to say this but there is the twisted mentality amongst Christians that they have a duty to save the souls of others, it's not enough for them to believe what they do they have to prophlytise.
Well yes, it's called The Great Commission. It was Jesus' last command to His disciples

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'" - Matthew 28:18-19.

It's not us who saves souls by the way, but we are commanded to spread what we believe. How would anyone else get to hear about it otherwise? And actually if the Christian message is true then why wouldn't someone who believes that want to share it? If you've discovered the best restaurant ever and, amazingly it's free, then what kind of arse are you if you go eat there every day and don't tell anyone about it? If you tell them and they don't believe you and never go to it then that's their choice but surely you'd want to share the 'good news', to coin a phrase.


What I'm saying is if Christians or any other religious individuals want to preach and make promises to people,they should do it at a time when the individual they are trying to reach is more capable of rational judgement.

OK, I can see a logic in that and there are certain illnesses like dementia when it's debatable how able someone is to rationally choose.
But let's say you've invented a pill which cures all diseases and offers people a long, happy, pain free life. Who are you going to give it to first, people who are in the prime of life or people who are sick and need it more urgently?
I don't think Christians have a ghoulish obsession with the sick and dying but if what we believe is true then there is a more urgent need to reach them. What could be more important?

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important" - C.S. Lewis

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What?! I'm not having that! Those two things are the exact polar opposites. One offers comfort and hope (you may think a false hope, but that's beside the point). The other is trying to distress someone who does have comfort and hope. How can you equate those two things?


Well yes, it's called The Great Commission. It was Jesus' last command to His disciples

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'" - Matthew 28:18-19.

It's not us who saves souls by the way, but we are commanded to spread what we believe. How would anyone else get to hear about it otherwise? And actually if the Christian message is true then why wouldn't someone who believes that want to share it? If you've discovered the best restaurant ever and, amazingly it's free, then what kind of arse are you if you go eat there every day and don't tell anyone about it? If you tell them and they don't believe you and never go to it then that's their choice but surely you'd want to share the 'good news', to coin a phrase.



OK, I can see a logic in that and there are certain illnesses like dementia when it's debatable how able someone is to rationally choose.
But let's say you've invented a pill which cures all diseases and offers people a long, happy, pain free life. Who are you going to give it to first, people who are in the prime of life or people who are sick and need it more urgently?
I don't think Christians have a ghoulish obsession with the sick and dying but if what we believe is true then there is a more urgent need to reach them. What could be more important?

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important" - C.S. Lewis


1) No it's not different at all, both are equally the same it's trying to push your beliefs on someone at the most inappropriate moment. Because you think what you believe has greater inducements, makes it no different at all.

2) I commend you for your intellectual honesty, that you freely admit that Christians see themselves as having a moral duty not just to believe what they believe but to convince other people for it as well.
And what a fantastic comparison you've made between religion and eating establishments, i quite agree preaching on the streets is very similar to handing out fliers for business....but i would think it's pretty poor form for a funeral business to start touting at someone's death bed.....maybe they are offering the dying the comfort of knowing their family are going to be getting a discount for the wooden casket their cadaver will be placed in

3) No i'm not talking about certain illnesses, i'm talking about visiting the scared and in pain who are near the end...and why? because people in such a state are necessarily more malleable....it's not just those with conditions that diminish their capacity. And you justify it by saying these people are more in need of your tender ministries......which seems to be a pretty glib way of justifying that you are working on the more suggestible.
If they had no need of what you seem to offer as "comprehensive insurance" when in health mind and body, than any deathbed conversion is manifestly false and made under the duress of terror.
So yes if a hypothetical dying man never went to church during his life, had never really felt the need to pay any attention to religion but knowing the end is near becomes panicked about the uncertainty that lies ahead to pounce on that to sell a product (which you've basically admitted through your response is what Christianity is) is one of the worst examples of opportunism there is.
You can argue that to spread the word of God is your christian duty and i don't disagree for a second, but you'll understand why this is one reason amongst many others why i find Religion in general and Christianity profoundly immoral.

[Goonermerree]

What?! I'm not having that! Those two things are the exact polar opposites. One offers comfort and hope (you may think a false hope, but that's beside the point). The other is trying to distress someone who does have comfort and hope. How can you equate those two things?


Well yes, it's called The Great Commission. It was Jesus' last command to His disciples

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'" - Matthew 28:18-19.

It's not us who saves souls by the way, but we are commanded to spread what we believe. How would anyone else get to hear about it otherwise? And actually if the Christian message is true then why wouldn't someone who believes that want to share it? If you've discovered the best restaurant ever and, amazingly it's free, then what kind of arse are you if you go eat there every day and don't tell anyone about it? If you tell them and they don't believe you and never go to it then that's their choice but surely you'd want to share the 'good news', to coin a phrase.



OK, I can see a logic in that and there are certain illnesses like dementia when it's debatable how able someone is to rationally choose.
But let's say you've invented a pill which cures all diseases and offers people a long, happy, pain free life. Who are you going to give it to first, people who are in the prime of life or people who are sick and need it more urgently?
I don't think Christians have a ghoulish obsession with the sick and dying but if what we believe is true then there is a more urgent need to reach them. What could be more important?

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important" - C.S. Lewis

Sorry letters, but I have to disagree with you there. I'm happy and thrilled for you that you believe in God, I don't, and I hate it when other people try to tell me about God. I know exactly where to seek out God if I wanted to, but I don't so leave me alone!!! Not you personally, but everyone in the past who has accosted me on the street or knocked on my door and even my sister. (Who has given up until she's a bit tiddly on the wine)

[Niall_Quinn]

Can you all please stop beating on my bitch!?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Can you all please stop beating on my bitch!?

don't bogart playah!

[Letters]

Sorry letters, but I have to disagree with you there. I'm happy and thrilled for you that you believe in God, I don't, and I hate it when other people try to tell me about God. I know exactly where to seek out God if I wanted to, but I don't so leave me alone!!! Not you personally, but everyone in the past who has accosted me on the street or knocked on my door and even my sister. (Who has given up until she's a bit tiddly on the wine)

We have a duty to share what we belief. It really isn't optional so it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.
But I agree there are ways of doing things. I personally don't like it when people knock on my door or accost me in the street so I wouldn't do that, any events in public have to be very carefully planned so as not to cause offence.
I don't see anything wrong in inviting a friend to an event which will have an evangelistic message so long as I'm up front about that and don't get them there under false pretences. It's up to them whether they come and, if they do, whether they respond to what's been said.

[Letters]

Can you all please stop beating on my bitch!?

Don't worry. There's plenty of Letters to go around :(

[Letters]

1) No it's not different at all, both are equally the same it's trying to push your beliefs on someone at the most inappropriate moment. Because you think what you believe has greater inducements, makes it no different at all.

2) I commend you for your intellectual honesty, that you freely admit that Christians see themselves as having a moral duty not just to believe what they believe but to convince other people for it as well.
And what a fantastic comparison you've made between religion and eating establishments, i quite agree preaching on the streets is very similar to handing out fliers for business....but i would think it's pretty poor form for a funeral business to start touting at someone's death bed.....maybe they are offering the dying the comfort of knowing their family are going to be getting a discount for the wooden casket their cadaver will be placed in

3) No i'm not talking about certain illnesses, i'm talking about visiting the scared and in pain who are near the end...and why? because people in such a state are necessarily more malleable....it's not just those with conditions that diminish their capacity. And you justify it by saying these people are more in need of your tender ministries......which seems to be a pretty glib way of justifying that you are working on the more suggestible.
If they had no need of what you seem to offer as "comprehensive insurance" when in health mind and body, than any deathbed conversion is manifestly false and made under the duress of terror.
So yes if a hypothetical dying man never went to church during his life, had never really felt the need to pay any attention to religion but knowing the end is near becomes panicked about the uncertainty that lies ahead to pounce on that to sell a product (which you've basically admitted through your response is what Christianity is) is one of the worst examples of opportunism there is.
You can argue that to spread the word of God is your christian duty and i don't disagree for a second, but you'll understand why this is one reason amongst many others why i find Religion in general and Christianity profoundly immoral.

I think you're wilfully misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think the points I'm making are fairly clear so I'll leave it there :tiphat:

[Niall_Quinn]

It's not us who saves souls by the way, but we are commanded to spread what we believe. How would anyone else get to hear about it otherwise?

The Crusaders and the Inquisition were fairly high profile. Most people probably got the gist of it without the individual cold-calling.

Not that it bothers me. If I'm in the mood I don't mind talking to Jehova's lot. That little old lady and the creepy kid. They're usually good for a laugh. Not so keen on the Christians. The beatific smile is one thing but the air of pity gets me. I have a wife for that.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think you're wilfully misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think the points I'm making are fairly clear so I'll leave it there :tiphat:

I don't think i am at all. I think you've made yourself very clear.

And you've reiterated it again "we have a duty to share what we believe", and my point is some take that duty more seriously than others.

And what i say to any Christian is "you have I'm sure a very nice toy, I'm glad you enjoy playing with it.....but i don't want to play with your toy, so don't ask me to play with your toy!"

But i'm happy to leave it there. I've made it clear from the outset i'm not after a conversion :lol:

[Letters]

I'm not trying to convert you.
There have been approximately 42,532,980,713 internet arguments about religion and I'm guessing roughly 0 of those have resulted in a conversion.

[LDG]

I'm IN!

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not trying to convert you.
There have been approximately 42,532,980,713 internet arguments about religion and I'm guessing roughly 0 of those have resulted in a conversion.

No, i meant i wasn't trying to convert you

I have to say this is one of those few instances where i'm with NQ, If i'm in the right mood it can be very amusing to chat to religious recruiters.

[Letters]

Oh I see :lol:

I can't be doing with JWs. I guess their heart is in the right place but I don't think their brain is.

[Letters]

I'm IN!

Yay! Your welcome pack and the secret part of the Bible we don't show to that lot will be in the post :tiphat:

[LDG]

Yay! Your welcome pack and the secret part of the Bible we don't show to that lot will be in the post :tiphat:

There's a twist? :o

It better be as good as Shawshank or Usual Suspects or I'm sending it back :sulk:

[Letters]

It's worthy of M. Night Shyamalan.

Unfortunately the one from "The Happening", rather than "The Sixth Sense" :(

[Niall_Quinn]

It's worthy of M. Night Shyamalan.

Unfortunately the one from "The Happening", rather than "The Sixth Sense" :(

I'd skip straight to the communion wine or else you'll lose the sale.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's worthy of M. Night Shyamalan.

Unfortunately the one from "The Happening", rather than "The Sixth Sense" :(

I love the Happening, in the same way I love Tommy Wiseau's "The Room"

It's just absolutely delightful nonsense.

[Letters]

The Happening is bloody awful! Oh noes. Grass! :lol:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The Happening is bloody awful! Oh noes. Grass! :lol:

Of course it's awful, it's utterly non sensical, the acting is a travesty and the characters are unlikeable

But come on....a man commiting suicide by allowing his lawnmower to roll over him....what's not to love.

[Letters]

:lol: I suppose you have a point there.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Watched the first couple of episodes last night.

Are you mocking me, by any chance?

What I can't figure out is if it's fictional or a fly on the wall documentary.

I'm not. Seriously.

Season 2 onwards is where it really picks up. Season 1 isn't Blackadder bad, but it is easy to see where it would lose viewers.

[LDG]

I'm not. Seriously.

Season 2 onwards is where it really picks up. Season 1 isn't Blackadder bad, but it is easy to see where it would lose viewers.

One of the best shows around.

Got 'em all on DVD it was that good.

Ron is my all time hero.

[LDG]

Tickets for the Stoke match booked.

GW meet ## :beer:

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not. Seriously.

Season 2 onwards is where it really picks up. Season 1 isn't Blackadder bad, but it is easy to see where it would lose viewers.

Trouble is I don't have a huge amount of time right now to watch anything so when I do get the chance I'm kind of fussy. This was okay and I'll probably dig into it when I have more free time, but I'm also watching Luke Cage at the moment so that took preference.

Besides, Letters keeps us up to date on what he's doing at "work" so we have our very own series running here.

[fakeyank]

Tickets for the Stoke match booked.

GW meet ## :beer:

See ya there mate! :tiphat:

[Goonermerree]

Is Hilary @@@@@ with this FBI investigation?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Is Hilary @@@@@ with this FBI investigation?

Depends, it's very unlikely that much further information is going to come out before the election

It can't be good for her, and I have almost no sympathy for her she is unfit to be president. The problem is the guy running against her is totally unstable mentally and seems to have the impulse control of a three year old.

It's a choice between someone who in all likelihood has abused their position, and someone will almost certainly will.

[Goonermerree]

Well if Trump gets in, hold on to your hats and prepare for the white knuckle ride of a Trump Presidency.

[LDG]

See ya there mate! :tiphat:

Ha ha ha.

No.

[Niall_Quinn]

Is Hilary @@@@@ with this FBI investigation?

She still has that degenerate Obama to bail her out should law and order prevail, but in terms of her election chances you would think yeah, being investigated by the FBI is sort of, kinda, maybe grounds for disqualification. But there are a very large number of stupid women and stupid blacks in the US.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

She still has that degenerate Obama to bail her out should law and order prevail, but in terms of her election chances you would think yeah, being investigated by the FBI is sort of, kinda, maybe grounds for disqualification. But there are a very large number of stupid women and stupid blacks in the US.

The point is clearly who she is running against, she'd have no chance of winning if the republicans had fronted a sensible person but they didn't. And there is no point clinging on to some idea that certain demographics are stupid because they don't want an actual degenerate in the White House rather than someone who for some reason best known only to yourself seems to deserve that description who occupies it currently.

Although frankly at this stage if I was an American, I'd actually consider now voting for Gary Johnson

[Niall_Quinn]

The point is clearly who she is running against, she'd have no chance of winning if the republicans had fronted a sensible person but they didn't. And there is no point clinging on to some idea that certain demographics are stupid because they don't want an actual degenerate in the White House rather than someone who for some reason best known only to yourself seems to deserve that description who occupies it currently.

Although frankly at this stage if I was an American, I'd actually consider now voting for Gary Johnson

Stein is actually very good. Don't agree with most of her policies but she seems at least partially honest.

This isn't about Trump. He's just the front man for a competing cartel to the Clinton/ Bush gang. The problem here is not Trump, it's the FBI. The rank and file was approaching full revolt following the Clinton whitewash. The Secret Service hates her. The army hates her. Her own party is leaking from the inside, hence the bizarre stories about Russians under the bed. This isn't about the stage actors, it's about the power struggle between two factions who will walk in behind the puppets.

[Goonermerree]

She still has that degenerate Obama to bail her out should law and order prevail, but in terms of her election chances you would think yeah, being investigated by the FBI is sort of, kinda, maybe grounds for disqualification. But there are a very large number of stupid women and stupid blacks in the US.

Yeah 'stupid women and stupid blacks' voting Clinton and stupid men voting Trump, one hell of a battle.

[Letters]

Tickets for the Stoke match booked.

GW meet ## :beer:

When is it, he says, not arsed to look it up.

[Letters]

It's a choice between someone who in all likelihood has abused their position, and someone will almost certainly will.

That is a depressingly accurate way of putting it.
This is such a depressing election.
The level of debate has been worse than on here. Almost.

[Letters]

Besides, Letters keeps us up to date on what he's doing at "work" so we have our very own series running here.

Oh hai :tiphat:

Well, since you ask I've spent today testing the mobile app on a test day. Went well, thanks for asking.
Next task is to see if I can find somewhere to watch the game or possibly go for a swim.
Tomorrow we might be going to an elephant orphanage :d


No need to thank me :cool:

[Kano]

That is a depressingly accurate way of putting it.
This is such a depressing election.
The level of debate has been worse than on here. Almost.

Anthony Weiner being implicated in it now, after the shambles he made of his career.

If you haven't seen the doc about his shenanigans, it's definitely worth seeing. Face-palming stuff.

[LDG]

When is it, he says, not arsed to look it up.

10f Dec

[adzzzbatch]

Oh I almost forgot it's that time of the year when LDG, cheats time on Sunday and gets an extra hour on Monday. :p

[Letters]

10f Dec

Hmm. MrsL will be working so should be able to make it :tiphat:

[LDG]

Oh I almost forgot it's that time of the year when LDG, cheats time on Sunday and gets an extra hour on Monday. :p

With two kids under three, I must say, I cannot do this anymore. I'm just up at 4am rather than 5am.



:crying:

[Goonermerree]

Only in America! A Hobson's choice of candidates. One a pervert, the other under email scrutiny. Eleven days before the official election the FBI brings out something that is sure to hit Cllinton's cause. So Trump could get in, god help us all. (I think Clinton has more experience to give her a chance of running the country better than Trump). It could turn out to be nothing, in which case they've hampered her cause for nothing. She might get in and she has done something illegal, so now what?

Not only that, a few million have already voted without prior knowledge of the latest scandal. Does their vote still stand?They might have changed their minds now. It's crazy! The FBI should make a quick investigation and act upon it appropriately. If she has done something wrong, then surely the Democrats should be able to pick another candidate, it's unhealthy that a candidate should win by default and sets a bad precedent.

[Letters]

The whole thing is a complete car crash.

:ilt:

[Niall_Quinn]

Only in America! A Hobson's choice of candidates. One a pervert, the other under email scrutiny. Eleven days before the official election the FBI brings out something that is sure to hit Cllinton's cause. So Trump could get in, god help us all. (I think Clinton has more experience to give her a chance of running the country better than Trump). It could turn out to be nothing, in which case they've hampered her cause for nothing. She might get in and she has done something illegal, so now what?

Not only that, a few million have already voted without prior knowledge of the latest scandal. Does their vote still stand?They might have changed their minds now. It's crazy! The FBI should make a quick investigation and act upon it appropriately. If she has done something wrong, then surely the Democrats should be able to pick another candidate, it's unhealthy that a candidate should win by default and sets a bad precedent.

Anyone who has already voted for Clinton is either wilfully ignorant of the facts or wouldn't be swayed by them in any case, so the FBI revolt won't have changed things to any significant degree. Watching interviews with prospective Clinton voters, it seems they won't be paying any attention to the facts or the suitability of the candidate either so again the FBI revolt won't have an impact on the numbers. Where it will have an impact is with senators and members of congress looking to get back to the trough. They might well start focusing on their own nest rather than crowing behind what looked to be an unstoppable mainstream effort to usher Clinton into power. If she loses that support then she'll have to campaign into the final couple of weeks without her extensive support network and she barely has the stamina to do one event per day at the moment.

What Americans and everyone else should be thankful for is confirmation there are still good people at the FBI. The agents and officials on the ground and in the lower tiers who simply refused to stand for the obvious corruption in the Justice Department and stood up and forced the unfortunate Comey to do the right thing. Now he won't be able to save himself come what may. But if he'd have done the right thing in the first place and refused to bow to Clinton's corrupt lackeys he'd be bulletproof. It was too blatant a whitewash, too outrageous a demonstration of the two tier system to ever stand for long. It was the out of control arrogance of power that was his downfall. He thought he was untouchable. Well now he's been touched.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Anyone who has already voted for Clinton is either wilfully ignorant of the facts or wouldn't be swayed by them in any case, so the FBI revolt won't have changed things to any significant degree. Watching interviews with prospective Clinton voters, it seems they won't be paying any attention to the facts or the suitability of the candidate either so again the FBI revolt won't have an impact on the numbers. Where it will have an impact is with senators and members of congress looking to get back to the trough. They might well start focusing on their own nest rather than crowing behind what looked to be an unstoppable mainstream effort to usher Clinton into power. If she loses that support then she'll have to campaign into the final couple of weeks without her extensive support network and she barely has the stamina to do one event per day at the moment.

What Americans and everyone else should be thankful for is confirmation there are still good people at the FBI. The agents and officials on the ground and in the lower tiers who simply refused to stand for the obvious corruption in the Justice Department and stood up and forced the unfortunate Comey to do the right thing. Now he won't be able to save himself come what may. But if he'd have done the right thing in the first place and refused to bow to Clinton's corrupt lackeys he'd be bulletproof. It was too blatant a whitewash, too outrageous a demonstration of the two tier system to ever stand for long. It was the out of control arrogance of power that was his downfall. He thought he was untouchable. Well now he's been touched.

I think people know exactly what Clinton is about, this accounts for what is likely to be a low turnout.....they are likely to vote for her because she isn't Trump. You make the assumption that people would vote for him as the lesser of two evils if they knew everything about Clinton, i think most Americans know more about her than any other politician in the country.

End of the day until Comey actually produces something to suggest that going to congress and saying the FBI are re-opening the investigation was necessitated, he's going to be under pressure.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think people know exactly what Clinton is about, this accounts for what is likely to be a low turnout.....they are likely to vote for her because she isn't Trump. You make the assumption that people would vote for him as the lesser of two evils if they knew everything about Clinton, i think most Americans know more about her than any other politician in the country.

End of the day until Comey actually produces something to suggest that going to congress and saying the FBI are re-opening the investigation was necessitated, he's going to be under pressure.

Where do you get any assumption from what I've said regarding Trump? I haven't mentioned him. I was talking about senate and house races and incumbents and prospects previously being able to ride on what the media was setting up as a landslide. The talk had started about the momentum delivering the senate and the house.

[Niall_Quinn]

The whole thing is a complete car crash.

:ilt:

How so? What is different this time than any other time? There has been a stream of crooks in office and running for office. Decent people can't get near the ticket even when they have majority support. It has always been like that. So what makes this latest farce a car crash compared to the elections that have gone before?

[Letters]

How so? What is different this time than any other time? There has been a stream of crooks in office and running for office. Decent people can't get near the ticket even when they have majority support. It has always been like that. So what makes this latest farce a car crash compared to the elections that have gone before?

I'm not sure there's been an election before which has been quite so riddled with scandals and with such a poor quality of debate or where both candidates seem so deeply unpopular. Each candidate has a core of support of course but most seem to be voting for one mostly because they're not the other one. It feels worse than other elections and most Americans I've spoken to seem somewhat depressed at the options before them.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not sure there's been an election before which has been quite so riddled with scandals and with such a poor quality of debate or where both candidates seem so deeply unpopular. Each candidate has a core of support of course but most seem to be voting for one mostly because they're not the other one. It feels worse than other elections and most Americans I've spoken to seem somewhat depressed at the options before them.

I remind you that George W Bush not only ran for the office but actually was elected president. That man couldn't string a sentence together and is the son of one of the biggest crooks in the history of American politics and the grandson of a man who's company was sanctioned for trading with Adolf Hitler during WWII. Hard to imagine how it's possible to reach a lower point in political history. Maybe the Roman emperor's horse being elected as a senator, though even then it was the entire horse that was elected rather than the horse's arse.

The media has a nasty habit of telling us that everything happening today is a new landmark high or low and lots of people have a habit of buying it. The genuinely remarkable aspects of this election don't get much of a mention, such as the unholy alliance between the Bush and Clinton gangs. Supposedly Democrat and Republican adversaries but now aligned behind the status quo. I guess the Bush mob has the hump over Jeb boy (the retard of the family, relatively peaking of course) being denied his turn. They even had to call Billy boy off the bench years early and now he might not get a go either, unless people have particularly short memories (which they do).

Nothing particularly strange about this election. Crooks and liars jostling for positions. Same as every other election.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I remind you that George W Bush not only ran for the office but actually was elected president. That man couldn't string a sentence together and is the son of one of the biggest crooks in the history of American politics and the grandson of a man who's company was sanctioned for trading with Adolf Hitler during WWII. Hard to imagine how it's possible to reach a lower point in political history. Maybe the Roman emperor's horse being elected as a senator, though even then it was the entire horse that was elected rather than the horse's arse.

The media has a nasty habit of telling us that everything happening today is a new landmark high or low and lots of people have a habit of buying it. The genuinely remarkable aspects of this election don't get much of a mention, such as the unholy alliance between the Bush and Clinton gangs. Supposedly Democrat and Republican adversaries but now aligned behind the status quo. I guess the Bush mob has the hump over Jeb boy (the retard of the family, relatively peaking of course) being denied his turn. They even had to call Billy boy off the bench years early and now he might not get a go either, unless people have particularly short memories (which they do).

Nothing particularly strange about this election. Crooks and liars jostling for positions. Same as every other election.

I remember when Bush ran and there is no comparison between then and now, he didn't come across as particurlarly insightful or articulate but in terms of his stated policy aims, he came across as a wonk in comparison to Trump. No one was calling Bush a bigot prior to polling day (when Jeb and Katherine Harris massively suppressed the black vote), his support amongst latinos was always consistently high.

In the debates between the two candidates, Bush at times actually outperformed Gore and looked more professional.....no comparison to Trump whose idea of debate is "No you're stupid"

In terms of dimwits running for office this isn't a high water mark i'd agree, Quayle was Bush Snr's running mate and Palin was John McCain's.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, well after her remarkable performance in the election she was at least intelligence enough to privately admit to herself she was too stupid to run for high office, she never ran since then because she knew she wouldn't be able to cope with the exposure.
You say it doesn't matter because Trump will just be a puppet for other people the same way Clinton is, but this guy is far too volatile and unpredictable to be anyone's puppet

[Goonermerree]

In 2004 John Kerry went up against Bush. The advertisements of the day showed Kerry to be a liar for getting a purple heart and Bush to be a hero. The total opposite was true, but hey don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Two, three months later, the body bags coming back from Iraq were banned from being shown on TV. The public, in part, had turned against Bush, too late he had four more years.

I couldn't give a flying whotsit who wins this election in one way but he FBI need to put up or shut up, and in the next few days.

[Niall_Quinn]

In 2004 John Kerry went up against Bush. The advertisements of the day showed Kerry to be a liar for getting a purple heart and Bush to be a hero. The total opposite was true, but hey don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Two, three months later, the body bags coming back from Iraq were banned from being shown on TV. The public, in part, had turned against Bush, too late he had four more years.

I couldn't give a flying whotsit who wins this election in one way but he FBI need to put up or shut up, and in the next few days.

The FBI HAS put up, that's the point.

On RealClearPolitics, not my choice as an unbiased source, but nevertheless the source used by the political establishment to gauge and track opinion and a clear demonstration that this has broken into the mainstream:


LARRY KUDLOW: To Andrea's point, I agree with the first part. But what I'm hearing from everybody, I mean, I have some sources in the F.B.I. and the former district attorney's. The F.B.I. is in full revolt right now. The F.B.I. has been in full revolt since the decisions made last summer.

CHUCK TODD: Not full revolt. There's been a lot. I mean it's--there are agents--Let's not say full revolt.

KUDLOW: All right, a semi-full revolt. Because what I'm getting at is if Comey hadn't said what he said to Congress and the rest of the world, it would have leaked. It would have leaked. That whole building was ready to leak that they had discovered this new source with Weiner and Abedin. So, I don't think Comey had much chance here. And I think the F.B.I. is badly divided.

CNN, entirely in the pocket of the establishment until this point but now apparently in fear of losing the protection a Clinton presidency would afford them and a public backlash for their extreme bias, has obtained and broadcast Comey's internal memo (I can find the video link if need be) circulated to all FBI staff and agents in which he offers an olive branch and explanation in the hope of stemming the rising tide against him and the corrupt Justice Department. Lackey Loretta Lynch has been sidelined having compromised herself so openly.

Whether this will be enough to save Comey's arse (doubtful) and deflect attention from the Clinton gang's blatant criminal activity it's hard to say. Wikileaks outed that degenerate Obama as being up to his neck in this. Even if the rank and file FBI want that scumbag to pay a price too I doubt they'll push that far. They'll probably settle for that horrible little deviant Weiner as the fall guy so a line can be drawn here. Provided the criminal Clinton walks away and gives up her pursuit of the Whitehouse. Either way the criminal Clinton will avoid indictment because the degenerate Obama will pardon her if it comes to that.

And all of this without anyone really digging into WHY Obama and the Clinton gang were offloading state secrets to a private server. That's the REAL question which so far the mainstream and the politicos have managed to prevent the electorate from asking.

But at the very least we have seen there are still members of law enforcement who will fight for the law even if they have to go up against presidents and prospective presidents. And that's a very good thing that hasn't been emphasised enough. I would hope we have the same situation in the UK but following Blair I see no signs of it.

[Niall_Quinn]

Incidentally, the SAME situation exists within the Secret Service (red hot anti-Clinton) and the Army to a lesser degree. Elements in both organisation have pledged to never allow another Clinton presidency and have said they have plenty of information to leak too.

[Niall_Quinn]

I remember when Bush ran and there is no comparison between then and now, he didn't come across as particurlarly insightful or articulate but in terms of his stated policy aims, he came across as a wonk in comparison to Trump. No one was calling Bush a bigot prior to polling day (when Jeb and Katherine Harris massively suppressed the black vote), his support amongst latinos was always consistently high.

In the debates between the two candidates, Bush at times actually outperformed Gore and looked more professional.....no comparison to Trump whose idea of debate is "No you're stupid"

In terms of dimwits running for office this isn't a high water mark i'd agree, Quayle was Bush Snr's running mate and Palin was John McCain's.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, well after her remarkable performance in the election she was at least intelligence enough to privately admit to herself she was too stupid to run for high office, she never ran since then because she knew she wouldn't be able to cope with the exposure.
You say it doesn't matter because Trump will just be a puppet for other people the same way Clinton is, but this guy is far too volatile and unpredictable to be anyone's puppet

All you are saying here is the perception has slipped. But behind the perception has always (almost always) been criminal scum of the worst order. Trump isn't part of that highly polished clan so he doesn't have the vocab down yet. He's learning quick enough though. And he's been dancing since day one - don't you see him hopping from state to state doing the presidential thing? He's not orchestrating that off his own back. I think the complacent and arrogant Europhile/ Remainers here in the UK and their yawn/ puke inducing counterparts in the USA have fallen into a trap of believing the average guy on the street is 100% stupid. They have mistaken uniformed for stupid. Yes, almost 100% uninformed, but people can still smell the bullshit even if they can't see the source. Candidates like Farage and Trump are designed to appeal, calm and ultimately hand the pissed off, growing constituency back into the programme. We haven't nearly reached the stage yet where we have candidates that could influence anything.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Wikileaks outed that degenerate Obama as being up to his neck in this.

It's interesting that you believe Wikileaks actually as a credible/reliable source of information.

A man hiding from answering questions about allegations of sexual assault, because he claims if he was extradited to Sweden it would fast track his extradition to the United States (it wouldn't of course, but there we go).

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

All you are saying here is the perception has slipped. But behind the perception has always (almost always) been criminal scum of the worst order. Trump isn't part of that highly polished clan so he doesn't have the vocab down yet. He's learning quick enough though. And he's been dancing since day one - don't you see him hopping from state to state doing the presidential thing? He's not orchestrating that off his own back. I think the complacent and arrogant Europhile/ Remainers here in the UK and their yawn/ puke inducing counterparts in the USA have fallen into a trap of believing the average guy on the street is 100% stupid. They have mistaken uniformed for stupid. Yes, almost 100% uninformed, but people can still smell the bullshit even if they can't see the source. Candidates like Farage and Trump are designed to appeal, calm and ultimately hand the pissed off, growing constituency back into the programme. We haven't nearly reached the stage yet where we have candidates that could influence anything.

So because Trump a man of 69 talks like an actual imbecile it shows his integrity as someone not yet tarnished by political double speak

Well first off, his simpleton rhetoric is an act because actually even though not especially smart, watch any interview with him in the 1980s and he is far more coherent and articulate.

You can push the anti statist envelope as much as you like, and claim that no president has any real power. But the guy is unhinged enough to be dangerous with any kind of political power, I don't think even Farage would be lacking in conscience enough to stir up his followers into committing acts of violence against other people, and in that sense Trump is dangerous even if he doesn't win.

Clinton is a total establishment shill and it's only her money and influence over the DNC that made her the nominee, but and you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this there are far worse things to be.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's interesting that you believe Wikileaks actually as a credible/reliable source of information.

A man hiding from answering questions about allegations of sexual assault, because he claims if he was extradited to Sweden it would fast track his extradition to the United States (it wouldn't of course, but there we go).

???

Wikileaks is a conduit for whistleblowers. The sources you are doubting are the personal documents and emails of companies and individuals - they aren't media pieces or pundit opinions or other such mainstream or Internet bullshit. What is it you don't "believe" about the documents presented? And what on earth does Assange's personal life have to do with it?

[Niall_Quinn]

So because Trump a man of 69 talks like an actual imbecile it shows his integrity as someone not yet tarnished by political double speak

Well first off, his simpleton rhetoric is an act because actually even though not especially smart, watch any interview with him in the 1980s and he is far more coherent and articulate.

You can push the anti statist envelope as much as you like, and claim that no president has any real power. But the guy is unhinged enough to be dangerous with any kind of political power, I don't think even Farage would be lacking in conscience enough to stir up his followers into committing acts of violence against other people, and in that sense Trump is dangerous even if he doesn't win.

Clinton is a total establishment shill and it's only her money and influence over the DNC that made her the nominee, but and you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this there are far worse things to be.

???

Holy hell, where did I say Trump has integrity? What's up with you?

And I didn't say anything about presence or absence of the state either. I said the antics of the establishment have been noted by a growing number of voters and particularly those who are inclined to protest about it, or at least disengage from it. John and Jane, the educated ignoramuses from the cuddly status quo are not in the massive majority any longer. So of course the political landscape will be adjusted to reflect this. Hence the likes of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

As for Trump's prospective power should he win, why will his situation be different from that of any president before him? It will be up to the Congress and their paymasters as to what gets enacted and what gets blocked. At best Trump could issue a string of vetoes but he'll do what every presidents has done, trade for a legacy. Is this not how you think the system works? Do you think the president sits there and dishes out orders and everyone jumps to it?

[GP]

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--As2rKmGc--/t_Preview/b_rgb:36538b,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1464730894/production/designs/529596_1.jpg

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

???

Wikileaks is a conduit for whistleblowers. The sources you are doubting are the personal documents and emails of companies and individuals - they aren't media pieces or pundit opinions or other such mainstream or Internet bullshit. What is it you don't "believe" about the documents presented? And what on earth does Assange's personal life have to do with it?

It's about the selective nature of what information is released and who some of the information is released to, it's not all just posted on the wiki leaks site. A lot of it is cherry picked and used to promote an agenda, both for Assange and for those he gives information to.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

???

Holy hell, where did I say Trump has integrity? What's up with you?

And I didn't say anything about presence or absence of the state either. I said the antics of the establishment have been noted by a growing number of voters and particularly those who are inclined to protest about it, or at least disengage from it. John and Jane, the educated ignoramuses from the cuddly status quo are not in the massive majority any longer. So of course the political landscape will be adjusted to reflect this. Hence the likes of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

As for Trump's prospective power should he win, why will his situation be different from that of any president before him? It will be up to the Congress and their paymasters as to what gets enacted and what gets blocked. At best Trump could issue a string of vetoes but he'll do what every presidents has done, trade for a legacy. Is this not how you think the system works? Do you think the president sits there and dishes out orders and everyone jumps to it?

1) if Trump wins than almost certainly congress will almost certainly be Republican held (the coat tail effect) so on many instances they will go along with a lot of his program. In fact a lot of GOP congressmen and senators have said they are worried about more actively denouncing Trump because they are in states where his supporters have been so wound up they could turn violent.

2) Actually it is the president that has ultimate authority with certain actions, if he takes the country to war he has to go through congress but one off military strikes, even nuclear he can invoke executive action. He can impose martial law and crackdown on civil liberties without having to produce a bill to sign it into law, he can just justify himself by saying the situation warrants it.

[adzzzbatch]

https://i.imgflip.com/v59i9.jpg

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

cleaner who i used to speak to whilst outside smoking has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, that's a bit sobering.

[Letters]

Sorry to hear that.

They really should put warnings on the packs or something.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

oh don't get me started on that, this whole nanny state approach with selling cigarettes behind screen doors, plain packaging, selling packs of 20 because it will cost you more if you want to smoke any amount.

It really isn't a deterrent if people want to smoke,

don't get me wrong....this woman wasn't a victim. She is reaping what she sowed from a lifestyle she chose and knew the risks of.....so these warnings are just an utter waste of time.

[Letters]

It's not a deterrent if people really want to smoke, no, but smoking rates have gone down since these things were introduced (he says, having not checked the stats, but I'm pretty sure that's right).

Smoking is a bit of a weird anomaly in the sense that were it invented now it would probably be made illegal.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Tobacco was discovered not invented but i get what you're saying, but again i think outlawing substances (alcohol, drugs) has only ever led to vast money being spent on battling the illegal trafficking of substances.

Is the only reason you don't do Heroin is because it's illegal?.....No you wouldn't i suspect inject it into your veins even if he was something you could buy from a supermarket.

People go on about the binge drinking mentality in this country, and it is a mentality. So many other countries where alcohol is as freely available as it is in the UK don't have this mentality. And actually a form of de-regulation has in this instance been more successful in tackling it, by allowing bars to stay open longer people aren't inclined to drink more in a shorter period.

Lot of conversations on here about the practicalities of libertarianism in practice, and I think in theory anyway most of us are libertarian about certain things. And i don't see the point of trying to govern what people put into their bodies......the amount of money that goes into enforcing it and the only people that benefit are the dealers and suppliers who make loads of money by taking the risk.

The war on drugs has failed, and it will always fail.

[GP]

You should vape. People who vape look really cool.

[Letters]

The war on drugs has failed, and it will always fail.
I agree but I'm not sure that means they should abandon it and let people go nuts and do what they like (shall we play 'let's guess what NQ thinks about this?' :lol:)

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No they don't, and i own a vape pipe....just can't get on with it

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I agree but I'm not sure that means they should abandon it and let people go nuts and do what they like (shall we play 'let's guess what NQ thinks about this?' :lol:)

As i've said, this is one of those instances where i actually agree with him. It's not a question of letting people go nuts, it's a question of realising that we have no power to stop people doing drugs if they really want to do it. It's not going to create a free for all, because people as i say aren't suddenly going to start taking drugs because they are no longer illegal.

You are in fact going to get less drug dealers and less drug related crime because people find it harder to make a profit off a legal available substance.

Basically it's the same as previous laws about sexuality, the government is providing moral commentary on your personal/private choices, and unless those choices have a deliberate adverse effect on others it has no business to intervene or enforce.

[Letters]

I'm not sure that "people are going to do it anyway" is an argument, you could apply that to anything.
It's not going to create a free for all I agree, and it would solve a lot of problems with drug cartels etc, but it reckon it would significantly increase usage and there would be consequences to that, it's not a crime where only the user suffers although I guess some of that is because of the extortionate price and that problem would potentially be solved by legalisation.
I don't think anyone would get elected on a ticket of legalisation across the board which makes me think most people don't think there should be blanket legalisation.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not sure that "people are going to do it anyway" is an argument, you could apply that to anything.
It's not going to create a free for all I agree, and it would solve a lot of problems with drug cartels etc, but it reckon it would significantly increase usage and there would be consequences to that, it's not a crime where only the user suffers although I guess some of that is because of the extortionate price and that problem would potentially be solved by legalisation.
I don't think anyone would get elected on a ticket of legalisation across the board which makes me think most people don't think there should be blanket legalisation.

That's often the problem, people run on platforms of what they think will sell to the electorate rather than what they think are good ideas. In that respect i do understand why Jeremy Corbyn appeals to people, i just think a lot of his ideas are just awful (not all some of them do have merit and a more competent politician could make the sell where he couldn't). A good politician can sell good ideas to an otherwise skeptical public.


I don't see the evidence to suggest that it would increase usage, like I say can you really think of anyone who thinks "i'd love to inject Heroin into my veins but don't want to get into trouble?". Crime occurs with harder drugs because people are committing crime in order to afford the price of the drugs because availability is at a premium.

In Afghanistan an opium field that was controlled by the Taleban was torched.....why?. I'll tell you why, because you have a ready supply of opiate substances to harvest and provide hospitals with morphine and other pain killers....but that might undercut the drugs companies and that couldn't be allowed.

The worst thing that could ever happen to murderous Drug Barons is that their product be made legal, it would drive them out of business.

[Letters]

Interesting...

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.y63N0Pqn4

[Marc Overmars]

Anyone been to Edinburgh before and is it any good?

[Niall_Quinn]

Anyone been to Edinburgh before and is it any good?

Good at what?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Anyone been to Edinburgh before and is it any good?

Yes and Yes

[Letters]

Yes and Yes

What he said :good:

[Marc Overmars]

Booked a short trip for the missus' birthday.

Not bloody cheap that's for sure. Looks pretty cool though, guessing it will be nice with the Christmas markets around at the end of the month.

[adzzzbatch]

It's a really lovely city. :good:

Visit Frankenstein's, it's a pretty cool bar, or was last time I went.

The Zoo is worth a visit and so is walking up Calton Hill. Also Arthur's Seat is nice spot for a view of the city.

[Kano]

As my family in Glasgow would say "it's just a big fucking castle"

[Letters]

Agree about the zoo. And of course the castle. Pandas :bow:

[Nozza!]

Oi, McGeezer, it's full of tourists, but if you want to blend in just say how much you admire the trams and aren't they wonderful value for money...

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

As my family in Glasgow would say "it's just a big fucking castle"

Don't be silly

Glasweigans can't speak English

[Letters]

Nozza! :bow:

[Kano]

Don't be silly

Glasweigans can't speak English

True but what about Glaswegians?

[Goonermerree]

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.

Stalemate! Those wanting to remain will not want the Government to trigger article 50, how is this going to work. 'Brexit means Brexit!'

[LDG]

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.

Stalemate! Those wanting to remain will not want the Government to trigger article 50, how is this going to work. 'Brexit means Brexit!'

It should be 100% vote "yes", as anything else would be undemocratic, and against the wishes of the people, regardless of what you think of it.

[Kano]

Fuck the people, since when have politicians cared about that?

That said, those pricks in parliament can't be relied on to come to any right decision. They'll bottle it as usual.

[Goonermerree]

It should be 100% vote "yes", as anything else would be undemocratic, and against the wishes of the people, regardless of what you think of it.

I know that and you know that, but they don't know that. Oh, by the way I didn't give an opinion either way!

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

This isn't about reversing Brexit, it's about parliament and not a currently unelected government deciding on when Article 50 can be enacted.

MPs aren't going to try and reverse the result of the referendum no matter their personal feeling as many Remain MPs represent constituencies which were majoratively Leave.

It just forces government to have agreed with parliament a set of proposals to take forward into Brexit negotiations.

[adzzzbatch]

This isn't about reversing Brexit, it's about parliament and not a currently unelected government deciding on when Article 50 can be enacted.

MPs aren't going to try and reverse the result of the referendum no matter their personal feeling as many Remain MPs represent constituencies which were majoratively Leave.

It just forces government to have agreed with parliament a set of proposals to take forward into Brexit negotiations.

But that now means that May and co will actually have to come up with some sort of plan!

[GP]

I hate this country sometimes.

[Niall_Quinn]

We'll need a committee to discuss the appointment of a Brexit committee to decide what scope the Brexit committee should have in deciding what steps will be required to determine a set of tests to determine when it will be right to have hold a vote on whether the original committee had authority to appoint the Brexit committee. If we get that then I'll be satisfied democracy has been served.

[GP]

I'm sure they'll get Letters to write an app for that.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

But that now means that May and co will actually have to come up with some sort of plan!

Or even worse for them, they might have to stick to the pledges they made in their 2015 general election manifesto

[Goonermerree]

One Labour MP, when asked if he would vote to trigger article 50, said he would be voting on behalf of his constituency and for the good of the country, so no, he will not vote to trigger article 50. This is going to be about Britain leaving the EU, because all of the MP's now have a vote on whether article 50 is triggered or not, ergo, same thing.

I used to vote Labour, but all I ever hear them saying is 'what is good for people'. Well, hell, they know better!!!

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

One Labour MP, when asked if he would vote to trigger article 50, said he would be voting on behalf of his constituency and for the good of the country, so no, he will not vote to trigger article 50. This is going to be about Britain leaving the EU, because all of the MP's now have a vote on whether article 50 is triggered or not, ergo, same thing.

I used to vote Labour, but all I ever hear them saying is 'what is good for people'. Well, hell, they know better!!!

Again this Labour MP probably represents a constituency where they voted to Remain

I doubt somehow Labour MPs in the midlands and North will be saying they will be voting in their constituents interests to vote against Article 50, not unless they want to risk losing their seats to UKIP.

Plus it's not a definite one time thing like the referendum, not triggering Article 50 in March which is a ridiculously arbitrary date does not mean not triggering it full stop, it means triggering it when the government comes up with a Cojent plan.

[LDG]

I hate this country sometimes.

:gp:

[Kano]

One Labour MP, when asked if he would vote to trigger article 50, said he would be voting on behalf of his constituency and for the good of the country, so no, he will not vote to trigger article 50. This is going to be about Britain leaving the EU, because all of the MP's now have a vote on whether article 50 is triggered or not, ergo, same thing.

I used to vote Labour, but all I ever hear them saying is 'what is good for people'. Well, hell, they know better!!!

Isn't that what every cunt of a politician says? For a 'fairer and kinder' society :sick:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Like I say the wrong discussion is being had here, ultimately Article 50 vote would pass in the House of Commons

All this talk of defying the will of the people seems overblown, in fact i would go one further and say ok the people wanted us to leave the EU but they should also get a say on the terms of our exit, which should be done by referendum or general election.

[Goonermerree]

Gina Miller, the South American wife of a hedge fund manager, no bias there then and a hairdresser who voted for Brexit, derail Brexit. Blair says there should be a second referendum on Brexit. That's it, keep going until you get the vote you want, democracy rules, if you get what you want, otherwise, keep voting. I know this decision is not to stop Brexit, but it surely will. The pound has rallied since the High Court ruling.

[GP]

Blair is wrong, there shouldn't be a 2nd referendum.


They should just scrap the whole thing.

[Niall_Quinn]

Gina Miller, the South American wife of a hedge fund manager, no bias there then and a hairdresser who voted for Brexit, derail Brexit. Blair says there should be a second referendum on Brexit. That's it, keep going until you get the vote you want, democracy rules, if you get what you want, otherwise, keep voting. I know this decision is not to stop Brexit, but it surely will. The pound has rallied since the High Court ruling.

Mishcon de Reya is representing an "anonymous group of business leaders and academics." They are the outfit who started this nonsense, the go-to guys when democracy delivers the wrong result. In a genuine democracy there would be unabated outrage at their antics. In our democracy it all makes perfect sense. Also makes sense the likes of Blair and Mandelson prefer to remain anonymous. Their reputations precede them.

[Letters]

I'm sure they'll get Letters to write an app for that.

Long as I can go somewhere cool to try it out :cool:
Vietnam seems very nice so far

[Letters]

http://newsthump.com/2016/11/03/we-won-you-lost-get-over-it-brexiters-told-outside-high-court/

Yeah!

[Letters]

"I've got two degrees. I'm highly educated. We're not deplorables like Hillary Clinton thinks we are. [Trump] can be a bit of a loose cannon but I trust what he says, I think he's honest."

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37864490

Americans! :lol:
:ilt:

[Niall_Quinn]

"I've got two degrees. I'm highly educated. We're not deplorables like Hillary Clinton thinks we are. [Trump] can be a bit of a loose cannon but I trust what he says, I think he's honest."

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37864490

Americans! :lol:
:ilt:

???

Not sure at all what point or comment you are trying to make. Are you laughing at all Americans in general because a woman on a plane says she thinks Trump is honest?

[WMUG]

I don't think he's going particularly deep.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Indeed whilst anyone finding Trump trustworthy is laughable it's not necessarily a reflection on all Americans

[Letters]

Indeed whilst anyone finding Trump trustworthy is laughable it's not necessarily a reflection on all Americans

It isn't, it's just comments like that which make me shake my head.
I'm not saying Clinton is honest by the way (although actually if you analyse the things they both say she does on average tell the truth more than Trump who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in his face).
The comments you see from an astonishing number of the electorate show an alarming inability to think logically. I think I related a conversation I had with someone in Washington at the tech conference I was at which went something like:

(preamble about how neither candidate is ideal)
Him: "I can't vote for Clinton though..."
Me: "Why not?"
Him: "She's a liar."
Me: "...Trump is a MASSIVE liar!"
Him: "Well...hasn't affected me"
Me: :blink:

I mean really. What kind of logic is that? How can you criticise candidate A for being a liar when candidate B is objectively an even bigger liar and then dismiss that so glibly.
And this from a coder, someone one would think is conversant in logic and reason.

Makes my head spin sometimes.

[Niall_Quinn]

Indeed whilst anyone finding Trump trustworthy is laughable it's not necessarily a reflection on all Americans

Most words when used in relation to politicians are relative. In politics the word honest means they haven't been caught red-handed, yet. Trustworthy has a new and much broader and more generous definition since Clinton lowered and then buried the bar. So in relative terms, Trump is indeed honest and trustworthy. Even Bush is honest and trustworthy is we apply the new standards.

[Letters]

Well, no. If you look at what they say in, say, the political debates, and analyse whether the things they say are true Trump is demonstrably less truthful than Clinton.
I'm not sure Trump has much of a grip on what the truth actually is.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Most words when used in relation to politicians are relative. In politics the word honest means they haven't been caught red-handed, yet. Trustworthy has a new and much broader and more generous definition since Clinton lowered and then buried the bar. So in relative terms, Trump is indeed honest and trustworthy. Even Bush is honest and trustworthy is we apply the new standards.

You could be right, Trump could be just so ignorant that he doesn't actually know most of what he is saying is a lie

[Goonermerree]

It really beats me how either of them passed the elections to be nominated by their own parties.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's all very relative, Clinton lies about her emails to hide the influence she's tried to wield as Secretary of State in order to get funding for the Clinton Foundation which is 90% charity and 10% goes to her and her husband to enrich themselves. She was unfit to hold that office and is unfit to be president.

Trumps team has similarly deleted thousands of emails to hide his criminal activity in business, where he sustains himself simply by choosing not to pay people for services rendered. Entitled, idiotic thug who since you seem content to mention Bush makes him look scholarly.

The point is if you think Obama has considerably caused harm to the country than you'd have no reason to vote for Clinton, as she is essentially a continuation of him. Whatever I think of Clinton, I think the Americans were better off under Obama than they were Reagan, The Bushes or her Husband and therefore a continuation of that especially compared to the alternative is not the apocalypse.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It really beats me how either of them passed the elections to be nominated by their own parties.

Clinton it's money, with Trump it's just a case of reflecting how far Right wing the GOP has gradually gone in the last thirty years....Trump is very much a product of the Republican party's own making.

[Niall_Quinn]

It isn't, it's just comments like that which make me shake my head.
I'm not saying Clinton is honest by the way (although actually if you analyse the things they both say she does on average tell the truth more than Trump who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in his face).
The comments you see from an astonishing number of the electorate show an alarming inability to think logically. I think I related a conversation I had with someone in Washington at the tech conference I was at which went something like:

(preamble about how neither candidate is ideal)
Him: "I can't vote for Clinton though..."
Me: "Why not?"
Him: "She's a liar."
Me: "...Trump is a MASSIVE liar!"
Him: "Well...hasn't affected me"
Me: :blink:

I mean really. What kind of logic is that? How can you criticise candidate A for being a liar when candidate B is objectively an even bigger liar and then dismiss that so glibly.
And this from a coder, someone one would think is conversant in logic and reason.

Makes my head spin sometimes.

What kind of logic and reason is it to quote the following:


"I've got two degrees. I'm highly educated. We're not deplorables like Hillary Clinton thinks we are. [Trump] can be a bit of a loose cannon but I trust what he says, I think he's honest."

From this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37864490

Then laugh at Americans in general;

When the same article contains the following?


"I think Trump is absolutely awful," she said, "I'm more scared of having him in office, because of how loose of a cannon he is," she told me.


"I don't like either of them. I don't think Trump's got American values or Christian values," she said as she gestured her thumbs down.

The article details a mix of pro-Clinton and pro-Trump prospective voters. Your logic and reason leads you to conclude that Americans are therefore laughable.

You reinforce the idea with your anecdote, which may or may not have happened. You don't seem certain.

Then you berate the possibly real person who makes your head spin given his illogical conclusion that you may, or may not, have put in his real or unreal mouth.

And all the while, the one person displaying the least logic or reason shakes his head in despair at the splinter he finds in other eyes. Plank is the word most apt here.

Besides, what do you actually know about either candidate? You comment:


(although actually if you analyse the things they both say she does on average tell the truth more than Trump who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in his face)

On average? What's the size of your sample data? What sources have you used to reach your conclusion? Over what time span have you measured the behaviour and veracity of both individuals? Logic and reason is what we are discussing here remember? Have you used logic and reason in reaching your conclusions?

I remind you. Your conclusions are:

Americans are laughable.
Clinton tells the truth more times than trump, on average.
Trump doesn't know what the truth is.

Big conclusions. Any methodology backing them up? Or is it all conjecture and regurgitation again?

Leaving Trump aside, because it's doubtful anyone who doesn't know him in person or hasn't followed his career closely or at least read in depth on the bloke would know that much about him, what we most certainly can conclude from the public record stretching back over 30 years is that Hilary Clinton is without doubt the most dishonest individual that has ever run for office in the United States. Hell, she's running for office whilst being investigated by the FBI. Now logically, reasonably, anyone who finds this woman in any way honest or trustworthy or capable of truth is unfamiliar with the facts and therefore incapable of making an informed judgement or, far worse, is ignoring the facts. And yet here we are, discussing Trump's dishonesty and wondering at the ability of Trump supporters to endorse their man.

I think you're right. Plenty of spinning going on here.

[Letters]

:lol: Impressed you took that long to attempt a WUM.
I won't bother replying in kind :tiphat:

[Letters]

But I will just leave this here.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2016/11/leader-donald-trump-unfit-lead

This reflects my feelings totally

And it does not even mention the hypocrisy of him called Hilary Clinton crooked when one considers his own crooked business dealings

[Niall_Quinn]

Clinton it's money, with Trump it's just a case of reflecting how far Right wing the GOP has gradually gone in the last thirty years....Trump is very much a product of the Republican party's own making.

Don't know what you mean by that. Trump is a figurehead for a growing movement of diverse groups and types who are sick to death of being screwed over and dictated to by the two sides of the same political coin. Trump has arrived in the right place at the right time but it could have been plenty of other potential candidates standing there provided they weren't the typical establishment hack. Plenty of people laid the groundwork over the last 8 years. I doubt half of Trump's supporters care much about the policies provided the establishment train is derailed or at least forced to slow. Plus there are powerful forces behind Trump now. The way in which Clinton has been taken out demonstrates there are far bigger punchers backing the trump campaign than the average guy down the street. He's had to face the entire establishment, including his own party, 90% of the media, the hilariously named intelligentsia, the corporate string pullers and the financial muscle of the Clinton machine but he's still come out on top. It's actually a remarkable story, whatever you think about the guy personally. The GOP was beaten down, the media has been destroyed, our chattering betters have been left wearing tin-foil hats as they speak of Russian plots and reds under the beds, the major corporations have kicked, screamed, threatened, but to no avail. The Clinton machine has been annihilated in the most spectacular fashion ever witnessed in American society and there's much more to come should there be any funny business with the election process. People may not like him, but the Trump story is absolutely remarkable for so many reasons. One of the main reasons being it has turned the phoney election process inside-out and smeared the guts across TV screens for public consumption. In this, at least, his campaign has performed a major public service.

[Niall_Quinn]

:lol: Impressed you took that long to attempt a WUM.
I won't bother replying in kind :tiphat:

A WUM? I'm not winding you up. I'm calling you out directly. And as for your "truthometer", well I'll just leave this here for you.

:haha:

As more and more of Clinton's misdeeds are revealed on a daily basis, of course it makes sense for you to run to the political talking points. You are immune to reality. Everything has to be packed and labelled before you can consume it.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2016/11/leader-donald-trump-unfit-lead

This reflects my feelings totally

And it does not even mention the hypocrisy of him called Hilary Clinton crooked when one considers his own crooked business dealings

That appears to be more of a temper tantrum piece than anything. I don't know why a soppy, left-wing rag like the New Statesman is so wound up by this anyway.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'll remember you said that the next time you launch one of your invectives

It's hard to discern what counts as left wing anymore, the editorial of the New Statesman is pretty anti Corbyn but then arguably Corbyn isn't left wing either given his tacit support to the far right in other countries.

It might be an emotional argument but it thinks the guy is despicable on nearly every conceivable level. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't support Clinton (and not really endorsing her now) but considering we've already had Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes it seems hard to make an argument that she represents anything unprecedented. I have no doubt she abused her office and behaved irresponsibly with her emails but an FBI investigation is largely predicated upon whoever the director wants to investigate.....the powers of the director hasn't decreased that much since J Edgar Hoover.

You appear to think Trump will be more benign based on a total blank slate of political experience, when he has run a campaign on promises of authoritarianism. Clinton is so hated she won't be able to as much fart without being scrutinised for it, but someone who is so unpredictable should not be trusted with running a church raffle.
Where as I repeat for all that's wrong with Clinton, it will largely be a continuation of the last eight years and it will be for Americans to decide whether the last eight years were bad enough that they want to entrust their future to a demagogue.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'll remember you said that the next time you launch one of your invectives

It's hard to discern what counts as left wing anymore, the editorial of the New Statesman is pretty anti Corbyn but then arguably Corbyn isn't left wing either given his tacit support to the far right in other countries.

It might be an emotional argument but it thinks the guy is despicable on nearly every conceivable level. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't support Clinton (and not really endorsing her now) but considering we've already had Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes it seems hard to make an argument that she represents anything unprecedented. I have no doubt she abused her office and behaved irresponsibly with her emails but an FBI investigation is largely predicated upon whoever the director wants to investigate.....the powers of the director hasn't decreased that much since J Edgar Hoover.

You appear to think Trump will be more benign based on a total blank slate of political experience, when he has run a campaign on promises of authoritarianism. Clinton is so hated she won't be able to as much fart without being scrutinised for it, but someone who is so unpredictable should not be trusted with running a church raffle.
Where as I repeat for all that's wrong with Clinton, it will largely be a continuation of the last eight years and it will be for Americans to decide whether the last eight years were bad enough that they want to entrust their future to a demagogue.

I don't think much about Trump at all, but I admire his ability to front a counter revolution given he has such limited experience and has been learning on his feet. But mostly I'm pleased to see there are elements who can operate in a very effective manner against the globalist enemy. First the Ron Paul movement, which was like a practise run, now the Trump movement. The leader doesn't really matter (although a Ron Paul/ Dennis Kucinich ticket would have been genuinely worth getting excited about), he's just the guy who is running the counter revolution through official channels in an effort to avoid having to switch to unofficial methods. The degenerate Obama did not manage to crush the 2nd Amendment which is what he was placed in power to achieve. And the criminal Clinton won't be able to do it either. Too many state bodies such as the Secret Service, the Special Forces and most certainly the FBI (and it seems the NSA) are arranged against the globalists now. This battle has already been won. It's up to the looney neoliberals and sub-human globalists to decide if they want to go quietly or make a big deal of it. The question has been reversed, the conditions have been switched. There is fight in America and it's a good thing to see. I hope we have similar balls over here when the time comes.

[Niall_Quinn]

As for the left, well that's still alive and well. I don't mean the fucking turds who have leftists ideals learned from comics but extreme right wing behavioural patterns (such as your typical Labour voter). Oooooh it's bad to be racists, let's bomb the brown people because, well, you know,.. I mean the still significant segment of decent, thinking, compassionate British citizens who understand that capitalism has failed and big government had proven time and again it is not the solution. You talk to these people and they are bright, energetic, fair minded, optimistic and above all else they can see beyond their own personal interests and desires.

[Niall_Quinn]

Saturday on RT, John Pilger interviews Julian Assange. For those interested in finding out what's actually going on then don't miss it. For the rest, the BBC will be running election coverage wall to wall all weekend. Enjoy.

I notice John Pilger is no longer a contributor to the New Statesman. I read through their sorry list of "journalists" and couldn't find a single writer of note. I did find Will Self though. John Pilger is what I would class as a leftist in the true sense. He's dedicated his entire life to the plight of the little guy and he puts his arse on the line to bring the real news from the ground rather than the spun garbage you get treated to in the mainstream. Unsurprisingly Pilger has had a difficult time getting his excellent documentaries out to a wide audience. For a while ITV tolerated the truth. Then Channel 4 dipped its toe. But ultimately the truth would have led these establishment organs to troublesome places so the door was quietly shut. It was probably the collaboration with the New Statesman that was most comprehensive. Happier times when leftists weren't afraid to be politically incorrect or dedicated to a cause that ran contrary to the globalisation bible.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

And I think that's where you and I truly diverge then, because I think Pilger is a waste of space. A man who is willing to pretend and lie about anything that does not fit within his ideological spectrum. This is the man who spent the nineties trying to tell people that the slaughter and rape of Bosnians and Kosovans wasn't happening and it was just a western propoganda to discredit a regime, even though for the most part the western governments themselves turned a blind eye and allowed this mass slaughter to happen.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I don't think much about Trump at all, but I admire his ability to front a counter revolution given he has such limited experience and has been learning on his feet. But mostly I'm pleased to see there are elements who can operate in a very effective manner against the globalist enemy. First the Ron Paul movement, which was like a practise run, now the Trump movement. The leader doesn't really matter (although a Ron Paul/ Dennis Kucinich ticket would have been genuinely worth getting excited about), he's just the guy who is running the counter revolution through official channels in an effort to avoid having to switch to unofficial methods. The degenerate Obama did not manage to crush the 2nd Amendment which is what he was placed in power to achieve. And the criminal Clinton won't be able to do it either. Too many state bodies such as the Secret Service, the Special Forces and most certainly the FBI (and it seems the NSA) are arranged against the globalists now. This battle has already been won. It's up to the looney neoliberals and sub-human globalists to decide if they want to go quietly or make a big deal of it. The question has been reversed, the conditions have been switched. There is fight in America and it's a good thing to see. I hope we have similar balls over here when the time comes.

Except this movement you ascribe to Trump has already long existed before he came about, it's like commending Corbyn for the movement he's created even though like Trump he's the unwitting benefactor of a movement that already existed.

I have said repeatedly that it is not difficult in a period of time where people feel dissatisfied and less in control and anxious, for flim flam merchants like Trump, Farage and Corbyn to succeed.

It's not that the establishment doesn't need taking down, it's that men like that are only interested in channeling that anti establishment sentiments to their own end.

[Niall_Quinn]

And I think that's where you and I truly diverge then, because I think Pilger is a waste of space. A man who is willing to pretend and lie about anything that does not fit within his ideological spectrum. This is the man who spent the nineties trying to tell people that the slaughter and rape of Bosnians and Kosovans wasn't happening and it was just a western propoganda to discredit a regime, even though for the most part the western governments themselves turned a blind eye and allowed this mass slaughter to happen.

You are doing the modern leftist thing. Feigning concern in order to accumulate weight for your follow-up point. Go ahead a provide some evidence that Pilger, "spent the nineties trying to tell people that the slaughter and rape of Bosnians and Kosovans wasn't happening".

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You are doing the modern leftist thing. Feigning concern in order to accumulate weight for your follow-up point. Go ahead a provide some evidence that Pilger, "spent the nineties trying to tell people that the slaughter and rape of Bosnians and Kosovans wasn't happening".

its nothing to do with feigning concern. It's interesting that first of all you would think that any concern for the murder, abuse and subjugation of people in other countries has to be feigned, second of all the point is that Pilger himself is a leftist and has the obscurantist obsession that evil can only ever be perpetrated anywhere in the world by western governments and he is quite adept at denying things happen in order to fit his bias.

Furthermore, as you have plainly spoken of disliking assumptions I've made about you. I would prefer not to be refered to as on the left it's as much of a mischaracterisation as you believe I make of your positions.
I find the left to have a convenient tendency towards moral relativism when it suits them, it makes the same absolutists claims for itself as a strand of thought as the right does.

Plus you would only need to go to Pilgers website to find his claims about Kosovo and other "ethnic cleansing" in the region as a fabrication.

[Niall_Quinn]

its nothing to do with feigning concern. It's interesting that first of all you would think that any concern for the murder, abuse and subjugation of people in other countries has to be feigned, second of all the point is that Pilger himself is a leftist and has the obscurantist obsession that evil can only ever be perpetrated anywhere in the world by western governments and he is quite adept at denying things happen in order to fit his bias.

Furthermore, as you have plainly spoken of disliking assumptions I've made about you. I would prefer not to be refered to as on the left it's as much of a mischaracterisation as you believe I make of your positions.
I find the left to have a convenient tendency towards moral relativism when it suits them, it makes the same absolutists claims for itself as a strand of thought as the right does.

Plus you would only need to go to Pilgers website to find his claims about Kosovo and other "ethnic cleansing" in the region as a fabrication.

Make it easy for me. Just give me a couple of examples. Or one.

[Niall_Quinn]

I already know what Piger's Achilles heel is btw. I picked him up on it. In person.

[Niall_Quinn]

Another notable character is Fisk. Do you have the same attitude towards his brand of, "Here's what I'm standing here watching with my own eyes"?

I hear what you are saying about it being hard to pin down an historic philosophy in the context of modern bastardisation for gain. But in the end, don't you have to fall somewhere if you want to be a participant rather than an observer? There must be something out there that even roughly conforms to your experience and resulting beliefs?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Another notable character is Fisk. Do you have the same attitude towards his brand of, "Here's what I'm standing here watching with my own eyes"?

I hear what you are saying about it being hard to pin down an historic philosophy in the context of modern bastardisation for gain. But in the end, don't you have to fall somewhere if you want to be a participant rather than an observer? There must be something out there that even roughly conforms to your experience and resulting beliefs?

No because that assumes that political opinions must by necessity conform to one ideological strand, it means you strait jacket yourself into thinking there is a simple set of solutions to any eventuality.

For instance (a very glib example) if i see May and Corbyn speak across the dispatch box, apart from thinking they are both pretty awful.....there are things she might say i disagree with and some things she says i might agree with, and it's the same with Corbyn (who on many social/domestic issues i am probably more sympathetic to than you might imagine in how he defines the problem, even if not the solution).

Too many on the left for example believe in no platforming people whose views they find offensive, i think that is a ridiculous thing to do and actually the only speech i can possibly think of that should be censored is that which directly calls for violence. Trump came close to it by insinuating that a second amendment solution might be found to deal with Clinton however he didn't directly state it he just weasled his way around it. And believe me if Trump wins next week and anyone should advocate such measures against him, i'd be equally contemptuous of that individual.

In our discussions i have stated that in terms of people's private lives the state should not intefere with that which does not cause suffering to anyone but the party themselves, and when i say others i do mean people and animals. Things like the marriage equality laws, two consenting adults can marry if they want to but equally i think people have the right not to perform the ceremony, if a church believes marriage is between a man and a woman than the church should not be forced to marry those people (although at the same time i would like all these religions to lose their tax exempt status which they've enjoyed too long).

I discussed with Letters last week and told him i thought all narcotic use should be legalised as it's totally impractical to police it, and all substance prohibition does is lead to organised crime. If this or alcohol abuse provides too much of a drain on the health service these people can be denied free acesss to it if they persistently refuse to engage with withdrawal treatment.

So in the social sense i am perhaps more sympathetic to the libertarian point of view than you'd imagine because i think both the left and the right wing seem far too much to want to "do things to people" in terms of governing behavior.

I have probably more time for Fisk than I do Pilger even if i don't necessarily agree with him on everything, and there is little to object to in his assertion that all authority must be challenged.

[Blink 1nce Quince 2wice]

What's Wilson Fisk got to do with this?

[GP]

http://flyingoperapigs.com/

[WMUG]

http://flyingoperapigs.com/

:gp:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What's Wilson Fisk got to do with this?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HhYQadlZQs8/hqdefault.jpg

[Letters]

A WUM? I'm not winding you up. I'm calling you out directly. And as for your "truthometer", well I'll just leave this here for you.

:haha:

As more and more of Clinton's misdeeds are revealed on a daily basis, of course it makes sense for you to run to the political talking points. You are immune to reality. Everything has to be packed and labelled before you can consume it.

*sigh*

To respond to some of your nonsense above...

You know that laughing at Americans in general was a joke, a form of joke which has been posted a million times on here before. And you know that I'm not uncertain about whether my conversation with the American happened, it was clear from the above that my uncertainty was whether I'd related it on here before. The 'something like' was merely because it may not have been exactly word for word like that but it was very close.
You're presenting a complete straw man argument about me as usual. You're either on the wind up or you're stupid, I can't tell which any more.

You ask what data I have to show that Trump is a bigger liar than Clinton. I don't quite know why you bothered to ask because you will obviously dismiss anything I produce but fine, I show a source which demonstrates it clearly and your wearingly predictable response is laughter and derision. It's your classic conspiracy theory mentality. Dismiss any source which shows you to be wrong. But, of course, you provide no explanation of why you think that source unreliable, no other source showing a different view. Nothing. You accuse me of regurgitation as though your thoughts about this are entirely your own and not based on your own reading which is obviously bollocks. You don't know either candidate personally either so your opinions come from what you've seen and read too.

And I'm not saying Clinton is squeaky clean by any means. But I do think she at least has some grip on reality, I don't think Trump does. The infamous wall clearly won't happen, Mexico clearly won't pay. He says he'll reduce the deficit and lower taxes with no explanation as to how. The level of debate in this race has been "You're a puppet", "No, you're the puppet". It's pathetic.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Weekend working when the North London Derby is on at 12:00 on a Sunday....typical

Well got in today, and there was a fire in my office block. Well I say fire, a light went and a small plume of smoke set off the fire alarms and caused two fire engines to idle outside but until the power was reset couldn't go into my office so just went and sat in costa with the other two people working this weekend.

Everything ok now

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4

[Niall_Quinn]

Weekend working when the North London Derby is on at 12:00 on a Sunday....typical

Well got in today, and there was a fire in my office block. Well I say fire, a light went and a small plume of smoke set off the fire alarms and caused two fire engines to idle outside but until the power was reset couldn't go into my office so just went and sat in costa with the other two people working this weekend.

Everything ok now

Idiot. You need to put some sort of combustible in the spark zone or all you get is smoke. Duh.